Advocate 24 01, March 2017

Advocate vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au • ISSN 1329-7295

Australia tops world university rankings ...for VCs’ pay ɓɓThink Murdoch, think shame! ɓɓRound 7 bargaining underway ɓɓNTEU endorses secure work campaign ɓɓSuperCasuals celebrate massive year ɓɓPutting fairness into the safety net ɓɓInvasion Day rallies grow in 2017

ɓɓTrump and academic freedom ɓɓYear of the Rooster for higher ed? ɓɓAustralia’s wage theft crisis ɓɓCall for better funding & accountability ɓɓNUS says ‘Make education free again’ ɓɓRaising Our Voices LGBTIQ conference

Vale Carolyn Allport

ɓɓWhen governance goes bad ɓɓScience vs Alternative Facts ɓɓIs the TPP really dead? ɓɓParallel imports examined ɓɓInternational Women’s Day ɓɓ... and much more.

Contents 2

Carolyn Allport, feminist and unionist

Advocate ISSN 1321-8476 Published by National Tertiary Education Union ABN 38 579 396 344 Publisher Grahame McCulloch Editor Jeannie Rea Production Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance Anastasia Kotaidis Feedback, advertising and other enquiries: advocate@nteu.org.au All text and images © NTEU 2017 unless otherwise stated.

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

pp. 2&4

p. 6

From the General Secretary Cover image: We’re #1 Composite image, sources: mearicon/ andreypopov/123RF

3

Defining the “good university” not enough

Editorial, Jeannie Rea, National President

UPDATE 4

Friends & colleagues remember Carolyn Allport

5

Round 7 Enterprise Bargaining

Big win for NTEU members at UNSW

6

Far reaching implications in Murdoch bargaining dispute

8

Michaelia Cash seeks to instil “common sense” in bargaining

Research Institutes seek big cuts in Award rates

NTEU speaks with UN on domestic violence workplace rights

9 Putting fairness into the safety net

University managements take aim at redundancy entitlements

10 PPL changes likely to sink in Senate 11 NTEU wins full consultation on UCC change proposal

Advocate for young science workers, Australian of the Year

SECURE WORK NEWS 12 NTEU endorses national secure work campaign 2017–2020 13 Jenny’s story highlights the perils of insecure work 14 SuperCasuals celebrate another massive year in Victoria 15 Winning conversion to permanent work

Environment ISO 14001

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.

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

Deakin casuals fight back against unpaid work

25 Throwing out the market water with VET-FEE-HELP baby The Government has abandoned the highly discredited VET- FEE HELP loans scheme.

26 Call for better funding & accountability NTEU’s 2017-18 Pre-Budget Submission called on the Government to respond to the challenges facing higher education – again.

27 NUS: Make education free again Staff and students are feeling the squeeze of government and uni management attacks.

28 Australia’s wage theft crisis The systematic underpayment of wages in Australia is a critical issue.

38 It’s a mess! Trump in the White House 39 Edubusinesses try to cash in on refugee education

The Government is cutting payments to families on low incomes, whilst not taxing corporations enough for our resources.

31 Alternative facts & a climate of fear In Trump’s America, climate scientists are not necessarily an endangered species, but they are certainly feeling vulnerable.

32 All women want is our rights and world peace Sex and gender based discrimination and prejudice continue to disadvantage women and advantage men.

34 Is TPP really dead?

16 Invasion Day protests grow in 2017

35 Lifting parallel import restrictions

17 University actions on A&TSI issues: Symbolic vs actual

36 Trump travel ban an attack on academic freedom p. 16

International student numbers soar

COLUMNS 40 Trump likes Facebook “Likes” News from the Net, by Pat Wright

41 Dancing with dinosaurs

Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

42 The elephant in the room

Thesis Whisperer, Inger Mewburn

30 Calling for tax justice

A&TSI NEWS

FEATURES

37 Australian responses to Trump travel ban

43 Benign language hides awful truth of privatisation of public education Letter from NZ, Sandra Grey, TEU

YOUR UNION 44 Raising Our Voices: QUTE conference 46 Activism and challenges for rural and regional LGBTIQ communities 48 NTEU Lecture 2016: Reviving Civic Culture in a Trump-esque World 49 NTEU Staff Conference 50 State of the Uni survey 2017

Testimonial: Helen McDonald

51 New NTEU staff p. 44

18 Australian universities top world rankings... for VC pay Vice-Chancellors’ pay is the one thing that puts Australia on the top of world university league tables.

20 When governance goes bad Much of the NTEU’s recent focus has been on staff representation on university councils, but what about the rise of business interests?

22 2017: Year of the Rooster or Year of the Feather Duster?

Will higher education policy be remembered as the year the higher education policy rooster crowed, or the year of the feather duster?

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 1

From the General Secretary Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary

Carolyn Allport, feminist and unionist Dr Carolyn Allport was a strong voice for the university sector (including academic freedom), a passionate advocate for the rights of women, a dedicated campaigner for recognition of, and restorative action for, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and a life-long supporter of social justice and the labour movement.

Carolyn grew up in a working class environment in NSW where her family lived firstly in Kogarah and subsequently in Sefton in the Bankstown area. Like many children of the time she spent many hours playing on the street, mixing it with the neighbours and swimming at the local public Birrong pool where she won many local and regional swimming titles. Her youth saw lots of weekend trips in her family’s FJ Holden and many happy times holidaying in the river areas around Taree.

She was Dux and school captain of Sefton High and developed a preternatural interest and understanding of blues and syncopated music. Growing up in such an environment in the 1950s and early 1960s inevitably involved family discussion about, and deep commitment to, the cause of labour. It was no surprise when Carolyn joined the local ALP Branch in the late 1960s, just in time to cast her vote in a federal pre-selection ballot for a young brash man, Paul Keating.

Carolyn won a scholarship to commence studies at the new Macquarie University in 1968, ironically being one of many working class beneficiaries of the 1960s Menzies expansion of the Australian university system. She gained a Bachelor of Economics degree (with honours) and

commenced work as a young Macquarie academic in 1974. Her teaching and research interests were wide and diverse including economic history, urban politics, public housing and women’s history, and she capped her academic achievements when she was awarded a PhD in 1991.

Inevitably she gravitated to the newly emerging push for trade union organisation of university academic staff – it provided a perfect combination of her intellectual and labour movement interests. After a series of elected posts in the then Federation of Australian University Staff Associations (FAUSA) she became the first elected National President of NTEU, a post she held from 1994–2010. She served with distinction at national and international levels, including membership of the ACTU Executive, negotiation with eight Federal Education Ministers, an ongoing relationship with Universities Australia and representation of NTEU and our international trade union federation – Education International – in OECD and UNESCO fora.

She widened her academic interests as NTEU President presenting an array of papers at international conferences dealing with globalisation, higher education and trade policy, transnational education, the internet and new technology and university/business partnerships. Her achievements in NTEU were manifold. Under her leadership university staff achieved several firsts for the trade union movement as a whole – national standards providing for 26-36 weeks paid maternity (and later parental) leave, the establishment of binding Aboriginal employment targets, and a 17 per cent superannuation contribution for all permanent workers. She was also instrumental in the defeat of the 2003 Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements, and a key player in the finalisation of international standards for academic freedom

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

National President Jeannie Rea Vice-President (Academic) Andrew Bonnell Vice-President (General Staff) Jane Battersby

Industrial Unit Coordinator Senior Industrial Officer National Industrial Officers

General Secretary Grahame McCulloch National Assistant Secretary Matthew McGowan Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) Policy Committee Chair Terry Mason National Executive: Rachael Bahl, Stuart Bunt, Damien Cahill, Sarah Kaine, Gabe Gooding, Andrea Lamont-Mills, Colin Long, Virginia Mansel Lees, Michael McNally, Kelvin Michael, Felix Patrikeeff, Catherine Rojas, Melissa Slee, Ron Slee, Michael Thomson, Lolita Wikander

Policy & Research Coordinator Policy & Research Officers

National A&TSI Coordinator National A&TSI Organiser

Sarah Roberts Linda Gale Wayne Cupido Susan Kenna 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 National Growth Organiser Rifai Abdul

page 2 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

and university autonomy set out in the 1997 UNESCO Statement on the Rights of Higher Education Teaching Personnel.

Carolyn’s passing is a profound moment in the history and culture of NTEU. Carolyn regarded death as final and had no expectation of an afterlife or non-material spirit world. But she would have regarded the Christian statement of “ashes to ashes, dust to dust” as an appropriate description of the return of her bodily atoms to the universe.

She did believe in a world of human spirit, and she will live on in the ideas, memories, dreams and lives of the thousands she touched in the university sector.

Carolyn central commitment was to feminism and the rights of women and these can be summed up in statements from two of her favourite authors.

It is time to effect a revolution in female thinking and manners ...time to restore to women their lost dignity ...time for women to labour by reforming themselves and to, as part of the human species, reform the world.

(Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792).

Our trouble is not our womanhood but the artificial trammels of custom under false conditions. When women can support themselves, have their entry to all of the trades and professions, with a house of their own over their heads and a bank account, they will own their own bodies and be dictators in the social realm. (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Diary, 1890).

Carolyn Allport is survived by her brothers Greg and Kevin and sister Wendy and her sons Ewen and Julian.

Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary This obituary appeared in the SMH, 13 February 2017 and The Age, 4 March 2017.

See also report on p. 4.

Education & Training Officers

Ken McAlpine, Helena Spyrou

Executive Manager

Peter Summers

ICT Network Engineer Database Programmer/Data Analyst

Tam Vuong Uffan Saeed

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 Glenn Osmand Finance Manager Senior Finance Officer Gracia Ho Finance Officers Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze,

Lee Powell, Daphne Zhang

Editorial Jeannie Rea, National President

Defining the “good university” not enough “With a generation forking out in excess of £50,000 for their degrees is anybody surprised that a university education now feels like another asset that can simply be bought?”, asked Poppy Noor in The Guardian (23/2/17).

Noor reported that students are paying from £100 to £6,000 for an essay, and the UK Department of Education is apparently planning to introduce criminal penalties for plagiarising essays.

In Australia cheating, whether through old fashioned plagiarising or buying the services of others to complete assignments, is reportedly more prolific amongst international and postgraduate coursework students paying high fees in a deregulated market place. Across the board, apparently more students are cheating as fees and the cost of living increase along with the costs of failing.

What also concerns me is that university spokespeople seem far too sanguine when asked to comment upon widespread cheating each time another website cheat business is exposed. This, I know, is in contrast to academic and professional staff working hard to minimise cheating and to maintain integrity and standards.

But at the public comment level, there appears to be complacency, as though this is just another cost of operating in a highly competitive industry.

We have become used to VCs/CEOs boasting of their multinational business enterprises, but this has descended to new lows when academic freedom is pitted against profitability, as Senator Kim Carr pointed out in a recent speech in the Australian Senate referring to Murdoch University: In (enterprise bargaining) negotiations, a definition of misconduct has been proposed that would include any breach of policy or regulation. Any action by an employee deemed to pose an imminent risk to the reputation, viability or profitability of the university – I emphasise ‘profitability’ of the university – would be classed as serious misconduct, punishable by dismissal. It takes no particular special insight to understand the existential threats that this would pose to all academic freedom in this country, should such a process be established. (Hansard, 15/2/17)

Carr further noted: Abandoning formal protection for academic freedom is incompatible with a commitment to scholarly integrity. A university, by definition, is an institution that facilitates the free exchange of arguments and ideas among scholars, and between scholars and the wider community. Some might say surely Murdoch University would not risk its reputation by obstructing the free exchange of ideas. (Hansard, 15/2/17) There is a clear and growing gap between what is apparently required to run an international education business and the worthy statements of values and mission statements of all our universities. These are well encapsulated by Murdoch University on their website: “As a ‘good university’ Murdoch’s mission is first and foremost to generate and disseminate knowledge. In keeping with the university idea it seeks: to advance social and scientific understanding; to empower students to undertake productive and fulfilling lives; to contribute to the betterment and sustainability of both our own and other societies.”

Reference to ‘existential threats’ is being used more often in the discourse grappling with the contradictions of the contemporary university. However, the definition of what constitutes the “good university” is not such contested terrain, but as is clear with Murdoch University’s definition, when pitted against their current behaviour in seeking to terminate the Enterprise Agreement and to prosecute the NTEU and our officials for ‘misrepresentation’, there is narrowing space for common ground on how to go about being a “good university”.

Whether prioritising global and/or local engagement, research excellence, student centred teaching, or equity and inclusion, the “good university” needs qualified, experienced and committed staff who also reflect societal diversity and can mentor the next generation of staff – and students. An increasingly constrained and precarious workforce is antithetical to making the good university.

In his latest book, Higher Education and the Common Good (2016) Simon Marginson interrogates whether contemporary mass higher education is grappling with an existential crisis and argues that universities today need to step up in making their case

for serving the public good, particularly as they contribute to persisting inequality and market themselves to potential students as selling individualised goods. The reality of mass higher education is that the individual benefits of higher education as an entry point of the elite diminish with massification – although currently in Australia, for example, the comparative individual benefit of having a degree to lifetime earnings still remains high.

Going to university still opens gates, but the prestigious research-intensive universities are still largely filled with private school graduates of the middle and upper classes, despite boasting of their ‘inclusion’ policies. The gate to higher education pastures is not closed, but the working class and poor, Indigenous, refugee, and disabled will often still stumble over the threshold grate and – even once inside –find they are not supported despite the finest equal opportunity policies. Cultures sanctioning sexism and racism still characterise our universities.

Marginson argues that the public policy and funding frame remains stuck in the inclusion rubric rather than recognising that what is also needed is more redistribution of wealth, especially as the income and wealth gap has rapidly widened. My crude reading is that we need to “tax the rich”.

The higher education funding debate has to change from one justifying funding on the balance between individual and wider economic benefit. Instead, we must insert back into the discourse the concepts of a more collectivised understanding of the public and common good.

We have let the marketers capture the language of the “good university” to sell their product. A good university is not measured in rankings, or student evaluation scores, or carefully composed website pictures suggesting a diversity amongst the student body. Pictures and commentary of lots of staff in secure jobs doing the teaching, research and engagement in equitable and inclusive ways thus demonstrating that the university practises what it claims on the website, may be a whole lot more convincing – and the staff will also be able to better manage student integrity issues and look after the university’s reputation.

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

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 3

Update Friends & colleagues remember Carolyn Allport Tributes to the NTEU’s first elected National President, Dr Carolyn Allport, have been flowing since news of her death on 16 January 2017.

Dozens of friends, NTEU members and labour movement leaders joined Carolyn’s family for a memorial service at Montsalvat in Eltham, Victoria, on 30 January, to remember a lifetime’s achievements, and years of dedicated service to the Union at national and international levels.

Carolyn was remembered as a voice for university values, as a passionate advocate for the rights of women, a dedicated campaigner for recognition of, and restorative action for, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and a life-long supporter of social justice and the labour movement.

It is fitting, therefore, that NTEU has also received dozens of tributes from members, former colleagues, national and international education unions, politicians and labour movement figures paying their respects.

“Carolyn played a significant role in bringing together the national higher education unions in Education International,” said Education International General Secretary Fred van Leeuwen in a written tribute.

“She actively mobilised her colleagues around the world to campaign against the spread of privatisation and commercialisation of higher education, and was engaged in the struggle against restrictions

of academic freedoms wherever they occurred.”

Malaysian Academic Movement (Move) General Secretary Rosli H Mahat described “a great loss, not just to Australia but also to the international workers movement”.

Shortly before stepping down as ACTU Secretary, Dave Oliver wrote to express “the deep condolences of the ACTU and the entire Australian Union movement”.

“A critical voice of reason in many debates, Dr Allport was a passionate advocate for the rights of women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people and for the sorts of academic freedoms that have allowed this country to have the sorts of important policy debates that have helped shape our nation today,” wrote Oliver.

Former ACTU President and MP, Jennie George, took the time to remember Carolyn as “a great friend and support” during the time they shared a house together.

“I saw at first hand her dedication to the Union and its members. Women like Carolyn helped in the transformation of a male dominated union movement, into one that gave proper recognition to the importance of white collar unions and the involvement of women,” wrote George.

Political figures, past and present, also paid their respects with Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, on behalf of Federal Labor acknowledging “the enormous contribution made by Dr Allport to the labour movement, to higher education and vocational education and training, and to promoting life-changing opportunities for the most marginalised in our society”.

Former Senator Trish Crossin wrote of “so many fond memories of Carolyn especially her strong advocacy of the Union’s agenda at the Federal Parliament level”.

“Her work left a platform of policy and reform that this union will rely on and be proud of for many years.”

Meanwhile, those who knew Carolyn through the NTEU also offered heartfelt condolences.

“Carolyn was a fabulous President – and a wonderful, energetic, inspiring, caring per-

page 4 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

son. I remember her visits to our campus so fondly. She always energised us by her intelligent explanation of issues and her genuine concern to improve the rights and lives of others,” wrote Kim Wilson.

Meanwhile, Stuart Rosewarne remembered “a giant in the advocacy of higher education in Australia and beyond, to say nothing of her championing Indigenous and women’s rights”.

NTEU National President, Jeannie Rea recalled Carolyn as “fiercely passionate and persistent in her advocacy. If Carolyn took up your case or cause, you knew she would keep at it. This was a fabulous quality in a union leader and public advocate – and a comrade,” said Rea. “In the past few weeks speaking privately and in public fora about Carolyn, I have been cheered to hear how she touched and influenced so many people and has left a legacy not just in the many policies and positions of our Union, but also her inclusive way of going about gathering people together to act in unison.”

Andrew MacDonald, Media & Communications Officer Full tributes can be viewed at: www.nteu.org.au/vale_carolyn_allport

Top: Carolyn Allport in 2009.

Below left: Grahame McCulloch speaking at Carolyn’s service. Below right: Floral tributes and a selection Carolyn’s favourite belongings on display at the service.

Credit: Paul Clifton

Update Round 7 Enterprise Bargaining

However, as always the Union is mounting its own campaign for improvements in pay and conditions at all universities, including: • A 15 per cent pay increase by 2020.

• Improved job security for casuals and fixed term staff, and protections against sham redundancy for permanent staff.

Enterprise bargaining is intensifying across the higher education sector, with further sites in Victoria joining WA, Queensland, Tasmania and the ACT in active negotiations for new Agreements.

• 17 per cent employer contribution to superannuation for all staff (currently only available to permanent staff, and fixed term staff on a minimum time fraction and contract period).

The importance of secure work Job security is of extremely high importance to NTEU members, as consistent member feedback and our own surveys work shows. Over the last decade, continuous rounds of redundancies, voluntary and forced, have consistently eroded morale and left a workload mountain for those left behind.

Across the sector there is a higher degree of coordination than previously experienced, with the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) representing the employers at many institutions’ negotiations. Similar themes in many of the employers’ claims have emerged, such as: • Removal of appeal committees for serious misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, redundancy and probation.

• Removal of statements of commitment around issues such as environmental sustainability and Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander employment.

• F urther capacity to offer fixed-term contract employment.

• Reductions in severance pay, upon redundancy or non-renewal of contract.

In this round of bargaining, NTEU wants to tackle these sham redundancies, to ensure that: • Retrenchment, including voluntary retrenchment, can only occur when the work performed in the position is no longer required to be done by anyone.

• Work that is no longer required must be identified to all affected employees.

• After retrenchment, the identified work must cease.

This approach would have the effect of ensuring that, where voluntary separations are offered in lieu of forced retrenchment, remaining staff know that work will be discontinued as a result.

Their workload will not automatically increase.

It would also ensure that existing continuing jobs are not simply replaced by casual employment – doing the same work, but with less job security.

SHAM REDUNDANCY

f Out o work

ked rwor

Ove

Sham redundancies place pressure on our workplaces and are a huge waste of money. They put people out of work, reduce secure employment and create heavier workloads for remaining staff.

Sham redundancies are inefficient and unfair.

Help us stop the rot, visit fairgo.nteu.org.au

Advice Advocacy Action

Advocate will continue to report on developments in bargaining; but also check your Branch emails and newsletters to stay up to date. Better yet, get involved in the campaign by contacting your Branch – contact details at www.nteu. org.au/branches.

Sarah Roberts, National Industrial Coordinator fairgo.nteu.org.au

Big win for NTEU members at UNSW The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has upheld the NTEU’s argument that the UNSW Enterprise Agreement does not permit management to advertise teaching-focussed academic positions.

The FWC found that the Agreement allowed existing staff to agree to undertake a teaching-focussed role for a defined period, but that new jobs could not be advertised on this basis.

The NTEU had advised management repeatedly that the Agreement did not allow the University to do this.

In April 2016, UNSW’s Faculty of Engineering advertised a number of ‘Teaching Focused Academic Positions’ on its website. The Union argued that if these staff were denied the right to choose a teaching-focused role, then they would be engaged on lesser terms than other staff. This action would deny those staff entitlements in the Agreement.

The FWC has upheld the NTEU’s arguments, saying that: “The only basis upon which teaching focussed academics can be engaged

by UNSW is if they have already been first been employed in a category of employee provided for in the Agreement and then agreed to a teaching focussed role for a defined period...”

We wish to thank UNSW Branch leaders for their courage and determination in pursuing these rights for current and future staff.

If you have questions about your rights regarding your Union Agreements at UNSW or any other Branch, please contact your local NTEU Branch office – contact details at www.nteu.org.au/branches.

Jeane Wells, NSW Division Industrial Officer Read the FWC decision in full: www.fwc.gov.au/documents/ decisionssigned/html/ pdf/2017fwc1180.pdf

Authorised by Grahame McCulloch, NTEU, 120 Clarendon St, South Melbourne VIC 3205

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 5

Update Far reaching implications in Murdoch bargaining dispute In a move unprecedented in the university sector, Murdoch management applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in December last year to terminate the University’s Enterprise Agreement. They did so in tandem with a separate application to the Commission for assistance to try and facilitate the bargaining process for a new Enterprise Agreement. This follows their unsuccessful application to the Federal Court for an injunction against the Union and two officials. Murdoch are continuing with their case against NTEU and the officials that alleges misrepresentation of management’s position in various communications with Union members about bargaining.

Universal condemnation Murdoch management’s actions may have been unprecedented but so too was the response from Union members and supporters, not just at the University and from within Western Australia but also nationally and internationally.

At Murdoch, Union members rejected management’s “first and final” offer to increase salaries by just 3 per cent over four years as well as their demand to remove a significant number of conditions and protections from the Agreement.

A meeting of members called upon the Vice-Chancellor to personally take charge of negotiations; a call which fell on deaf ears and continues to do so.

Members have already taken one round of industrial action that saw the management “lock them out” by refusing to pay them for a whole day on each occasion that they instituted partial bans.

We STanD WiTh MUrDOch Uni STaff

#ThinkMurdochThinkShame #DefendOurUnis

At a subsequent protest, hundreds turned out including speakers UnionsWA Secretary Meredith Hammat, Labor’s Senator Sue Lines and the Green Party’s Alison Xavon. Courageously, while members of the senior management looked on from within a tent, individual staff members spoke out about the conduct of management and later, symbolically replicating the tradition of giving bad children coal for Christmas, delivered lumps of coal with gift card messages to the Vice-Chancellery; an action that led to one staff member receiving a veiled threat in the form of a letter drawing attention to the University’s Code of Conduct.

More than 2000 individuals and organisations, including the ACTU, sent letters to the Vice-Chancellor calling on her to withdraw the University’s application to terminate the Agreement and return to the bargaining table.

The power of social media was evident with the Twitter hash tag #ThinkMurdochThinkShame trending nationally at one point and Facebook attracting thousands of likes, shares, comments and photo-posts of supporters holding “We stand with Staff at Murdoch University” signs in condemnation of Murdoch management’s actions.

The action by members and supporters nationally forced the shut down of the VC’s twitter account (which has still not been reinstated).

Internationally, messages of support flowed, including from Education

page 6 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

International, (the international federation of education unions), and personally from Sharan Burrow, former ACTU head and now General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, the world’s largest trade union federation.

While the support has been greatly appreciated by members at Murdoch, the ears of the management remained deaf to what was, and remains, an overwhelming tide of opinion against their actions. In what Campus Morning Mail described as a “spray”, Labor’s Kim Carr told the Federal Parliament’s Senate that Murdoch University management’s legal action against NTEU and two of its officials “is unprecedented in the higher education sector and in any workplace would be regarded as hostile and aggressive”.

Similarly, Greens co-leader Senator Scott Ludlam said his party was appalled at the attack by Murdoch University management on their staff and Union represent-

Update atives adding that, instead of working collaboratively with the people who make Murdoch the uniquely great place it is, management have launched a unilateral assault on staff pay and conditions.

Management’s power grab A combination of factors appears to have led to this point. They are pushing harder than other universities the barrow of the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) whose chief executive has branded current university Enterprise Agreements as arcane, overly complex and largely redundant. His criticism, ill-informed as it was, follows AHEIA’s 2016 conference which promoted an industrial relations strategy that envisaged further casualisation of the workforce, greater ease of restructuring and getting rid of staff, and more power for management.

Another contributing factor is that Murdoch management’s bargaining team has no-one among them who has previously been involved in the negotiation of their Agreement or indeed anyone who has experience of negotiation in the higher education sector. There is apparently no organisational memory and within the negotiation process they have had multiple changes of lead advocate meaning there is little continuity and seemingly endless repetition of the same discussions.

A source of extreme frustration for the NTEU negotiators is that the management appear to have little grasp of what they want other than a completely free rein.

Questions are repeatedly avoided, unanswered or answered with the explanation “because that is our position” or “because we want it”. There is also little consistency – on one hand they have told the FWC they need matters resolved quickly due to financial pressures, but on the other say they won’t be in a position to reveal their financial modelling for the years beyond 2017 until July. Few of the concessions they say they want have significant financial implications and the truth may lie in the text of an email sent between senior managers obtained by NTEU which decried the apparent control the Union has over University processes.

Murdoch management have told the FWC that they want the current Agreement terminated because it provides an “inflexible starting point for negotiations”. That would appear to suggest that management cannot justify the wholesale changes that they want to make to the current Agreement and are seeking an advantage in bargaining by forcing the Union and workers at Murdoch to re-negotiate the gains made over many previous rounds of bargaining (many of which have already been paid for by prior concessions).

Union attempts progress After having failed to obtain an injunction, Murdoch continues with its pursuit of the NTEU and WA Division Secretary, Gabe Gooding, and WA Division Industrial Officer, Alex Cousner. Meanwhile the FWC processes continue. As a result of a conference in December to progress management’s application for bargaining assistance, two further negotiation sessions were held in January.

In an attempt make genuine and constructive progress NTEU have withdrawn ten claims, offered concessions on eight more and indicated a negotiable position on salaries. By contrast, management have withdrawn just one claim and held fast to another twenty.

Terminating the Agreement Despite the concessions offered by NTEU, management’s response was to withdraw their application for bargaining assistance and continue with their application to terminate the current Agreement; a move described by NTEU General Secretary Grahame McCulloch as a contrivance to mask an underlying intention to pursue termination of the Agreement at all costs.

The effect of terminating an Enterprise Agreement is profound. All current terms and conditions of employment cease and workers revert to an applicable industrial award or national employment standards.

Terms and conditions of employment above those minimum standards will be completely at the behest of management and, while Murdoch management have indicated they will give an undertaking to protect some current conditions, they have not specified which ones and for how long. What is undisputed is that they will have a free and uncontested hand in set-

ting terms and conditions of employment if their application succeeds.

What is also certain is that a number of current conditions will not be protected; such things as rights to academic freedom, controls on and reasonable notice of academic workloads, the right to consultation over management of change before a definite decision is made, the right to fair processes and review against unfair treatment, limits on further casualisation and the elimination of the right for fixedterm staff to be converted to on-going employment, the grievance process and protections against being sacked for misconduct even on a minor scale. The list is a long one.

This dispute is far from over and should also be seen in the context of the Liberal Government’s industrial relations strategy which has given draconian powers to authorities to intervene in and hamper the operation of unions, which gives unfettered rights to employers and, in recent weeks, has seen the FWC cut Sunday and public holiday pay rates for around one million low paid workers. It is a dispute far broader than the walls of Murdoch University and one in which all university staff and all workers have a stake.

Gabe Gooding, WA Division Secretary More information can be found on the campaign website: nteu.org.au/murdoch/thinkshame

Opposite page: Ute Mueller, ECU Branch President, Stuart Bunt, WA Division President and Nardia Bordas, ECU Branch Vice-President protesting against Murdoch management in December.

Above: WA Green MP Lynn Maclaren, Gabe Gooding, Murdoch Branch President Ann Price and NTEU National President Jeannie Rea at the December protest.

Credits: Marty Braithwaite

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 7

Update Michaelia Cash seeks to instil “common sense” in bargaining

the approval of two Enterprise Agreements because the notice of employee representational rights issued by the employer (a formal notice required by the legislation) provided an incorrect phone number.

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash has promised to introduce legislative amendments to relax the technical requirements around approval of Enterprise Agreements. Her announcement came in the wake of a Fair Work Commission decision in which a Full Bench quashed

Currently these include a required notification that the union is the bargaining representative unless they choose another.

Like all draft legislation, the devil will be in the detail.

Research Institutes seek big cuts in Award rates The Fair Work Commission is currently hearing competing applications about future Award coverage for employees of research institutes such as the Walter & Eliza Hall Institute, the Garvan Institute or SAHMRI in Adelaide.

NTEU on the one hand, is seeking to maintain the long-standing nexus

Whilst a less technical approach to the constraints on bargaining is to be welcomed at some level, the question for NTEU and many unions will be whether the changes to be introduced by the Minister may in fact undermine important requirements for procedural fairness and transparency.

Sarah Roberts, National Industrial Coordinator

Below: Minister Michaelia Cash. Source: YouTube

between university staff and their colleagues in research institutes.

Research Institute employers (represented by the Australian Association of Medical Research Institutes – AAMRI) are seeking coverage by private-sector awards which have traditionally had little or no application.

For many academic and general staff, AAMRI’s application would not only undermine the recognition of the distinctive character of research institute employment, it would result in significant cuts in Award rates of pay.

NTEU’s Research Institutes Branch has been involved in supporting the NTEU’s application. A decision is expected later in the year.

Linda Gale, Senior Industrial Officer

page 8 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

NTEU speaks with UN on domestic violence workplace rights National President Jeannie Rea and National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Organiser Celeste Liddle appeared for the NTEU at a roundtable with Dr Dubravka Simonovi, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women in Melbourne in February.

The Special Rapporteur was visiting Australia to gather evidence on violence against women and girls, and was particularly concerned with the experiences of Indigenous women.

NTEU had contributed a submission focussed on the effects of domestic and family violence at the workplace and NTEU work since 2010 to gain domestic violence leave via bargaining. In our submission we highlighted the work of Ludo McFerran and NTEU in the “Safe at Work, Safe at Home” survey instigated as part of the Domestic Violence Workplace Rights and Entitlements Project at the University of NSW (2011).

A key finding of this survey work was that all respondents thought that domestic violence can impact on the work lives of employees (100 per cent) and a high percentage (78 per cent) believed that workplace entitlements could reduce the impact of domestic violence in the workplace.

This work has been built upon by our efforts in obtaining up to 20 days paid domestic and family violence leave in universities, and the “Make the Pledge” initiative in NTEU’s Victorian Division, aiming to extend such leave to all casual employees.

Update Putting fairness into the safety net Academic workload and unpaid overtime for general staff are key elements of the major case being run by NTEU in the Fair Work Commission, which has now stretched over two years.

The Commission has heard from over 30 witnesses, and many thousands of pages of evidence have been presented.

The Commission is deciding what should protections should be included in the Awards which apply to university staff.

These awards do not apply directly to NTEU members, who are nearly all covered

by Enterprise Agreements. However, they do establish the “safety-net” against which Enterprise Agreements are compared, and therefore play a critical role in what conditions can be included in Agreements.

NTEU’s claims cover the following issues:

General staff unpaid overtime The Award provides for paid overtime, or time-off-in-lieu for time worked in excess of, or outside, ordinary hours of work.

However, the Award also provides that overtime must be authorised. While this may be fair enough, it allows employers to take advantage of employees who work additional hours without even seeking authorisation.

University managements take aim at redundancy entitlements Australia’s university managements are seeking to remove the small redundancy entitlements available to some fixed term employees under the General Staff and

they are not otherwise receiving additional payments in compensation.

Academic promotion

This practice , which is well-known to anyone in the sector who has not been living under a rock, encourages understaffing and deprives general staff of millions of dollars of entitlements.

The Union is proposing to add a provision to the Award to require the employer to take reasonable steps to ensure that employees are not working uncompensated additional hours.

Academic working hours Currently, the Award provides no limit at all on the workload which academics can be given. The Union is seeking a provision that has two main components.

First, a general provision saying that a full-time academic cannot be given required duties (including performance requirements) which could not be done by a competent employee in the relevant discipline and classification to a professional standard within an average 38-hour week.

Second, a provision which says that an employee whose workload does exceed that which could be done in a 38-hour week must receive additional remuneration, if

Academic Staff Awards made by the Fair Work Commission.

These payments generally apply to long-term fixed term research staff whose contracts are not renewed.

They are also seeking to cut redundancy entitlements for academic staff by up to 90 per cent under the Academic Award. As part of an important agreement reached in the 1980s between the unions and the universities, to allow for the introduction of academic redundancy in “rare and limited circumstances”, academic staff are entitled to up to 12 months’ notice of redundancy in the case of compulsory retrenchment. This could

The main form of career progression for academics is promotion. However, employers deny access to promotion systems to some employees – for example those who are funded by grants.

Obviously, an employee’s award classification should never be determined by the source of funds. Therefore the Union is seeking access to a system of classification of the academics’ duties (similar to that which applies to general staff ) where the employee cannot access merit-based promotion. The purpose of the claim is to shore-up existing promotion based on academic merit.

Casual academic staff pay Casual teaching academics, just like full-timers, are required to remain current in their academic discipline, and to be aware of a large number of relevant employer policies. However, they generally are expected to perform this work on an unpaid basis. The Union is seeking allowances for casual academics to give them some limited recompense for this – up to 40 hours per year.

Information Technology Allowance For staff who use their home internet connection for work.

A decision is expected later in the year, following a final hearing at the end of March.

be cut to as little as 1 or 2 weeks for some staff, showing that current university leaders cannot be trusted.

Although the changes they are seeking will not immediately affect NTEU members protected by NTEU-negotiated Enterprise Agreements, the Awards set the basic standard for those Agreements, and employers will no-doubt seek to reduce the conditions in our Agreements if they succeed.

The Union is strongly opposing the changes and a decision of the Commission can be expected later this year.

Ken McAlpine, Education & Training Officer

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 9

Update PPL changes likely to sink in Senate The Federal Government thought it was being strategically clever in combining childcare payment reform with a range of savings in family and other payments – including the Government’s paid parental leave (PPL) – in a massive Omnibus Bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus And Child Care Reform) Bill 2017.

The Omnibus Bill explanatory memo details a number of the ‘zombie’ measures in the Omnibus Bill including the controversial Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill which scales back the current scheme and removes the involvement of the employer (making it a welfare payment).

It also incorporates other previously rejected savings measures, such as cuts to Family Tax Benefits, Pensions and Welfare changes, and the introduction of a fourweek waiting period for income support for young job seekers, where they would have to work for free in order to be eligible for income support. It also sees job seekers under 25 years forced off Newstart and on to the lesser paid Youth Allowance.

The Government made some minor changes to a few of these measures in an attempt to both appeal to and coerce cross bench Senators, with lesser cuts than originally proposed to family tax benefits, extending the PPL from 18 weeks to 20 weeks and some further changes to the childcare package.

The Government also added, for good measure, the threat that if the Bill was not passed then the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and other spending could not be funded without raising taxes.

However, the Government’s tactic of all or nothing in welfare reform has backfired, with Nick Xenophon and his Senate team

opposing a number of measures in the Bill as being too extreme and unfair, citing the PPL changes as one of the major areas of concern.

Less helpful is Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Senators, who while stating that they now oppose the Omnibus Bill, are doing so because, according to Senator Hanson, women “…get themselves pregnant for the money”, and they don’t support any form of paid parental leave.

It would now appear that with opposition from Labor, the Greens and the Xenophon team, the Omnibus Bill will not succeed, and the Government’s unfair changes to paid parental leave and other welfare reforms – designed to save $4 billion – will sink in the Senate.

What changes are proposed?

This is the third attempt by the Coalition to scale back the PPL scheme, with some minor changes seeing the savings revised down from $1.2 billion to $490 million.

Currently, women earning up to $150,000 a year are entitled to receive 18 weeks leave at the minimum wage, on top of any employer contributions. Under the new plan, the Government would “top up” employer schemes to a maximum of 20 weeks and parents who receive paid parental leave from their employer will be able to top up payments with government-funded leave to a combined 20 weeks.

However, the changes would also restrict access to payments, so in summary:

• The revised Bill would see PPL payments going to 97,000 (or 57 per cent of families) on a median income of $42,000. The average gain for this group is $1,300.

• Some 1000 families (with median incomes of $50,000) would not be impacted.

But: • 68,000 families would only get a partial PPL payment from the Government – this group, with a median income of $62,000, would suffer an average loss of $5,600.

• 4,000 families (with median incomes of $67,000) wouldn’t get Government PPL at all –their average loss is $12,106.80.

An eligible carer who is receiving PPL from their employer at more than the national minimum wage, but at less than 20 weeks, would have any difference calculated.

If there was a gap they would receive a proportional top up, but no gap means no Government PPL. The Government PPL would be paid as a lump sum or in instalments, but importantly removes the employer paymaster role in administering the paid parental leave scheme – making PPL clearly a welfare program and not an industrial condition.

Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer

Photo credit: JFGagnonPhotograhie / Pixabay

Important information Set and check your email addresses to ensure you receive vital information from the NTEU. UPDATE YOUR DETAILS AT nteu.org.au/members

page 10 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Update NTEU wins full consultation on UCC change proposal NTEU members at University of Canberra College (UCC) have again successfully enforced their rights to be properly consulted when management proposes staffing changes.

The University of Canberra in 2015 sold a 51 per cent stake in UC College, its pathway-course provider, to Navitas, a for-profit education company. This has led to many changes, and much active involvement by UCC NTEU members in standing up for their rights.

In 2016 NTEU members at UCC were horrified when two of their colleagues were told that their jobs were redundant as of that moment, and they could leave at once.

NTEU officials acted immediately to block this action and enforce staff’s right to be consulted about proposed changes. The Union also successfully enforced the provision that management must make all possible efforts to redeploy staff whose positions were made redundant.

In January, UCC management again sought to restructure staffing and make staff redundant. While this time they undertook a consultation process over the changes, there were deficiencies in the process that the NTEU believes were breaches of the UCC Agreement.

“Management’s consultation document did not give staff enough information, not all affected staff were consulted, and the time available for consultation was too short, particularly at a time when staff were busy finalising results and planning this year’s courses”, Rachael Bahl, NTEU ACT Division Secretary, said.

College management disagreed about most of these matters until the NTEU escalated the dispute to the Fair Work Commission. Management then quickly changed course and agreed to the Union’s demands on behalf of members. They extended the consultation period by ten days and invited all College staff, including casuals, to give

feedback. Management also delayed the start of implementing any changes by a further week.

“A key message from UCC staff to management was that the proposed new structure did not provide adequate staffing in the student administration area. The NTEU is pleased to see that UCC management has changed its restructure plan to increase staff there,” said Rachael Bahl.

“However, we know that members at UCC are very distressed at the loss of four colleagues and their skills, experience and corporate knowledge. They believe that these losses hurt rather than help the ability for the College to be run well.”

Staff conditions at UCC are protected by its first Enterprise Agreement, achieved through the strength and commitment of NTEU members and bargainers shortly before the takeover by Navitas.

Over the course of enterprise bargaining, and subsequent campaigns to enforce rights, levels of Union membership have tripled. The College now has a membership density of about 75 per cent of non-casual staff, and a third of casual staff.

“Not only are membership numbers high, the members are also active and vigilant in standing up for their rights and each other. We will continue working with them to make sure those rights are protected when we bargain for the next Agreement”, Rachael Bahl said.

Jane Maze, ACT Division Communications Officer/Organiser

Advocate for young science workers named Australian of the Year The NTEU congratulates Professor Alan Mackay-Sim on being awarded Australian of the Year. Biomedical scientist and academic at Griffith University, Emeritus Professor MackaySim’s research on spinal cord injuries, rare brain diseases, the therapeutic futures of stem cells and cell transplantation is literally life changing.

Recognition of his work and the opportunity provided by this award to be a high profile advocate will benefit many. Professor Mackay-Sim started with his acceptance speech saying, “We must, as Australians, prioritise our spending so that we can afford not only to look after the disabled and the diseased in our community, but to look at future radical treatments that will reduce future health costs,” he said.

“As a nation, we must be part of this and we must invest in young scientists and give them great careers. Researchers need a long view, much longer than the political horizon.”

Jeannie Rea, National President

Photo source: Australian of the Year Awards

Photo credit: Jane Maze

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 11

Secure Work News NTEU endorses national secure work campaign 2017–2020

continues to increase relative to ongoing positions.

This February the NTEU National Executive determined that the Union must bring together our industrial, public advocacy and campaigning work for secure jobs into a coherent medium-term national campaign, that while supporting and encouraging Branch and Division initiatives, recognises that national coordination is essential for making and measuring progress towards achieving the aim of more permanent jobs.

• Only two-out-of-ten newly appointed staff are employed on a permanent basis, or three out of ten on a FTE basis, and

These often quoted statistics from the NTEU on insecure work in universities are stark: • Four-out-of-five teaching-only staff are on casual contracts.

• Four-out-of-five research-only staff are on fixed term contracts.

• Less than one per cent of new university jobs since 2005 are ongoing or tenured teaching and research positions.

• At least half of university teaching is done by casually employed academics.

• T wo thirds of the total number of staff in universities are employed insecurely.

Additionally, university staff in ‘ongoing’ positions are constantly facing rounds of contrived restructures resulting in retrenchments and are no longer convinced that ‘ongoing’ means much at all. ‘Sham redundancies’ are a shameful feature of contemporary university workforce management. The work does not disappear but is redistributed to other staff already struggling to manage their workloads.

When a position becomes vacant through resignation or retirement it is likely to be casualised, contracted or outsourced.

As well as seeking to construct new more secure positions (such as the 850 Scholarly Teaching Fellows in the last bargaining round), mechanisms for conversion have been a feature of our industrial strategy.

Enforcement though has been patchy and most successful when pursued collectively rather than in individual cases as the Victorian SuperCasuals are doing (see p.14).

Clearly we have to do more, more comprehensively and more cohesively.

Consequently, the National Executive endorsed the ‘NTEU Job Security in Australian Universities Campaign 2017-20’ which will be further developed through the National Campaign Coordinating Committee of the National Officers and Division Secretaries. The goal is to stop the decline, and increase the proportion, of ongoing positions in higher education through industrial instruments and supported by public advocacy and action.

The objectives of the campaign are to win more permanent jobs through Round 7 enterprise bargaining; improve other conditions for fixed term and casual staff; enforce new and existing provisions; and increase Union density.

For much of our existence, the NTEU has sought to contain and reverse the However, the situation would be worse still accelerating trend towards job insecurity if the NTEU had not put curbs on casualisin higher education. Frankly, we have not The two core strategies are industrial ation and fixed term contracts through insucceeded as the proportion of staff emof existing Agreement Composition of Higher Education Workforce, Type of Work, Full Time, Fractional and Actual Casual FTE - enforcement 2000 to 2015 dustrial awards and Enterprise Agreements. ployed casually or on short term contracts provisions, and improving these through Round 7 bargaining.

The priority in this General and Professional Teaching and Research Research Only Teaching Only bargaining round 100% is job security with mandatory claims 90% on: extending the STF provisions and/ 80% or establishing the 51.7% 51.7% 51.9% 51.9% 51.9% 52.2% 52.2% 52.3% 52.3% 52.4% 52.5% 52.5% 52.6% 52.7% 52.9% 53.3% rights to conver70% sion for long term casual staff; rights 60% to renewal for fixed term contract staff 50% and conversion for long term contrac40% tors; and addressing 22.1% 23.0% 23.5% 21.8% 23.4% 24.4% 25.0% 25.7% 26.2% 26.4% 26.9% 26.6% 28.4% 27.5% 26.7% 28.6% sham redundancies 30% through stopping retrenchment unless 20% 12.7% 13.6% 13.3% 14.1% the “work performed 13.4% 13.5% 13.4% 13.6% 13.3% 12.8% 11.9% 11.6% 12.2% 11.2% 10.8% 10.7% in the position is no 10% longer required to be 12.2% 11.4% 10.9% 10.5% 10.5% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.9% 8.8% 8.8% 8.6% done by anyone”.

0%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Composition of Higher Education Workforce, Type of Work, Full Time, Fractional and Actual Casual FTE – 2000 to 2015 page 12 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

continued next page....

Secure Work News ...continued from previous page Enforcement of existing provisions must be a prime focus as many Agreements already have these types of clauses. We must get better at forcing management to implement the Agreements and taking action when they refuse.

This is shaping up as a very tough bargaining round with managements, in many places, seeking to diminish existing job security clauses. The opportunity to

mobilise members and attract new members around job security issues is largely untapped in many Branches. The intent of the new campaign plan is to better support Branches.

The third strategy is to promote sectoral and public debate on the extent and impact of insecure work in higher education.

It also aims to mobilise the university community and broader public in support of our bargaining and enforcement campaigns. Higher education is the third

most casualised ‘industry’ in Australia and yet reliance upon our work in teaching, research and community engagement has never been greater.

University managements and governments need to be aware of public concern and heed the consequences of running down university staffing.

Jeannie Rea, National President fairgo.nteu.org.au

Jenny’s story highlights the perils of insecure work When we interviewed Jenny Smith for a campaign video in December, she had only recently found out that she had a job for 2017. A contract researcher at the University of Tasmania for the last 18 years, Jenny has had 12 different jobs in this time, and never on a contract of more than 12 months. Lately the contracts have been no more than four months.

So for once she was able to avoid her almost annual end-of-year dilemma.

“Every Christmas it’s nail biting time. Do we have a grant? No we don’t. Everyone else is going out drinking; I’m going out drinking too because I’m really, really upset that I don’t have a job next year and I’ve got to go and find one, and that can really make me emotional.”

Jenny is one of some 15,000 contract research staff working in Australian universities. Her story encapsulates almost all that is wrong about the explosion of insecure employment in higher education.

On a professional level, her lack of job security makes her feel like a ‘ghost’ employee despite her years of experience.

“Professionally it means that I don’t feel that I can go to conferences in my field. I find that as a ‘fixed termer’ you’re not considered part of staff, so you’re not involved in decision making in the department. You’re not invited on to interview panels in the way that you are

if you’re permanent staff, so you don’t get a say; your input is not considered valuable.

“It means that I don’t think I can ask for a pay rise because they will always tell me that they don’t have the money; or we’ll give you a pay rise but you won’t have as much work. For women who want to have children, it’s really hard.”

And on a personal level, there is the ongoing distraction of never knowing where the next job is going to come from. The lack of job security affects her financial security and puts pressure on personal relationships.

“I’m lucky that I’m good at building networks. I keep a high profile when I’m looking for a job, I keep an eye out for who has grant money, and I’m not shy about telling people who have recently got grants how much they need my skills. In my networks there are many staff in insecure research work, and we look out for each other; despite a dwindling pool of salaries, there is co-operation rather than competition for positions.”

Jenny has also somehow found the time to get involved in the Union. A delegate and Tasmanian Division Councillor for the last two years, she was elected

unopposed as Division Vice President (Professional Staff ) last year.

For several months Jenny has been the acting Division Secretary, filling in while the Secretary deals with family medical issues. And this at the same time as having to find more work for this year as well as do her full time job.

Jenny’s video interview was done as part of NTEU’s ambitious Fair Go campaign which aims to create more secure jobs for people such as her. If fixed term contracts are extended and renewed year after year, they should be made into continuing jobs. There is no reason for them to be fixed term. Moreover, the incumbents should have a right to the job when their contract is renewed instead of management “testing the market” each time.

Our 2015 State of the Uni survey revealed that 44 per cent of contract research staff respondents are employed on contracts of one year or less, even if they have been employed in the sector for over 20 years.

Surely, it’s time for a Fair Go. Michael Evans, National Organiser View Jenny’s story at www.youtube.com/user/nteu

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 13

Secure Work News SuperCasuals celebrate another massive year in Victoria NTEU SuperCasuals held an event in December to celebrate a year of successful campaigning across numerous sites in Victoria. The event was well attended and Victorian Division Secretary Dr. Colin Long highlighted the need for progressive unionists to stand up in response to the rise of right-wing conservatism at home and abroad. On the night it was noted that 2016 was a great year in terms of SuperCasuals campaigning.

Lachlan Clohesy spoke about successful campaigns at Victoria University and Swinburne University and how these actions developed. Bel Townsend and Eddie Clarke gave a run down on the paid induction and training underway at Deakin University. It was mentioned that the campaign had led to significant activist and membership growth – at the time of writing nearly doubling the local casual membership. Townsend and Clarke also provided information about the campaign for casual conversion now underway as part of Deakin University bargaining.

In addition, activist Amelia Sully gave an update on the Hands Up For Secure Work campaign at the University of Melbourne; and, also updated those present on the critically important statewide campaign to ensure that provisions for Domestic and Family Violence Leave are extended to casual employees.

The night was also a call to action for casually employed members to get active as we move forward with these campaigns in the New Year. It is a critically important time for casual members to have their voices heard as we push for secure work

page 14 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

for all of our members. Stand Up, Fight Back is the motto for 2017 and we invite you to get on board today!

Lachlan Clohesy, Member Organiser, Victorian Division To keep abreast of developments with SuperCasuals campaigns we invite you to visit our website: www.supercasuals.org.au Or email us supercasuals@nteu.org.au

Above: Deakin casual member Eddie Clarke.

Below: Deakin SuperCasuals demanding job security.

Credits: Lachlan Clohesy, Dustin Halse

Secure Work News Winning conversion to permanent work In January 2017, 30 casual members at Swinburne University received offers of secure work. Some of these members have never held a secure job – never had access to sick or annual leave. Indeed, the experience for many has been somewhat life changing, even in these early weeks.

After a hard fought enterprise bargaining campaign, NTEU Swinburne University Branch successfully won a new conversion to secure work rights for casual academic staff in 2015. The provision is unique to our sector as it is the first of its kind to be won by NTEU members.

Deakin casuals fight back against unpaid work Our meetings and surveys across the sector have consistently told us that job security is the number one concern for casual staff. This is not surprising and Deakin University is no exception.

Towards the end of 2016 the Victorian Division commenced an Unpaid Training and Induction ‘Fight Back’ campaign at Deakin University. It has been both an innovative and successful campaign.

We have mobilised members using new campaign techniques and recruited more than 60 new casuals to the cause.

We are presently in the process of negotiating a new paid induction and OHS system for casual members. That this is occurring at all is a result of the 70 plus Union members who said enough is enough and demanded the University rectify induction processes.

In September 2016, the Branch and Victorian Division began enforcing this right on behalf of Union members. By October 2016, 74 casual members joined the Union’s collective application process, including nearly 35 new members.

Swinburne University has been a hotbed of NTEU activism for a number of years.

The genesis of this activism can be traced to 2012 when the local Branch leadership and staff decided to change tack and increasingly focus on winning better working conditions for casuals. This new disposition was born out of the grim employment experiences and agitation of local casual union members.

When Swinburne failed to pay a number of casual academics for nearly two months in 2012, the Branch set up an emergency food bank on campus and shamed the University into fixing the system. From this point onwards a range of insecure work and casual specific industrial campaigns have been rolled out and won. Perhaps the most important success during this period was in 2014 when NTEU secured 50 fixed term jobs for casual members after a long dispute with Swinburne management over the application of the secure work terms in the Enterprise Agreement.

Despite these successes, the Branch and the Victorian Division wanted to see a genuine path to secure work entrenched within the next Enterprise Agreement.

When communicating with local casual delegates the one thing this group of workers wanted more than anything else was a process by which they could convert to permanent ongoing work.

Nevertheless, as readers of Advocate will be fully aware, securing the work of casual members has not been as simple as submitting a one page application. NTEU is currently in dispute with the University regarding the large proportion of members that have yet to be converted to permanent work (at the time of writing). We will continue to use all means of pressuring the University, whether in the courts or on the ground, to secure the work of our casual members. We look forward to announcing the final outcome regarding this groundbreaking campaign in the next edition of Advocate.

Dustin Halse, Recruitment & Campaign Organiser, Vic Division If you want to know more about this campaign or how your Branch can fight for casual academic conversion rights email us at supercasuals@nteu.org.au #secureworknow

The SuperCasuals team has also been able to create a large and active group of casual delegates, known locally as the Casual Action Committee (CAC). The CAC has been extremely active – hosting social and industrial campaign events, and hitting the hallways on campus. You may have seen us last year in firefighter gear to make the point that Occupational Health and Safety training (including fire safety) is usually either not provided or unpaid at Deakin. As all unionists are aware, safety is Union business!

The momentum of the Deakin SuperCasuals campaign is now being directed into the broader campaign around enterprise bargaining. The local Branch Log of Claims at Deakin contains provisions for rights to conversion for casual staff.

Conversion, should the campaign be successful, means that casually employed staff will be able to move into more secure ongoing or fixed-term roles.

Conversion is a critically important issue for casuals in our sector. We know that casualisation disproportionately affects women. Secure work means removing anxiety and worry about teaching over the summer break. Secure work means if you’re sick you can take the time to recover without being financially disadvantaged. Secure work means that you’re included as part of the university. Secure

work means your work is respected. And we know that secure work means the ability to plan a future, especially if that future involves having a family.

Find out more about getting involved supercasuals.org.au/deakin_ university

Above: Deakin casual members Bel Townsend and Adam Cardilini in firefighter gear. Credit: Jo Taylor

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 15

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News Invasion Day protests grow in 2017 Invasion Day 2017 saw the largest protests and convergences seen in the country for decades. It reflected an unmistakable shift in public opinion when it comes to the recognition of Indigenous displacement and genocide and whether this should be a date our country celebrates.

Additionally, it can also be seen as a pushback against white-washed narratives popularised during the Howard years of which we are currently witnessing the most extreme manifestations; for example, the return of One Nation to our political chambers.

Simply put, thanks to some extraordinary activism by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups over the past few years, awareness amongst the greater Australian population has grown and this support was on full display on 26 January.

Around the country, activities varied from smoking ceremonies to speak-outs, concerts and cultural activities, and full-scale protests. Events happened in all capital cities and a number of regional centres including Alice Springs which coupled its rally with a speak-out against abuses within the juvenile justice system highlighted by the Don Dale case last year. In Canberra, the Tent Embassy convergence attracted a large number of people from across the country where they marched on Parliament House before sitting down in front of the public entrance and conducting pro-sovereignty speeches.

conducted protests and speeches. Again, it was noted that this was the largest protest Adelaide had seen for some time.

The Melbourne Invasion Day was organised by Celeste Liddle, the NTEU Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Organiser with support from community organisers, Victorian Trades Hall Council and not-forprofit groups such as Friends of the Earth.

Featuring all-Aboriginal speakers; both local and interstate; the protest marched through the city breaching the barriers of the official Australia Day Parade before coming to rest at the intersection of Flinders and Swanston streets.

A 2 hour sit-in was then held with crowds extending all the way back to Bourke Street. With later news reports indicating that crowd numbers were estimated to have been up to 50,000 people, it became clear that Melburnians believe the national narrative needs to change.

The Brisbane and Sydney rallies each attracted several thousand participants with crowds in Sydney said to have eclipsed ten thousand people. The Sydney march moved through Redfern and the city to finish at the annual Yabun Festival. Similarly, the Brisbane crowd was said to be the largest crowd ever by the organisers with protesters marching over the Victoria Bridge covering all lanes of traffic before heading on to Musgrave Park.

In Adelaide, protesters successfully disrupted and cancelled the final section of the annual Australia Day parade with a sit-in. Protesters then marched up to the South Australian Parliament where they

page 16 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

All Invasion Day events were proudly supported by the NTEU, with members and officers turning out in force on the day. As the Union which has led the way when it comes to ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander member representation at all levels of the Union and adopting a “post-treaty stance”, the NTEU stands firm not just on the right for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to assert their sovereignty, but for that sovereignty to be rightfully acknowledged and redress to be made via the negotiation of treaties.

The message, therefore, that it’s not as simple as “changing the date” of Australia Day holds true in our NTEU Policy.

Above: Celeste Liddle at the 2017 Melbourne Invasion Day march. Credit: Rick Cutrona Below: Invasion Day marchers cross Victoria Bridge, Brisbane, 26 January 2017. Credit: Tony Robinson

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News University actions on A&TSI issues

Symbolic vs actual Over the New Year’s break, the University of Melbourne made an announcement of a new banner they had placed at their Parkville Campus Grattan Street entrance. Stating proudly on social media that the banner “acknowledges the significance of the traditional owners, the people of the Kulin nation”. It welcomes visitors, staff and students in Wurundjeri language: “Wominjeka”, and received many accolades from those who saw the post.

While this may be a commendable gesture from a university who is incredibly proud of its Indigenous policy documents outlining, amongst other things, employment and student participation targets, it needs to be noted that University management indicated their preference to remove Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clauses (including employment targets) at the bargaining table late last year. The banner, therefore, acts as nothing more than a symbolic gesture attached to no enforceable accountability measures regarding how they are going to provide this welcoming environment for the Indigenous community.

The University of Melbourne though is not alone in embracing symbolism over practical and enforceable measures.

At nearly every bargaining table so far during Round 7; with only a couple of notable exceptions at the University of Tasmania and Deakin University; the

removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clauses in preference for relying on university policy documents and Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs) have been suggested by management teams.

Additionally, when it comes to RAPs, these documents are usually launched with much pomp and ceremony with designated members of the Chancellery speaking at length about their commitment to achieving Indigenous equity on campus. That they don’t wish to be held to these equity measures by including them in the legally enforceable Enterprise Bargaining Agreements indicates that in most cases their commitment lies only in putting words on a page.

It is therefore disturbing that the most recent government data regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in the higher education sector has barely increased at all over the past few years. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff numbers are still sitting at 1.1 per cent when it comes to full time equivalence and only 1 per cent of the actual number. It is particularly telling that in July 2012 when the Behrendt Review into Higher Education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was released, it was roundly supported by university managements.

The 2.2 per cent participation goal outlined in the Review was greeted with

enthusiasm at the official launch by the various Vice-Chancellors in attendance.

That it’s now more than five years after this report was launched and it appears that most universities have embraced a spattering of recommendations from the review, particularly Recommendation 10 – “a whole of university approach” as an opportunity to mainstream Aboriginal education centres rather than create inclusive environments for Indigenous staff and students leading to cohort growth is disappointing.

Finally, it must be noted that at this year’s Universities Australia Higher Education Conference, the centrepiece of the event was the launch of the sector’s new Indigenous strategy. Along with honouring Indigenous trailblazers, Universities Australia will “pledge ourselves anew to this crucial work”.

The NTEU therefore hopes that while the Vice-Chancellors and other university managements are undertaking this pledge, they additionally pledge themselves to securing accountable measures for this important work via ambitious employment targets and inclusive working conditions for staff within their Collective Agreements.

Celeste Liddle, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Organiser

Above: Melbourne University’s Wominjeka sign.

Credit: Corey Rabaut

Your membership card To access great NTEU discounts, your member card needs to be sent to the correct address.

UPDATE YOUR DETAILS AT nteu.org.au/members

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 17

Photo: Composite image. Sources: mearicon / andreypopov / 123RF

Australian universities top world rankings... for VC pay There are two things that fascinate the public discourse about Australian higher education. One is where Australia’s universities rank on the seemingly endless array of university league tables. The other is the level of remuneration received by our universities’ leaders.

And as if by pure serendipity, it turns out that our ViceChancellors’ pay is the one thing that puts Australia on the top of world university league tables. The average level of remuneration for the leaders of Australia’s Group of Eight research intensive universities was over $1 million and the average for all Vice-Chancellors was $860,000.

Paul Kniest NTEU Policy & Research Coordinator

As shown in Figure 1, this was almost $200,000 per annum greater than the level of remuneration for the next group of university leaders, the Presidents of private colleges in the USA. The CEO’s of New Zealand’s universities and tertiary colleges on average received just 40 per cent of that of their counterparts across the Tasman Sea. Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that when it comes to remunerating university leaders, Australia has no peers and that our position at the top of the world ranking looks unlikely to be challenged anytime soon.

According to data included in university annual reports, total remuneration received by Australia’s Vice-Chancellors in 2015 varied from $525,000 at Murdoch University to almost $1.4 million at the University of Sydney. The data, as reported

by Julie Hare in The Australian in August last year, also showed that a quarter (nine out of 37) of Australia’s Vice-Chancellors received remuneration packages in excess of $1 million. If you take the data over both 2014 and 2015, the average level of remuneration paid to Australia’s Vice-Chancellors was in the order of $860,000 as shown on Figure 1.

International comparisons USA According to a story by Dan Bauman in the Chronicle of Higher Education (4 December 2016) there were over 39 Presidents of pri-

page 18 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

vate US universities that received in excess of $US1million in pay in 2014. The average level of remuneration for private US colleges was $US512,987 (about $A685,000).

Using the same data base for the 250 highest paid public colleges, the average total remuneration was $US450,000 ($A600,000).

UK The average remuneration of Australian Vice-Chancellors is some $250,000 more than the average for leaders of the UK’s research intensive Russell Group, and an almost unbelievable $365,000, or 73 per cent, more than that paid to UK Vice-Chancellors in 2014-15 across all universities.

Data contained in the University and College Union’s (UCU) comprehensive Transparency at the Top report showed that the average UK VC salary in 2014-15 was £272,432 (A$495,330).

Even though the level of remuneration in the UK clearly lags behind Australia and the US, a story by Jack Groves in Times Higher Education (THE) on 5 January 2017 on pay received by Russell Group VCs observed somewhat critically: “The cost of paying the leaders of the UK’s top universities has soared yet again, despite government warnings over rising executive pay.”

The average remuneration (including pensions) in 2015-16 for the 21 Russell Group universities included in THE’s analysis was £366,500 (about $A670,000) per annum. The highest was £697,000 (about $A1,260,000) for Southampton University.

New Zealand According to New Zealand’s State Service Commission Senior Pay Report (2015/16) the total remuneration received by Chief Executives of NZ’s tertiary education institutions in 2014-15 ranged from about $NZ215,000 (A$195,450), up to $NZ685,000 (A$622,730) for the University of Auckland. The average remuneration was about $NZ375,000 ($A340,000).

Canada Data supplied by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) shows that the highest paid university CEO was the President of the University of Alberta who received salary and benefits of $C591,000 (A$579,180) in 2013. The President of the University of Toronto, Canada’s highest ranked university, was paid a very modest (by Australian standards at least) $C355,000 (A$347,900). The average total salary and benefits for Canadian universities was about $A300,000. The average for members of Canada’s U15 group of research intensive universities, for which a full year’s data for 2013 was available, was equivalent to $A440,000.

Comparison with APS CEOs The average level of remuneration received by Australia’s Vice-Chancellors just happens to be about the same as the level of pay received by Australia’s most senior and most highly paid public servant, Dr

Australia (Go8)

$1,060,000

Australia

$860,000

USA (Private)

$685,000

UK (Russell Gp)

$670,000

USA (Public)

$600,000

UK (All)

$495,000

Canada (U15)

$440,000

New Zealand

$340,000

Canada (All)

$300,000 $0

$200,000

Sources: Refer to Data Sources at end of article

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

Figure 1: Average Total Annual Remuneration University and College VCs/Presidents 2014/15 ($A ) Martin Parkinson, the Head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, who is reported to earn about $861,000. By contrast the person in the most significant public sector role in the country, the Prime Minister, is paid a relatively modest $520,000.

Comparison with other university employees The other critical issue raised by the recent UK stories on Vice-Chancellors’ pay is the extent of their pay rises relative to other academic staff. According to Groves the cost of pay and benefits for Russell Group Vice-Chancellors rose by about £19,000 or 5.9 per cent between 2014 and 2015. The average pay for rank-and-file academic staff by contrast rose by only 1 per cent on average over the same period.

Between July 2014 and July 2015, the average salary of academic staff employed at Australian universities increased by a little under 3 per cent. The average salary for all of Australia’s Vice-Chancellors increased by 3.9 per cent. However, if you exclude those universities where a change in Vice-Chancellor has clearly distorted the reported remuneration figures – namely Murdoch, UTS and Canberra – the average increase in Vice-Chancellor remuneration was 6.7 per cent. In other words, the increase in VC pay far exceeded that paid to the vast bulk of academic staff.

While looking at Vice-Chancellors’ pay increases, it is also worth considering how the money used to bolster university leaders’ pay packets could otherwise have been spent.

What is the cost of VC pay?

The increase in Australian Vice-Chancellors’ remuneration, excluding those institutions where there was a change in leadership, between 2014 and 2015 was almost $1.9 million. This leads to the question: If universities hadn’t spent that $1.9 million on remunerating their leaders what else could they have bought?

How many casual academic jobs could have become ongoing positions, or fixed

term contracts converted? Alternative uses of this money which would have been a better investment in our higher education system could have been: • 190 student scholarships @ $10,000 ea.

• 38 research scholarships @ $50,000 ea.

• 16 additional senior lecturers or librarians, and • 15,000 additional hours of tutorials or other student support.

Exchange rates Canada: A$1.00 = C$0.98 NZ: A$1.00 = $NZ1.10 UK: A$1.00 = £0.55 USA: A$0.75 = US$1.00

Data Sources Australian university annual reports (various) Bauman, D. (4 Dec 2016). 39 Private-College Leaders Earn More Than $1 Million. The Chronicle of Higher Education. www.chronicle.com/ article/39-Private-College-Leaders/238561 Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). Almanac of Post-Secondary Education -2012-13 www.caut.ca/resources/almanac New Zealand State Service Commission. (2016).

Senior Pay Report 2015/16. www.ssc.govt.nz/ sites/all/files/senior-pay-report-2016.pdf Grove, J. (5 Jan 2017). Salary increases for Russell Group V-Cs beat staff pay rises again. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation. com/news/salary-increases-russell-group-v-csbeat-staff-pay-rises-again Hare, J. (31 Aug 2016). Michael Spence and Greg Craven top Vice-Chancellor pay rises.

The Australian www.theaustralian.com.au/ higher-education/michael-spence-and-greg(craven-top-vicechancellor-pay-rises/news-story/5c76b0cecbdf31261a28dda764ad60d8) O’Leary, B. & Hatch, J. (4 Dec 2016). Executive Compensation at Private and Public Colleges The Chronicle of Higher Education www. chronicle.com/interactives/executive-compensation#id=table_private_2014 University and College Union. (11 Feb 2016).

Transparency at the top? The second report of senior pay and perks in UK universities. www.ucu. org.uk/media/7868/Transparency-at-the-topFeb-16/pdf/vcpayandparks2016_feb16.pdf

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 19

When governance goes bad

Photo: University of Adelaide Council, 1919. Source: University of Adelaide archives

Much of the NTEU’s recent focus has been on staff representation on university councils (or senates).

We have advocated to hold onto staff (and student) representatives in the face of legislative assaults, and we successfully fought the University of New England’s (UNE) attempts to force the NTEU Branch President off the council on the false contention of a “standing conflict of interest”.

We have maintained that university councils should be transparent and accountable, in the face of ludicrous levels of secrecy now common across the country. These days in most places members of the university cannot observe council meetings, and cannot even see the agenda, let alone the papers. An outcome of the NTEU’s workshop last year for NTEU members on councils will be a handbook addressing ‘conflict of interest’ and other issues.

While the participation of staff and students has been heavily scrutinised, along with their ‘interests’, the rest of the members of the councils have been largely concealed from our gaze, except in a couple of extreme instances.

Again UNE has attracted attention. Not so long ago, they had a Chancellor who was the subject of a NSW Independent Commission against Corruption inquiry.

Rise of corporate interests

Jeannie Rea National President

page 20 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

While those with a direct stake in the university (the staff and students) have to continually reassert rights to representation, our university councils are steadily being taken over by corporate interests.

Chancellors and Vice- Chancellors are not wrong when they compare their experiences of their councils to that of being on

a public company board. The problem is that they welcome this with the outcome being that Vice-Chancellors, who by definition, are supposed to be leading a higher education and teaching research institution, with all the public responsibilities that go with this, describe their role as CEO of an international business enterprise.

practice of homogeneity, that is picking more people like themselves. As councils also choose the Vice-Chancellors and with fewer current or former academics on councils, it is not really surprising that we also see more VC appointments, whose valued strengths are in their corporate management experience rather than education and research leadership.

The University Chancellors Council 2016 report reveals that Australia’s public university councils now have an average of 16 members, ranging from four with 22 members (Sydney, Queensland, QUT and JCU) to only 13 on the Swinburne council.

The bigger councils do have more student, staff and alumni representation, but external representation has increased across the board with only Macquarie, RMIT, UWA and Sydney under one third, and Monash and Charles Darwin University with over 70 per cent external membership.

It would be naive to suggest that universities councils should not be composed of a diversity of people from academic, community, business and government backgrounds, and indeed all the university acts of parliament make much of the need for such breadth and depth of expertise.

At the same time, university councils, like boards of management, from the community organisations to international companies, recognise that while members bring with them a wealth of expertise, members still need to continually learn and improve their performance.

As announced in the last Advocate, the NTEU’s National Policy and Research Unit is currently developing an issues paper on governance in Australian public universities, and amongst other issues is looking into the private sector interests on our university councils. A further recommendation from the 2016 NTEU National Council was to examine the partnerships between universities and private (and government) enterprises. The intention is to draft a proposed code of practice focused upon transparency and accountability in contracts made with our public universities.

Good governance has rightly become an issue (including in trade unions) and that does mean a big commitment of those on governing boards. In universities this has been used against staff and student participation, claiming they lack corporate governance expertise, yet as any other

responsible member, staff and students learn how to undertake the unique responsibilities of this job – and continue to learn. Indeed one could argue that as institutions of higher learning universities should demonstrate best practice through ongoing education of governance body members at all levels.

While we continue to argue about staff and student representation, we are missing the other side of the problem, that our university councils are becoming dominated by the private sector in term of the backgrounds and interests of external members. This does change the frame of discussion and consequent decisions.

If this article has made you curious, have a look at who is on your university council. You may be surprised. But it may also answer some of your questions about why the council is making decisions that do not seem to fit with the stated university mission about excellence, and access, and opportunity and accountability and responsibility and so on it goes. If you want to follow this issue, check out: www.nteu.org.au/policy And you can contact the Policy and Research Unit at policy@nteu.org.au

An examination of university council websites has shed some light such as 8 out of those 13 Swinburne councillors are from the private sector. CDU on the other hand had only two members from the private sector, but many universities have a one third to a half of their councils. (For this purpose ‘private’ is defined as having a previous or current career or holding board appointments in the business, commerce or financial sectors, including corporatised former government agencies.)

The qualifications to be a Chancellor have increasingly become a background and/ or current interests in the private or corporate sector. No longer are Chancellors mainly drawn from the judiciary, academia and politics.

The ACT is unusual in having Chancellors of the traditional mould with Tom Calma former Human Rights Commissioner and current co-chair of Reconciliation Australia at the University of Canberra and former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans at ANU, who is heavily involved in research and advocacy on international relations.

Good ethical governance This is not to suggest that the business backgrounds of most Chancellors are not valuable to the council, but it does suggest that councils in choosing Chancellors are falling onto the common organisational

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 21

2017

Year of the Rooster or Year of the Feather Duster?

From a higher education policy perspective, 2017, the Year of the Rooster, is shaping up as being “an interesting time”. The question is, will 2017 be the year that higher education policy follows the lunar calendar and be remembered as the year the higher education policy rooster crowed, or will it be remembered as the year of the feather duster?

Having been forced to delay the introduction of it plans for higher education twice, 2017 is the Government’s last realistic chance of coming up with a new higher education funding and regulatory framework which will not only achieve its objectives, but which will also have a chance of being supported by Parliament.

Preening in preparation for the policy debate Readers will recall being rudely awaken in May 2014 by the cocky Minister for Education and Training, Christopher Pyne, trying to assert his authority as he strutted into the higher education policy hen house. With a showy screech he announced his plans to introduce a market based approach and deregulate the higher education sector along the lines that had been adopted in vocational education and training. Central to his plan was a 20 per cent cut in public investment, the total deregulation of fees, the introduction of market based interest charges on student loans, and opening up the system to non-university, including private for-profit providers.

Paul Kniest NTEU Policy & Research Coordinator

page 22 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

The arrival of this new policy rooster however, evoked strong responses from staff, students and the broader community who were not only gravely concerned about the cost and accessibility of higher

education, but also about the damage this new policy framework would do to the reputation of Australia’s world class higher education system. In trying to get his policies through the Parliament, the Minister found himself in a cockfight, which he entered with a preened air of confidence but which he left totally humiliated (“I’m a fixer”) and denuded of any policy credentials in higher education.

Senator Simon Birmingham emerged as the new Minister for Education. Unlike his predecessor he entered the higher education policy debate with a far more measured approach by releasing a policy options paper in May 2016 (Driving Innovation Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education). Submissions were invited and a review panel was appointed to provide advice. The new Minister also ditched the Government’s major point of vulnerability and announced that he no longer intended to proceed with the deregulation of domestic undergraduate fees.

The sector now awaits the Minister’s formal response, which is anticipated to be released as part of the 2017-18 Federal Budget in May.

Policy options and likely outcomes While Birmingham is stepping into the higher education debate with a sense of caution we should not underestimate his fighting qualities. On 5 October 2016 he took what many would describe as a highly courageous decision and abandoned the VET-FEE-HELP scheme. He clearly felt he had no choice but to throw out a funding and regulatory framework which enabled unethical for-profit private providers to exploit vulnerable students and rort public funding in the highly deregulated vocational education and training sector.

The new VET loan scheme (see report, p.

28) introduced a raft of new and tougher regulations, which significantly included limiting the number of courses, capping loans, and restricting the number of eligible students. From the NTEU perspective, this was an admission that education was far too important to be left to the market.

The Minister gave some useful pointers as to how he was thinking about higher education policy in an interview1 on 30 January 2017. He made it clear that policies which were “affordable and sustainable for the taxpayer” were high on the Government’s list of priorities. In other words, the Government will continue to pursue its planned cuts to the level of public investment in higher education.

In the interview the Minister indicated that he didn’t want to make “dramatic changes to the current funding model” but emphasised that he was looking for “mechanisms to hold universities accountable for the places they offer, the

students they enrol, and ensuring the success of those students.” Such a policy framework mirrors the spirit and intent of the alternative framework first proposed by the NTEU in our 2015 Budget submission which included Public Accountability Agreements (PAAs).

While any government announcements might well be centred on how it plans to change the funding model to achieve its $3.5 billion in savings, there are other important policy options that also need to be considered.

Higher Education Loans Program (HELP) One of the emerging issues in higher, or more accurately tertiary, education policy has been the faltering financial sustainability of the Higher Education Loans Program (HELP). The absolute level of HELP debt and the costs associated with it (including imputed interest and the value of bad and doubtful debt which is unlikely ever to be repaid) are accelerating at an exponential rate, especially since the introduction of VET-FEE-HELP. The Government is proposing several policy options, the primary objective of which is to rein in costs of HELP. The most likely of these are: • Lowering the income threshold at which students commence repaying their HELP debts.

• Recovering unpaid HELP debts from deceased estates, and • Imposing a common fee (similar to that currently paid on some FEE-HELP and VET- FEE-HELP loans) on all HELP (including HECS-HELP) loans.

A common loan fee of about 10 per cent would be cost/revenue neutral and therefore not deliver any savings. Therefore, if the Government were to announce a fee of 10 per cent it would argue it was doing so on equity grounds so that all students (regardless of where they chose to study) are treated equally. A fee above 10 per cent would have the capacity to deliver savings, which could be very significant in the longer term.

Expanding the demand driven system places Given the extent of rorting and manipulation of the VET-FEE-HELP scheme especially amongst private, for-profit, providers, the NTEU would be very surprised if the Minister had the courage at this stage to pursue its policy proposal to open up Commonwealth supported places to non-university providers. Such a policy not only presents high risks to the integrity and reputation of Australia’s higher education sector but it also involves substantial budgetary costs, which the PBO estimates to be in the order of $1.5 billion over 10 years2.

The Government is more likely to pursue its proposal to open up the demand driven system to sub-degree places. However, given the substantial costs associated with this policy (PBO estimates $3.1 billion over ten years) the NTEU believes the Government, at least initially, might tread carefully and impose very tight restrictions on eligible courses providers and the number of places.

While the NTEU supports expanding opportunities to more students we will continue to oppose this policy because it means the most disadvantaged students would incur higher debts in order to complete a university degree.

Flagship courses In an effort to salvage something from its ideological commitment to the market, the Government proposed allowing universities to introduce a limited number of ‘flagship’ courses for which they could charge higher fees. Surprisingly, especially given the Vice-Chancellors’ strong support for fee deregulation, this policy received virtually no support from anyone in the sector, and therefore it is highly unlikely that the Government will proceed with the proposal.

Cutting public investment and making students pay more The proposed cut to public investment equivalent to 20 per cent per supported student is critical if the Government is to achieve the $3.5 billion target in budget savings. As the latest PBO report3 shows the cut to funding per student would deliver savings of $3.1billion over the forward estimates (to 2019-20), but more importantly about $17 billion in savings over ten years.

While the Government might be able to make up some of these savings by not proceeding with some other policies such as not opening up places to non-university providers or not expanding the demand driven system to sub-degree places, these measures deliver relatively modest savings over the forward estimates (about $700 million). In other words, a significant cut to funding per student (somewhere in the order of 20 per cent) will be required to do the heavy lifting as far as budgetary savings are concerned.

Therefore, the question is not whether the Government will impose a significant cut in funding per student, but rather the size and structure of these cuts and what impact they will have on students studying different courses.

Table 1 shows that in 2017, student contribution amounts fall into three bands ($10,596; $9,050 and $6,349) and that the student share of the total level of resourcing varies from 28 per cent for continued overpage....

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 23

Higher education policy

2017: Year of the Rooster or Year of the Feather Duster? continued Table 1: HECS-HELP Student and Government Contribution Amounts 2017 Funding Cluster

Max Contributions Students

1

Law/Comm/Admin

2 3

Total $

Aust Govt

Student %

$10,596

$2,089

$12,685

84%

Humanities

$6,349

$5,809

$12,158

52%

Maths/Stats/Comp

$9,050

$10,278

$19,328

47%

Beh Sci/Soc Stud

$6,349

$10,278

$16,627

38%

4

Education

$6,349

$10,695

$17,044

37%

5

Psyc/Lang/V&P Arts

$6,349

$12,641

$18,990

33%

6

Nursing

$6,349

$14,113

$20,462

31%

7

Sci/Eng/Sur

$9,050

$17,971

$27,021

33%

8

Med/Dent/Vet

$10,596

$22,809

$33,405

32%

$9,050

$22,809

$31,859

28%

$7,600

$10,600

$18,200

42%

Agriculture Average *

* NTEU estimate

The Government has a number of options available to it to achieve its desired savings. The simplest, and most transparent option would be a straight 20 per cent cut across the board to all government contribution amounts. This would be offset by a corresponding increase in student contributions. The Government, however, has the possibility of moving toward what

it considers to be a ‘fairer’ system where the Government and student would more equally (50/50 split) share the costs.

These are but two of a possible number of options including, shifting certain disciplines into different funding bands and/ or reducing the number of funding bands or a hybrid model incorporating aspects of some or all of these options.

However, rather than trying to second guess exactly what the Government might pursue, there is one thing of which we can be certain and that is, that on average government students will be asked to pay

$2,823 $3,882

$2,528 $3,146

$2,056 $1,965

$2,056 $614

$418

$2,000

$1,162

$4,000

$2,139 $2,173

50/50 Split

$2,120 $1,500

$6,000

$3,594 $4,461

20% Cut to Govt

$4,562

$6,107

$8,000

$6,880

students studying agriculture to 84 per cent for student studying law, commerce, administration and economics.

$4,562

...continued from previous page

$0

As Figure 1 shows, the increase in average fees is in the order of $1,500 (50/50 split) to $2,100 (20 per cent cut). While the shift to 50/50 contributions might have more appeal on the basis that it can be promoted as being fairer, it involves far larger changes to student contribution amounts, including a very significant reduction for students studying law and commerce and so on.

Therefore, while the NTEU anticipates that the Government will announce a new funding framework which moves towards 50/50 contribution amounts, this may involve other changes to funding clusters and/or a phasing in of same changes over a number of years. That is, any changes may well involve many moving parts.

Conclusion It is clear that Chistopher Pyne’s original ‘rooster’ plans for higher education have been totally plucked. Senator Birmingham’s approach has very much been that of feather duster as he tries to cobble together a policy from the discarded plumage of Pyne’s failed framework. 2017 will also be appropriately remembered as the year of the feather duster (with a hidden stick) as students are given a quick a whack across the back of the legs in the form of higher fees.

Sources 1. Sky News interview with Kristina Keneally and Peter van Onselen (https://ministers.education.gov. au/birmingham/interview-sky-news-point-kristina-keneally-and-peter-van-onselen)

-$270

3. ibid

-$4,254

-$6,000

Using 2017 total resourcing as its basis, Figure 1 compares the impact on annual student contribution amounts of the 20 per cent across the board funding cut and the 50/50 even split between government and student contribution amounts.

2. Parliamentary Budget Office (Feb 2017) Unlegislated Budgetary Measures.

-$2,000

-$4,000

significantly more for their university education. Exactly how much more students in different disciplines will be required to pay will depend on how the Government restructures the existing funding arrangements.

Law/Com Hum

Mth/Soc Beh Sci

Educ

Pysc

Nurse

Sci/Eng Med/Den

Agric

Average

Figure 1: Changes in Student Contribution Amounts (2017 Values) Under Different Policy Scenarios page 24 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Higher education policy

Throwing out the market water with VET-FEE-HELP baby On 5 October 2016, the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, announced that the Government would abandon the highly discredited VET- FEE HELP loans scheme and replace it with a new scheme, commencing 1 January 2017.

The Minister’s faith in the market when applied to tertiary education was no doubt rocked by the fact that, despite twenty attempts to tighten up regulations around VET-FEE-HELP, some for-profit providers did not seem to be encumbered by any sense of ethical or moral behaviour and continued to exploit the most vulnerable students and rip-off government funds.

It is hard to believe that the Minister’s unfortunate experience with profiteering providers in VET will not have some influence on his ultimate response in relation to higher education policy.

While it is yet be determined whether the new VET Student Loans programme will restore integrity to VET regulation and save the Government more than $25billion over ten years as anticipated, the NTEU is encouraged that the new scheme involves far greater scrutiny of eligible private providers and tighter limits on the value of loans and eligible courses.

Given the nature and extent of the changes involved, it could be argued that the Government is not simply replacing a poorly designed and badly implemented student loans schemes with a new VET

Student Loans Program (VSLP) but is, for all intents and purposes, also abandoning its commitment to market based regulation and funding of tertiary education.

To demonstrate this point it is worth noting that the new scheme will introduce a new application process for all providers which will include an assessment of their relationships with industry, student completion rates, employment outcomes and their track record as education institutions.

It also places very strict limits on the number of eligible courses to those that align with industry needs and provide a high likelihood of leading to good employment outcomes for students. As a result, under the new scheme there will be less than half of the number of courses, which has raised considerable angst amongst providers.

The new scheme will not only severely restrict the number of eligible courses it also introduces limits on the value of a loan a student can take out for different courses. In 2017 loans will fall into one of three bands – $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000 per course – based largely on the cost of delivery. Providers can seek exemptions for very high cost courses, such aviation for example, and the loans caps will be reviewed after 12 months.

The Government is also imposing very strict limits on the number of eligible VSLP students individual providers will be allowed to enrol. At least initially, enrolments will be tied to a provider’s track record in relation to student retention rates. Private providers will not be allowed to enrol any VSLP student into courses that have retention rates of 50 per cent or less. For retention rates of between 50–75 per cent, the level of enrolments will be restricted to three-quarters of 2016 levels and for retention rates above 75 per cent enrolments will be restricted to 110 per cent of 2016 levels. Limits will also be

imposed on public TAFEs. The use of contractors to deliver educational programs is also being severely restricted.

In stark contrast to the philosophy of market based funding and the regulatory system, under VSLP the Federal Government is putting strict caps on the number of courses, the number of students and the level of loans.

In addition to the above caps, the Government is also introducing new regulations which will require students to log into and engage with the VSLP online portal in order to verify that they are active and legitimate enrolments.

In an attempt to prevent a re-occurrence of the unethical and immoral behaviour of less than reputable providers, the Government is strengthening legislative, compliance and payment conditions, including powers to suspend poor performing providers from the scheme, cancel their payments and revoke their approval.

Finally, the Government is introducing regulations to prohibit providers from directly soliciting prospective students including through ‘cold calling’ or so-called ‘lead generation’ use of ‘brokers’ to recruit students.

The extensive and rigorous nature of the new regulatory framework for the VSLP, which includes strict caps on courses, student loans and student numbers, demonstrates the extent to which the Government has been prepared to throw out the market water with the VET-FEE-HELP baby.

The Minister clearly shares the NTEU view that education is far too important to be left to the market.

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 25

Higher education policy

Call for better funding & accountability against any cuts to public investment in higher education and any increases in student contributions on the basis that Australia already has one of the lowest levels of public investment in tertiary education amongst OECD countries and that our students already pay amongst the highest fees in the world. The NTEU is opposed to the Government’s proposal to re-purpose the $3.7 billion balance of the Education Investment Fund (EIF) including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and government debt reduction.

While we fully support the NDIS we do not believe that it is appropriate to pay for one positive policy by robbing another.

40% 30% 20% 10%

81.0%

Therefore, it is critical that the Government taking into account the impacts from any changes it is contemplating to the HELP scheme, including those aimed at improving its financial stability (for example making HELP debt recoverable from deceased estates) and broadening its scope by extending HECS-HELP to sub-degree places. While the NTEU is strongly supportive of measures aimed at strengthening pathways into higher education, our submission makes it clear that we remain strongly opposed to the extension of the demand driven system to sub-degree places. Our objections are based on the fact that it would add substantially to the cost and debt burden for the most disadvantaged students to participate in higher education.

77.7%

78.8%

54.1%

50%

73.7%

81.6%

76.6%

72.8%

81.4%

77.6%

78.1%

83.8% 73.7% 63.5%

56.2%

53.6%

60%

79.2%

75.4%

82.0%

74.9%

80.2%

77.7%

77.3%

70%

For NTEU, the completion rates data reveal very significant issues that we believe the Government’s higher education policies cannot ignore. Firstly, over the years there have been hundreds of thousands of students who have started a university degree and incurred a Higher Education Loans Program (HELP) debt for that study but who have not benefitted from having completed their degree.

The NTEU believes that the justification for our framework which is underpinned by university autonomy and capacity to respond to changing circumstances is

Consistent with the Union’s position over a number of years, the submission argued

80%

Student debt

The NTEU is also advocating for a wellplanned and managed regulatory and funding framework that maintains university autonomy, but also demand public accountability which would be achieved through the use of Public Accountability Agreements (PAA) as outlined in the Union’s 2015-16 Pre-Budget Submission.

We argued that at the same time institutions must be made more accountable for both their use of public resources and in meeting their core responsibilities.

90%

reinforced by the release of latest analysis of higher education completion rates . The completion rates data shows that overall about one-in-four students who enrol at a public university do not complete a degree in which they had enrolled. Despite a large increase in participation, this overall completion rate has remained reasonably steady over recent years.

64.8%

NTEU’s 2017-18 Pre-Budget Submission called on the Government to respond to the challenges facing higher education with a policy framework that reflects the diversity of the sector and gives universities the autonomy and responsibility to respond to changing community and student demands.

Institutional diversity

0%

Figure 1 shows that student characteristics including: mode of study; attendance;

Figure 1: Share of 2006 student cohort completed and still enrolled in 2014 public universities page 26 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

continued next page...

Higher education policy Make education free again Staff and students are feeling the squeeze of government and university administration attacks.

The Government is set on cutting funding to higher education and money for the construction of new buildings on campus has been withdrawn.

The administrations of universities across Australia are set on campus restructures that amount to cutting staff, increasing casualisation and forcing content online. All with the aim of turning over students at a faster rate, cutting staffing costs and increasing profit margins. These are the latest in a series of neoliberal measures that have been forced on students since free education was abolished almost 30 years ago.

The Government is committed to reducing funding to higher education and turning the system even more into a profit-making machine, modelled on the system in the US. Simon Birmingham is still committed to a 20 per cent cut to funding per student.

University administrations are set on the same agenda. They have been cutting staff and undermining conditions for too long. Using buzz words like ‘business improvement’ staff are being fired, as was seen in 2015 at Melbourne University when more than 500 general and professional workers lost their jobs.

And when they aren’t fired conditions are being scrapped. The administration at Murdoch University is trying to cut wages and force the Union off the campus by refusing to negotiate a new Enterprise Agreement and instead force staff onto the inferior award conditions.

The higher education industry is one of the best performing in the Australian economy and is Australia’s third largest export.

But the Government and university administrations won’t stop. They want to squeeze as much profit as possible out of students and staff. In 2014, the Liberals tried to force students into $100,000 degrees. But, organised by the National Union of Students, students fought back in our thousands all around the

age; socioeconomic status; location; and entry score as well whether a student is of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander background, had a significant impact on student completion rates.

Therefore, while the NTEU has no issue with Government policies that seek to improve overall completion rates, we emphasise the need for any new funding and regulatory system to be able to take into account the diversity in student cohorts as well as the specific objectives and the circumstances facing individual universities.

Universities vs. other providers Finally, the NTEU believes that the latest analysis of completion rates supports our

country. With the NTEU, we forced the Government onto the back foot, and deregulation was beaten twice.

This year, the National Union of Students is organising a protest campaign to stop deregulation and trimesters and to demand that education be free again. The only way we will ultimately stop the neoliberal offensive is to demand that education be treated as a right, not a business. We know that the money for education is there. It’s there in the $8.4 billion of tax avoidance and reduction by the 200 largest companies in Australia, in the subsidies the Government gives to mining companies and in the exorbitant expense accounts of politicians.

We will be marching in every major city on 22 March, and in Perth on 29 March. Students and the NTEU need to fight together if we want to defend staff and student conditions and fight for free and accessible higher education.

Anneke Demanuele, NUS National Education Officer facebook.com/makeeducationfreeagain NTEU National Executive has called upon Branches and Divisions to support the NUS actions through liaison with local and state student organisations. The actions on 22 March are calling for “No more attacks on education; No Centrelink cuts; and No campus cuts.”

position in opposition to opening the demand driven system to non-university providers on the basis that the risks are simply too high.

The data clearly show that the completion/still enrolled rates for students attending non-university, including private, providers is lower on all characteristics compared to those attending public universities.

$3.5 billion cut still in Budget

private providers, but there seems to be no preparedness to abandon the funding cuts (see report, p. 22).

NTEU, along with student organisations, remains highly concerned that students will cop it through increases in HECS/HELP and in cuts to institution grants impacting upon the quality of their education.

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator

The 2014 $3.5billion higher education cuts over the forward estimates is still there in the Coalition’s Budget. Deregulation of undergraduate domestic tuition fees may be shelved as is fully handing over CSPs to NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 27

Photo: Wage Theft Rally at the New York State Department of Labor, 15 October 2014. Credit: Peter Walsh via Flickr/Creative Commons.

Australia’s wage theft crisis The systematic underpayment of wages in Australia is a critical issue. Increasingly many workers are being paid less than the statutory minimum wage, and the minimum award or Enterprise Agreement wage rates to which they are entitled. The proliferation of this practice points to a crisis of compliance with wage standards. In the process, the living wage is steadily disappearing in practice.

This is an issue of concern for all workers, even those being paid their entitlements.

This is not only because wage underpayment adversely affects families and communities but also, because the removal of the ‘wage floor’ threatens all wage levels across the country.

In the USA, this sort of systematic wage underpayment is referred to as ‘wage theft’. There are many ways in which wage theft takes place including: • Employers may not pay employees for all their work.

• Refuse to pay overtime or penalty rates.

• Force workers to work off the clock.

• Require illegal deductions.

• Fail to pay superannuation contributions.

Employers may also engage in sham contracting arrangements, pretending that workers are independent contractors rather than employees, and, as such, outside the wage system, and, also responsible for their own workers’ compensation, superannuation, and other costs.

Associate Professor Louise Thornthwaite, Department of Marketing and Management, Macquarie University

page 28 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Theft is rampant Many examples of recent wage theft in Australia have been covered extensively in the media, following investigations by The Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC. Some

have been perhaps less conspicuous. In some cases, such as the widely reported 7-Eleven franchise example, workers have been receiving less than half the basic award rate. In other cases, such as seasonal agricultural workers, many received nothing at all, once accommodation and transport ‘costs’ were deducted. The list of labour market areas in which this is occurring, is growing. Those reported in the media include the following: • Workers on 457, 417, international student visas and other work visas.

• Workers engaged by labour hire companies.

• Unpaid work experience and internships.

• Retail stores including 7-Eleven, Caltex station stores, Coles and Woolworths.

• Fast food operators including KFC, McDonalds and Hungry Jacks.

• Franchise organisations (which include some of those above).

• Internet task or job auction sites such as Uber and Airtasker.

• Cash-in-hand workers, particularly casuals in retail, hospitality and cleaning.

• Sham contracting arrangements such as bicycle delivery services and even charity collectors.

Origins of the ‘living wage’ In 1907, the Harvester judgement determined that employees were entitled to a wage sufficient to support a man, his wife and three children in ‘a state of frugal comfort’ in ‘a civilised society’. This ‘living wage’ was based on need. For many years, we had an historic compromise in Australia, an agreement of the key industrial relations parties, including the state, to provide a living wage across the workforce. This was given effect through the award system.

Employers did not necessarily embrace this heartily, but awards served a useful purpose in taking wages out of competition. From the mid-1980s, with the ascendancy of neoliberal politics, successive federal governments gradually dismantled the scope of that award system, through early enterprise bargaining, individual workplace agreements (e.g. AWAs), and then workplace bargaining. Accompanying this was declining union coverage, such that, along with the above changes to industrial law, the wage setting system became ever more de-collectivised and individualised.

Even within the centralised system, there were always employers who failed to comply with legal wages and conditions.

However, as most IR academics predicted when enterprise bargaining emerged, a decentralised system would disempower workers and facilitate a widespread diminution in working conditions.

What we are seeing today, in terms of extensive employer non-compliance with the legislated minimum wage, and awards and Agreements, is the result of this decentralisation and associated de-collectivisation.

It is also the result of other changes big and small, including the legal strategies of employers to evade employment law requirements altogether through alternative contracting arrangements, internet technology (enabling online auctions for work), the globalising workforce (Fijian grape pickers, international students), and increasingly complex supply chains in which small operators are dominated by a few key mega-corporations that determine price.

Rhetoric of innovation These elements have emboldened some employers, including some of the largest companies in Australia as well as small operators, to be wilfully non-compliant. They have also enabled some non-compliance to be obscured in the rhetoric of innovation: internet job auction sites such as Airtasker and bicycle delivery companies such as Deliveroo are cast as ‘disrupters’ in their business and employment models, a positive attribute because it is innovative.

The result is that wages are back in competition. For those employers willing to comply with the law, particularly in labour intensive industries where wages are a high proportion of costs, the pressure is on to follow the non-compliant.

Legislative change needed Several government inquiries and a growing body of academic research have examined this systematic wage underpayment in different parts of the labour market. In terms of reining in wage theft, the recommendations from these various reports focus heavily on two lines of policy response, legislative change and cultural change.

The legislative change proposals would involve amendments to industrial law, migration law, company law and other legislation. The cultural change rests heavily on developing a culture of compliance through voluntary forms of regulation and administrative arrangements by which the state guides employers to meet the regulations.

In recognition of the complex supply chain and ownership relationships within many industries, both the legislative and cultural change proposals tend to heavily emphasise the whole supply chain. Recommendations include mechanisms which would seek to make organisations at the top of these chains, such as large retail firms and franchise parent companies, responsible for wage compliance of employers throughout the chain of responsibility.

of compliance among individual employers through enforcement mechanisms which the Fair Work Act provides including various types of supervision order linked to compliance undertakings.

However, existing enforcement mechanisms are severely limited. Bodies such as the Fair Work Ombudsman are woefully under-resourced, have limited power to compel employer cooperation with inquiries, and face the prospect of phoenix activity, with employers liquidating when an inquiry starts, and then starting up again under a new name. For workers, the road to justice is limited by the time it takes, often shoddy employment records and, for migrants, the vulnerability to deportation.

On top of this, the financial weight of sanctions is low, and, unlike in other areas of law such as occupational health and safety, migration and consumer law, there are no criminal penalties for recalcitrant operators.

Toughening up the law, including industrial, migration and corporate law, is essential to protecting workers against wage theft. This necessarily includes increased resources to enforcement bodies and stronger sanctions that can make illegal wage practices an unattractive choice, even for the most powerful and recalcitrant operators.

Dialogue of fairness Other steps are also required to stem this rampant wage theft. Australia needs a dialogue about the development of a new historical compromise, a dialogue that emphasises basic fairness and the value to society of a wage that allows people to afford the basics of a dignified life.

The community needs to be brought squarely into this dialogue. As part of this dialogue, we need to acknowledge that this systematic employer wage theft is a crisis not only for workers, but for the many employers who are ‘willing’ to obey the rules, but steadily are being undercut in the cost of labour. At the same time, we need to look to making workers better informed about the wage to which they are entitled. We need to find a way that workers can easily identify the wage rates that apply to them, and employers know they will do so.

Louise Thornthwaite is Immediate Past President, Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) This is an abbreviated version of the Presidential Address to the AIRAANZ Conference, Canberra, February 2017.

A key recent focus of the Fair Work Ombudsman has been on building a culture

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 29

Tax policy

Calling for tax justice The Turnbull Government is cutting payments to families on low incomes, continuing the freeze on Medicare rebates, issuing debts people have never accrued, and considering a tax cut for corporations.

Meanwhile, Australia continues to give away its natural resources for free by not taxing corporations enough.

In steps the Tax Justice Network Australia (TJN-Aus), a coalition of unions, churches, community groups and NGOs working together to change the tax system in Australia and globally. Members include GetUP, NTEU, ACTU, Uniting Church Synod of Victoria & Tasmania, and Oxfam Australia.

TJN campaigns for tax transparency, reducing corporate influence on tax policy, global collaboration to reduce tax avoidance and increased revenue for community assets such as schools and hospitals.

Corporations use a myriad of tricks to avoid paying tax. The ATO reported last year that 30 per cent of large private companies in Australia paid no corporate tax.

For example, Chevron had turnover of $3 billion and paid no tax and Adani’s Abbot Point Terminal in Queensland, with a turnover of $268 million, also paid no tax.

When the Panama Papers were unveiled, the TJN lobbied for keeping Australia’s company register in public hands rather than having it privatised and looked after by the companies themselves. We also lobbied hard to introduce laws which establish a public registry of company ownership in which the real owners and controllers of companies must be revealed, because we need to know if a company is just a shell company used to stash away profits to avoid paying tax.

Last year, TJN won the battle to keep the ASIC company register in public hands.

Another win last year was getting an inquiry into the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which if reformed, could give the federal budget up to $480 billion in government revenues over the next two decades.

Australia though continues to give away its natural resources for free. Liquefied Natural Gas will soon compete with iron ore to be Australia’s largest export. However, various analyses show that the primary resource tax on this export, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, or PRRT, will not collect any new revenue for decades to come. In a victory for TJN, Treasurer Scott Morrison announced a public government inquiry to report by April 30 with recommendations for fixing the loopholes in the PRRT. The Treasurer said he plans to implement the reforms in time for the 2017 Budget.

It would be by no means too late, as by 2021 Australia will eclipse the Persian Gulf state

page 30 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

of Qatar to become the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas. In that year, Qatar’s government will receive $26.6 billion in royalties from the multinational companies exploiting its offshore gasfields. In contrast, according to Treasury estimates, Australia will receive just $800 million for the same volume of gas leaving our shores if the PRRT is not reformed. Tax Justice Network had been calling for an inquiry over the past year, having stepped up our campaign with additional reports, lobbying, and a community petition that collected over 17,000 signatures. The Network has been credited by the media and the Treasurer himself as the key drivers for reforms.

TJN Australia is part of a larger movement fighting to achieve global tax justice and collaboration across the globe. Other organisations we are linked to include Tax Justice Network Limited, a British registered organisation; and The Global Alliance for Tax Justice, a growing movement of civil society organisations and activists, including trade unions, united in campaigning for greater transparency, democratic oversight and redistribution of wealth in national and global tax systems.

We are also part of a regional group called the Asian Fiscal and Tax Justice Alliance which works towards regional solutions to stopping tax dodging and increasing transparency.

Denisse Sandoval, TJN-Aus If you would like to help with any of our campaign activities or are interested in joining the mailing list, please sign up at: www.taxjustice.org.au For any questions please email: denisse.sandoval@victas.uca.org.au Twitter @TaxJusticeAus www.facebook.com/ taxjusticenetworkaustralia

Climate science

Alternative facts & a climate of fear Since the Trump train rolled into Washington, DC, citizens of the USA are starting to come to terms with dramatic changes in the way they are governed. However, for some sections of the US scientific community, the changes are potentially more destabilising still. Climate scientists are not necessarily an endangered species, but they are certainly feeling vulnerable.

After the US election result became clear, climate scientists began to express concerns about the viability of research into

climate change, noting that key spokespeople for the incoming administration were well known for their critical views on anthropogenic climate change. Many expressed fears that the USA could withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

The December 2016 meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, attended by more than 20,000 Earth scientists, contemplated a new environment where struggles to secure funding for climate research might be replaced by struggles to keep jobs and to maintain a voice. During the conference, a rally attended by about 500 delegates was organised close to the convention centre to “stand up for science”. A much larger attendance is expected on Earth Day (22 April 2017) at the March for Science, planned for many centres across the USA and in other countries, including Australia.

All fields of science progress via the scientific method. Observations lead to theories, which are tested in studies subject to peer-review. In an iterative fashion competing ideas are winnowed so that the best theory remains. The scientific process is reasoned, robust and repeatable.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. Galileo Galilei

The most severe cracks in the edifice of scientific endeavour are not due to threats to funding or job security, per se. All scientific branches of enquiry have to deal with cycles of funding and popularity with decision-makers. Since the inauguration of President Trump, his new administration continues to employ Twitter to assert facts, to make commentary, and to promote “alternative truth” (best referred to as propaganda). This modus operandi offers the greatest threat to the scientific way of life, and runs completely counter to the tried and true scientific approach.

The future always holds challenges – both known and unknown. The next handful of years is now expected to be rocky for climate scientists across the globe. A strong constriction of scientific funding and / or freedom in the USA will have great ramifications for this international community.

What to do? Marching on Earth Day will be a good start, but possibly a bridge too far for the more timid members of the profession. Some scientists are issuing calls to arms, advocating for scientists to become active and to engage with the peddlers of alternative truth.

Universities will be important battlegrounds in these debates. Perhaps the emerging discipline of science communication needs to be promoted. Perhaps each and every scientist needs to have training in media skills, in the use of Twitter to bash out aphorisms, and in the confidence to decry those sections of society who are working to undermine science for their own reasons.

Kelvin Michael, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania.

Secretary, NTEU Tasmanian Division

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 31

Photo: An illustration of the Women’s March on Versailles, 5 October 1789. Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France

All women want is our rights and world peace Women still do not have the same opportunities in life because we are gendered women; and men do have greater opportunities compared to women of their class, race, religion, ethnicity, locality, age, ability, and virtually any other measure. Many individual women, and even groups of women, are better off (albeit at times at the expense of other women), but sex and gender based discrimination and prejudice continue to disadvantage women and advantage men.

Jeannie Rea National President

page 32 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Gender based violence continues to be used against women, whoever they are and wherever they are. This is not to homogenise the category ‘women’, but the opposite. It is to situate the experience of women’s oppression within and across all other oppressed groups.

IWD on 8 March So International Women’s Day (IWD) on 8 March matters and should be recognised everywhere we can, noting though that it is a whole lot easier to enjoy a breakfast in Melbourne than it is to take to the streets of Turkey or Malaysia or to speak out in an Australian refugee detention centre. NTEU women will be joining in all sorts of events including on campuses, but also trade union activities including the Victorian Trades Hall WRAW (Women’s Rights at Work) festival. Marches have been organised in many towns and cities by a diversity of organisations, and yet all call for everyone to join in or show solidarity.

I personally don’t have a lot of time for corporate IWD functions organised by the PR department, while the HR department is busily implementing yet another round of redundancies and casualising the workforce. (We know that insecure work is a gendered issue.) Indeed my IWD demand (not ‘ask’) is for decent work with decent wages for all.

Women in a changing world of work This requires a safe working environment and safe travel to and from work; a home to go to; access to life-long learning; health, and a decent childhood and old age in a sustainable environment and peaceful world. I don’t ask for much!

For the sad thing is that while so many millions are better off around the world, so many are still struggling for the basic conditions of a decent life. Consequently, the United Nations International Women’ s Day theme in 2017 is “Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030”.

The reference to “Planet 50-50 by 2030” is to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations in 2015 where gender equality and empow-

erment of all women and girls was planted firmly on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The UN Women’s website argues that, “Achievement of the goals, including ending poverty, promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth, reducing inequalities within and between countries, and achieving gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls, rests upon unlocking the full potential of women in the world of work.

“The world of work is changing, and with significant implications for women. On one hand, we have globalisation, technological and digital revolution and the opportunities they bring, and on the other hand, the growing informality of labour, unstable livelihoods and incomes, new fiscal and trade policies and environmental impacts – all of which must be addressed in the context of women’s economic empowerment.

Measures that are key to ensuring women’s economic empowerment in the changing world of work must include bridging the gender pay gap, which stands at 24 per cent globally; recognising women’s unpaid care and domestic work and addressing the gender deficit in care work; as well as addressing the gender gaps in leadership, entrepreneurship and access to social protection; and ensuring gender-responsive economic policies for job creation, poverty reduction and sustainable, inclusive growth.

Additionally, policies must count for the overwhelming majority of women in the informal economy, promote women’s access to innovative technologies and practices, decent work and climate-resilient jobs and protect women from violence in the work place.”

IWD’s trade union origins IWD’s origins are in the working women’s organisations at the turn of the twentieth century, as women demanded recognition of their rights as workers from the male dominated trade unions and from the bosses. March the 8th was a date set by a Socialist International in recognition of

the struggle of young, immigrant clothing and textile women workers who took to the streets of New York demanding “bread, and roses too”. Their demands for safer workplaces were sadly vindicated when a major fire at the Triangle factory killed 140 workers just after the first IWD March in 1911.

In 1977 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming 8 March a UN day for Women’s Rights and International Peace.

NTEU Women’s Action Committee The national Women’s Action Committee (WAC), with representatives from across the country, will be meeting in the National Office in March and determining the themes and content of our biennial National Women’s Conference on 16-17 June and annual Bluestocking Week 14-18 August. As usual, we will collaborate with NUS and CAPA on Bluestocking Week and we are agreed that we will strongly pursue an intersectional focus this year.

It is NTEU policy to consider all our activities and campaigns through a ‘gender lens’, and one of the roles of the WAC is to monitor our performance. Each Division has two WAC representatives, one an academic and the other a professional staff member. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee also nominates a member of the WAC. Every Division also has a staff member who liaises with the National Office on women’s matters and supports the WAC representatives and Branches in organising their Bluestocking Week events. Several Divisions are currently getting women’s networks/caucuses up and running – and the Queensland Division held their own women’s conference during Bluestocking Week last year.

To find out more see: www.nteu.org.au/women www.unionwomen.org.au www.un.org/en/events/womensday/

Right: NTEU Victorian Division women celebrating Bluestocking Week in 2016 NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 33

Trade

Is TPP really dead?

On 23 January 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), derailing the aspirations of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe, who only weeks before had agreed to coordinate Australia and Japan’s early entry into the multilateral trade agreement.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (FADT) Committee committee report on the TPP in February demonstrated that the maths does not add up in the current Australian Senate, with the Greens and Nick Xenophon calling on the TPP to be abandoned. Unlike the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) which supported ratification of the TPP in November 2016, the FADT Committee recommended that the Australian Government defer binding treaty action until its future was clarified. So is that it for the TPP? Apparently not. Soon after the Trump order, the Australian Government proclaimed its pro-TPP position with Turnbull speculating that China could replace the US. Australia’s High Commissioner in the UK, Alexander Downer, proposed adding China or Indonesia, and later flagged that Britain might have an interest in joining Australia in the trade group.

In early February, Trade Minister Steve Ciobo claimed that the TPP remained relevant without the US, and that the Australian Government would pursue a “TPP minus one” approach when Australia meets with the remaining partners in March. The Finance Minister Mathias Cormann echoed this sentiment in mid-February.

The Turnbull Government’s persistence with the TPP is a curiosity that will likely be the subject of further speculation. Is it a rhetorical flourish? Does Turnbull want to defend a pronouncement that he had only so recently designated into the ‘win’ pile?

Does he hope Trump will change his mind later? Or is it a metaphorical thorn meant to be stuck in the new US President’s side?

What it does proclaim to both external and internal audiences is that on ‘free trade’, the Turnbull Government will stay the course. It is signalling that it continues to be willing to court multilateral trade deals, and alternative major trading partners like China or Indonesia or Great Britain. Meanwhile, they are signalling to the electorate that we can expect the same aggressive agenda in relation to future negotiations around TISA (Trade in Services Agreement) and RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), and that it will remain the Government’s prerogative whether to bind Australians up to deals with indefinite time limits and which limit future governments from legislating in the public interest.

There are no current constraints on the Australian Government from binding us to unpopular treaties entered into through the same opaque processes in future. The FADT Committee report on Commonwealth treaty-making in 2015 prompted no changes from the Turnbull Govern-

page 34 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

ment. In its recent February report on the TPP, the FADT Committee recommended that the Australian Government expedite reforms to the treaty-making process in order to assist the completion of future trade agreements, a position even accepted by Coalition members. It is doubtful Turnbull will change his mind.

On many fronts, the end of the TPP is the worst kind of pyrrhic victory. The TPP could indeed be altered and revived under a different name. It could be used as a springboard to another multilateral agreement that has worse binding obligations, limiting future Australian Governments from legislating in the public interest.

Labor has rejected the TPP but it has played games around ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) provisions in the past, and it may yet do so in future. And if the Trump administration survives its first year, the US could return with a harder proposition, or a more aggressive trade agenda pursued via bilateral agreement, impacting on Australians and other communities throughout our region.

Jen Tsen Kwok, Policy & Research Officer

Above: President Donald Trump signs the executive order removing the US from the TPP. Source: Democracy Now

Trade

Lifting parallel import restrictions Chatter around the lifting of Parallel Import Restrictions (PIRs) on books has become something of a feature of the start of the academic year in recent times.

However, with speculation mounting that the Turnbull Government may seek to introduce legislation to abolish the measures – which restrict the importing of books for resale in instances where Australian publishers have exclusive rights – the stakes look to be rising.

While debates about PIRs are not new, the issue has received increased attention in recent years after the Harper Competition Policy Review, and a subsequent Productivity Commission review of intellectual property law, proposed to lift restrictions.

So one side of the argument goes, PIRs place inflationary pressures on the retail prices of books, including textbooks, and limit competition. These concerns have been raised with degrees of ferocity by sections of the National Union of Students at various times.

NTEU has a strong record of advocating for an accessible and affordable higher education system. A high-profile stance against the Coalition Government’s funding cuts, fee deregulation and $100,000 degrees agenda stands as one example among many of strong opposition to measures

which would lumber the next generation with greater cost burdens and mounting debt.

However, when it comes to lifting PIRs, NTEU strongly cautions against such a move. This is on the basis that there are significant associated consequences for the local publishing industry that must be taken into account.

According to an article published by Fairfax Media last December, there are roughly 20,000 people employed in the publishing, printing and selling of books in Australia. In this context, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) has vocally opposed lifting PIRs, warning such a move would “put Australian publishers out of business and decimate book printing jobs”.

Along with unions, publishers, printers, printing employers and booksellers, leading Australian authors, have also expressed concerns. In an open letter to the Prime Minister in late 2015, three Booker Prize winning Australian writers – Peter Carey, Tom Keneally and Richard Flanagan warned of consequences including job losses, profits going overseas and a “brutal reduction” in the range of books that are published in Australia.

“Australia will become, as it was in the 1960s, a dumping ground for American and English books and we will risk becoming, as we once were, a colony in the minds of others,” wrote the trio in their letter.

Therefore the consequences of PIR go beyond job losses in publishing and printing and profits going overseas but also to a “brutal reduction” in the range of commissioned Australian literary and scholarly works which will directly impact on NTEU members.

Consideration must also be given to questions which remain about whether lifting restrictions would even benefit consumers at all. This is particularly pertinent in the increasingly online driven retail environment. As the Australian Publishers

Association noted in its submission to the Competition Policy Review Draft Report in November 2014: “There is uncertainty about the supposed benefits from removing the limited parallel importation restrictions on books. They may accrue mostly to a small number of large retailers and deliver no substantial value to consumers.

However that removal would put at risk a number of benefits to the long-term interests of Australian consumers”.

Despite the Turnbull Government having indicated it’s likely to adopt many of the Harper Review recommendations, the lifting of PIRs on books is no sure thing. Late last year, the Labor Opposition confirmed it would oppose any attempt to relax restrictions arguing: “Australians can already buy books published in other countries online in small amounts, and can continue to do so, but parallel import restrictions on books stop cheaper foreign copies of books being brought into the country in bulk, undercutting our local market”.

That opposition is undeniably a serious blow to efforts to lift PIRs. However, given the horse trading underway in the increasingly unpredictable Senate, neither side of the argument can take anything for granted.

As the AMWU noted in its response to Labor’s announcement in December: “The coming months are going to be crucial in the campaign to defend book printing jobs.”

“It is rumoured that the Turnbull Government will introduce legislation early next year (2017) that would decimate the book printing industry. Their legislation would put Australian publishers out of business and decimate book printing jobs – but the Union will keep up the fight every step of the way.”

Andrew MacDonald, Media & Communications Officer

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 35

Photo: No Muslim Ban march on the Capitol in Washington DC, 4 February 2017. Credit: Masha George/Flickr

Trump travel ban an attack on academic freedom When examining the multitude of controversies that have punctuated Donald Trump’s short time as President of the United States of America, it is difficult to identify any one act as being more contentious than the next. Nevertheless, the late January Executive Order preventing nationals of seven majority-Muslim nations entering the USA would have to be a frontrunner – at least so far.

The hastily-enacted measure, effectively banning citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days, brought chaos, confusion and snap protests to airports across the country, while raising serious questions about universal human rights.

It became the subject of legal challenges and widespread domestic and international condemnation, with even dyed-in-thewool British Tories, Theresa May and Boris Johnson making concerned noises.

US Court challenges, which at the time of writing had brought the ban to a halt, at least temporarily, also provided an early glimpse of the likely uneasy relationship between President Trump and the American judiciary.

And with the President having indicated a second version of the Executive Order – apparently designed to avoid similar legal hurdles – is in the pipeline, it appears there is much yet to unfold in terms of both the Trump immigration agenda, and broader presidency.

Academic outrage Andrew MacDonald Media & Communications Officer M@NTEUNational

page 36 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Given what is at stake, it was fitting that voices from the US and international academic, research, university and education communities were among the earliest and loudest to condemn the travel ban.

A 30 January Times Higher Education (THE) report described a ‘unified dismay from world-leading US universities’ in response to the ban, while also detailing the widespread fallout from its ham-fisted implementation.

and academics affected by the ban. We urge university communities across the country to join as one in taking a united public stand in condemning these attacks upon the free movement of students and staff,” said Rea.

“Already, in the wake of the visa order… stories abound of students and scholars at US universities prevented from returning to America (one Iranian researcher planning to travel to Harvard University to work on a tuberculosis project was turned back at Frankfurt airport) and so do the statements of condemnation from US universities,” observed the article.

Universities Australia also issued a statement expressing concern about the ban’s “potential to adversely affect research collaboration, academic conference participation, student exchange programs and post-doctoral work”.

In a 1 February update to members and supporters, Scholars at Risk (SAR) Executive Director Rob Quinn provided a further indication of the magnitude of initial concerns.

“SAR gave first priority to identifying and assisting any current or former SAR scholars who were outside the US or in transit when the ban was announced. At present, we understand that all SAR scholars who have attempted to return to the US have now been admitted,” said the update.

“SAR has reached out to all SAR scholars based in the US, including those from the seven countries currently listed under the Executive Order, to offer assistance, as needed. For the moment, all SAR scholars with non-permanent status are advised to avoid any non-essential overseas travel.

This advice is NOT limited to the seven countries listed above, because the administration has already publicly stated that other countries may be added to the list.”

Further to initial alarm about the fate of individuals caught up in the ban, many also expressed concern about the direct threats posed to the fundamental values of academic and intellectual freedom.

At the time of writing, more than 43,000 academic supporters, including 31,000 US faculty members and 62 Nobel Laureates had put their names to a petition to “denounce this Executive Order in the strongest possible terms and respectfully urge President Trump to reconsider his stance to be more consistent with the longstanding values and principles of this country”.

With the travel ban having drawn intense legal scrutiny domestically in the USA, Education International (EI) invoked international law in its response to the Order, which it said “directly affects approximately 25,000 people holding student and work visas, and as many as 500,000 people who are permanent legal residents of the United States, including lecturers and researchers”.

“Education International is of the view that the measure is discriminatory. Mr Trump’s Order also defies the important democratic values that have guided the United States’ role in the international community for many decades. Furthermore, the Executive Order is in violation with international standards protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees,” said EI’s statement.

“Education International fully supports its member organisations in the USA, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), who oppose Mr Trump’s Order, and, according to the AFT, “the racist and xenophobic logic that underlies [the Executive Order], the havoc [the administration has] created in the lives of those affected, and the damage [the Order has] done to America’s standing in the world and to [US] national security”.

“Education International is examining possibilities to challenge the measure with the international agencies entrusted with the implementation of the appropriate international conventions.”

Australian responses to Trump travel ban NTEU has urged Australian university communities to condemn Trump’s attacks upon the free movement of students and staff.

The Union has shared the concerns raised by academic and university communities world wide that this extreme order poses a direct threat to intellectual and academic freedom, and academic exchange and collaboration.

A national petition has been launched which calls on the leaders of Australian universities to support academic freedom, human rights and equity in diversity, by: • T aking a united public stand opposing the policies of the Trump administration that target international students or intellectual freedom and exchange in any way; • S upporting international students by opening more places, and funding extra scholarships, for students from countries barred by Trump.

See and sign the petition: www.communityrun.org/ petitions/cshow-the-worldthat-middle-eastern-and-latinamerican-students-are-welcomehere

Below: Protest at John F. Kennedy International Airport against Donald Trump’s seven nation travel ban.

Credit: Rhododendrites/Wikipedia

Meanwhile in Australia, academics launched a petition calling for the leaders of Australian universities to “say ‘no’ to the politics of the Trump administration and ‘yes’ to academic freedom, human rights and equity in diversity”.

The NTEU also denounced the ban, with National President Jeannie Rea stating the Union “shares concerns raised by academic and university communities worldwide that this extreme order poses a direct threat to intellectual and academic freedom, and academic exchange and collaboration”.

“We stand in defence of academic freedom, and with those students, researchers

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 37

International

It’s a mess! Trump in the White House Lorretta Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of the 1.6 million member strong American Teachers Federation (AFT) was visiting Australia in January and the NTEU with the AEU (Australian Education Union) asked her to present a seminar on “Trump in the White House – Where to Now for Trade Unions, Education and Social Justice?”.

Ms Johnson’s opening words – “it’s a mess!” – summed up her assessment of the impact of the election of Donald Trump. Trump’s refusal to take advice from anyone outside his tight-knit circle meant that the transition has also been chaotic. (That was what she concluded several weeks ago!) She also expressed concerns that a Republican Congress would not do its job of ‘controlling’ the President.

Johnson argued that Trump’s attitude toward education, health care (AFT has some members in the health care sector) and the labour movement more generally could be gauged from the people he had nominated for key cabinet positions including Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.

DeVos made history on Tuesday 8 March 2017 when she became the first Cabinet nominee in US history requiring the Vice-President to cast their vote to break a 50-50 Senate deadlock. In addition to 48 Democrat Senators opposing Ms DeVos’s nomination, two Republican Senators also crossed the floor. Her nomination attracted some notoriety in the US because

of her refusal to rule out ‘guns in schools’ because of what she described as ‘potential grizzlies’ at some schools.

While Ms DeVos is a billionaire (daughter-in-law to founder of Amway) and a generous donor to the Republican Party she has few, if any, qualifications or experience in relation to public education, except her ongoing advocacy for the introduction of vouchers for use in non-public schools, including for-profit, charter schools.

According to Inside Higher Ed1 her potential impact on higher education is unclear and hasn’t featured prominently in the public debate over her nomination. It also notes that while her nomination drew strong opposition from teachers’ unions including the AFT from the beginning, the opposition to her nomination spread as her answers to questions including those on higher education “were widely seen as vague or uninformed”.

The only connection that DeVos seems to have to higher education is through her son, Rick, who sits on the board of the Student Free Press Association which publishes a blog called The College Fix, which Inside Higher Ed describes as having headlines “skeptical of higher education” with stories that “frequently criticise the prevalence of liberalism on college campuses.” 2 AFT is highly concerned that the Trump administration will attempt to wind back many of the regulations imposed by President Obama aimed at reining in the private for-profit colleges and universities (such as Trump University). This includes “gainful employment” requirements and the complete revamping of the federal students loans which involved shifting the origination of tertiary student loans from the banking sector to the Government itself.

The AFT’s concerns will no doubt have been heightened by the appointment of Jerry Falwell Jnr (President of Liberty

page 38 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

University, an evangelical college founded by his father) to head a group to review higher education. Falwell has indicated his interest will be on overregulation and micromanagement of higher education institutions.

The AFT were very strong supporters of Hillary Clinton and her policies to wind back or cap community college fees including the promise of debt-free college for all and providing loan relief for low income students.

While Ms Johnson conceded that the election of Trump was highly problematic on all levels, she was hopeful that the judiciary and even perhaps Congress would act to constrain his more outlandish and unconstitutional policy proposals. She also believed that the election of Trump would act as a strong rallying point for more progressive sections of the American community, as was witnessed by the millions of people across the States and the rest of the world who turned out for the Women’s Marches. The election of Trump, it was also hoped, would also bring together the labour movement to campaign against the Trump administration in both the midterm Congressional elections as well as the 2020 Presidential race.

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator

Above: Protesting Trump’s Muslim travel ban. Source: Global News 1. DeVos is Confirmed, Inside Higher Ed. 2 February 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/ 2. Family Ties, Inside Higher Ed. 2 February 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/

International Edubusinesses try to cash in on refugee education As is the case with many human crisis and natural disasters, private companies look to quickly capitalise, which is why major efforts continue to ensure that refugee and migrant children receive a quality public education.

For edubusinesses around the world refugees and migrants represent a financial opportunity, rather than a humanitarian emergency. In both refugee camps and host countries, private education companies are looking to take advantage of a generation of displaced children for profit reported Education International (EI) in January.

EI, the 32 million member global federation of education trade unions, has made strong resource and political commitments to asserting the rights of refugees to the basic human right of education and to equitable treatment in receiving countries.

A recent meeting of affiliates on development cooperation concluded that “EI must be present in the refugee crisis because private actors are taking that space,” and stressed that the organisation and its affiliates need to be front and centre when it comes to the education of the world’s most vulnerable.

A new EI commissioned report on refugees and edubusinesses Private Participation in the Education of Syrian Refugees: Investing in the Crisis by Francine Menashy and Zeena Zakharia from the

International student numbers soar in Australia In announcing that a new record number of international students are studying in Australia, the Minister for Education Senator Birmingham also claimed that nine out of ten students are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the education they had received in Australia.

While the overall increase was at 10 per cent, the higher education sector had the largest share of enrolments at 43 per cent, with an increase of 12.9 per cent, which means that 306,691 higher education international students were studying in

University of Massachusetts, Boston, takes an in-depth look at the private players in education who are capitalising on the refugee situation arising from Syria. The report is slated to be released in the coming months.

Global Compact for refugees and migrants As a result of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants last September at the UN, governments are working toward a Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.

With negotiations set to conclude 31 January, the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) opened dialogue with stakeholders in Paris on 2 February to look at ways in which the GFMD can contribute to the new compact.

More about education unions’ work with refugee & migrants www.education4refugees.org This article appeared in University World News, 25 Jan 2017 www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/4253

Above: Syrian refugee students attend a class at public school in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon. Credit: UNHCR/S.Baldwin

Australia last year, most of whom were in public universities.

Early information indicates increased enrolments again for 2017, although it will be important to see the distribution across universities, particularly when, according to Universities Australia, more of those choosing Australia cited the “very high quality and reputation of Australian universities” as the reason for doing so. The distribution of enrolments will invite greater scrutiny particularly when paired with reputational risk factors.

The satisfaction data comes from the latest international student survey results of 65,000 respondents, that found that the three top reasons for studying in Australia were the reputation of Australian qualifications, the reputation of the Australian system as a whole, and personal safety and security.

Whilst this is very good news in terms of the reputation of our system and a relief

that students felt safe studying here, those working with international students will be very concerned as they scramble to ensure the students’ experience is good and successful, putting in extensive unremunerated or recognised extra hours of work.

Looking after the students’ welfare, as well as educating them is being increasingly undertaken by staff on casual and fixed term contracts, while the reality remains that the students’ fees are cross subsidising the gap in government funding of CSP (domestic undergraduate) students.

As other countries look to emulate Australia’s reliance on international students in lieu of adequate government investment, University World News asked NTEU National President Jeannie Rea to write on the issue for their global audience.

Read “International students treated as commodities” by Jeannie Rea at UWN: www.universityworldnews.com/article. php?story=20161004201726297

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 39

News from the Net Pat Wright

Trump likes Facebook “Likes” The Trump victory was not a surprise to everyone. On the day of its announcement, the CEO of British big data company, Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, said “We are thrilled that our revolutionary approach to data-driven communication has played such an integral part in President-elect Trump’s extraordinary win”. The same company had also been integral to the UK’s Brexit campaign in its early stages.

The Cambridge Analytica company was derived from a research collaboration in 2008 between two PhD students, Kosinski and Stilwell, at Cambridge University’s Psychometrics Centre, which had developed in the 1980s a personality profile test with the acronym OCEAN – for openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. OCEAN initially required filling out a complicated, highly personal questionnaire, but in 2008 Stilwell launched an online version in a Facebook app, MyPersonality, which took off and gave them the largest dataset combining psychometric scores with millions of Facebook profiles ever to be collected.

This was really Big Data – enabling social psychographics (as in demographics) to be developed from individual psychometrics.

By 2012, continuous mining of this growing lode of Big Data unearthed some strong correlations: an average of 68 Facebook “Likes” could predict a user’s skin colour (with 95 per cent accuracy), their sexual orientation (88 per cent accuracy), and their affiliation to the Democratic or Republican party (85 per cent). Soon, intelligence, religious affiliation, as well as alcohol, cigarette and drug use, could all be predicted with considerable accuracy.

On the day that Kosinski published these findings, he received two phone calls – the threat of a lawsuit, and a job offer. Both from Facebook. Within weeks, Facebook “Likes” became private by default. However, the modelling continued, augmented by such metadata as how many pictures users posted on Facebook profiles, how many contacts users have, and even GPS data from users’ smartphones, in many cases.

Political pollsters were quick to realise that not only can individual psychological profiles be created from your data, but your data can also be used the other way round to search for the incidence of specific profiles – electorate by electorate, Town Hall meeting by Town Hall meeting. Hence the rise of “data-driven communications” and demagogues who “Tell ‘Em What They Want To Hear!”

Kosinski became aware of the dangers of the people search engine which he had helped build being misused to manipulate people, particularly in a political setting, and issued warnings in his continuing research and lectures around the world.

In early 2014, he was approached by a company interested in his methodology and wanting access to the MyPersonality database. At first, he and his team considered the generous offer, but when he discovered the company was linked with Strategic Communication Laboratories, an “election management agency” providing marketing based on psychological modelling, he broke off all contact with the company, but later came to suspect that it might have reproduced the Facebook “Likes”-based OCEAN measurement tool in order to sell it to SCL, which had set up subsidiary companies to “manage” elections around the world. In 2013, SCL spun off a new company to participate in US elections: Cambridge Analytica. The CEO is Alexander Nix. In 2015, the company was paid $5.8 million by the Ted Cruz campaign for psychographic data on the Iowa caucuses, which Cruz won, before dropping out of the race in May. In June 2016, it was announced that Trump had hired them. They were paid $100,000 in July, $250,000 in August, and $5 million in September. According to Nix, the company earned over $15 million overall from the Trump campaign. Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is a board member of Cambridge Analytica.

At the Concordia Summit in New York in September 2016, CEO Nix boasted “We

page 40 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

have profiled the personality of every adult in the United States of America – 220 million people”, which they divided into 32 personality types and focused on just 17 states. This was incorporated into a smartphone app called Groundgame, so that Trump doorknockers were equipped with conversation guides tailored to the personality type of the resident even before they rang the bell, and could feed back the reactions of the residents to Trump HQ through the app. The conversation guides could, of course, encourage a vote for Donald, a vote against Hilary or no vote at all, depending on the relevant psychological profile.

This is not so much social media campaigning as traditional campaigning made much more effective by psychographics derived, in large part, from social media.

In terms of social media campaigning itself, Cambridge Analytica can make “dark posts” on Facebook, which appear to be public posts, but are in fact targeted to a particular personality type only. Little wonder that Nix says that he has received inquiries from Switzerland, Germany, and Australia, is rumoured to be advising Theresa May in the UK, and is touring conferences in EU countries facing elections this year, particularly those with resurgent populist parties, such as France, Holland and Germany.

When the article on which this column is based was first published in German, a Cambridge Analytica spokesperson flatly denied using data from Facebook, having any dealings with Kosinski, having used psychographics to any significant extent, and having discouraged any Americans from casting a vote in the Presidential Election.

At least they didn’t say that it was “fake news”.

Pat Wright is a Foundation Life Member of the NTEU patrite@me.com Source: Grassegger, H. & Krogerus, M. (2017).

“The Data That Turned the World Upside Down”, Motherboard.vice.com, 29 January. http://bit.ly/2jWWHLo

Lowering the Boom Ian Lowe

Dancing with Dinosaurs We live in troubled times.

US President Donald Trump has a media office that openly presents what it calls “alternative facts”, which would more accurately be termed barefaced lies. The Brexit vote and the election of Trump have been celebrated by those who say, in the words actually used by a Conservative MP in the UK, that people “have had enough of experts”.

This trend has even concerned university management, otherwise not recently vocal in support of free inquiry and outspoken public intervention by academics.

At the National Press Club earlier this year Barney Glover, the chair of Universities Australia, issued a call for respecting evidence and analysis. “Our need for unbiased, well-researched information has seldom been greater”, he said. “We must remind ourselves of how human progress has ever been forged.” Glover went on to say of universities, “As institutions for the public good, we exist to push the frontiers of knowledge. We enhance human understanding through methodical, collaborative, sustained and robust inquiry.”

He itemised some of the challenges facing complex modern societies, from preventable diseases to slowing climate change, where the expertise of qualified researchers is the only rational basis for decision-making. Glover lamented the way ”evidence, intellectual inquiry and expertise are under sustained attack”. He went on to note that the phrases ‘posttruth’ and ‘alternative facts’ have slipped into common use and claim that agendas “have displaced analysis in much of our public debate”’ While it is embarrassingly easy to poke fun at the more absurd comments attributed to US President Trump, we should be

acutely aware of the equivalent problems here. The Australian Government says it is committed to the Paris Agreement to slow climate change, but has no credible policies for achieving our share of the global effort. Government Ministers joined the chorus of uninformed comment blaming power supply interruptions in South Australia on the State’s commitment to wind energy, when the problem was a storm flattening distribution systems; it would not have made any difference if the power supply had come from coal, gas or nuclear energy. Even worse, Treasurer Scott Morrison insulted our intelligence by waving a piece of coal around in Question Time, re-introducing the blatant oxymoron of “clean coal”.

...our Government is presenting the public with its own set of “alternative facts”, creating a post-truth world in which spin and orchestrated bullshit replaces facts and rational analysis.

There is serious talk of the Government perverting the legislated task of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by instructing it to fund fossil fuel power, or using the fund set up for development of northern Australia to subsidise an obviously uneconomic coal-fired power station. Since the scientific analysis of the Paris Agreement means we must have no new coal mines or coal-fired power stations anywhere, our Government is presenting the public with its own set of “alternative facts”, creating a post-truth world in which spin and orchestrated bullshit replaces facts and rational analysis.

There is a particular problem with Coalition Senators. The electoral system effectively allows them to ignore public opinion. Our voting system has led to the Senate being a political Jurassic Park in which dinosaurs prowl the landscape, preventing progress by outdated attitudes.

The blockages are apparent in education as well as such areas as public health, economic development, foreign policy and the environment. Members of the House of Representatives need to be sensitive to

the views of the electorate, even if they hold what appears to be a rock-solid seat, as Sophie Mirabella learned. Her unpopularity led to an effective grass-roots campaign by Cathy McGowan, who was elected as an independent in 2010 in a traditionally safe Liberal seat and fought off Mirabella’s comeback attempt in 2013.

Even John Howard fell under the same electoral bus. He was the second-longest-serving Prime Minister, but he finally earned a place in political history by losing his own seat at a general election.

No such risk faces Senators. If supported by their political party, they are certain to be re-elected, however bizarre their views.

Whoever is first or second on a Liberal or ALP ticket for a Senate election would only lose their seats if the primary vote fell below 30 per cent, an almost unthinkable level. Nick Minchin was still denying climate science until he retired from the Senate, and as late as 1999 he tabled a minority report on tobacco that could have been written by industry advocates, baldly denying the link between cigarette smoke and illness. One of his South Australian successors, Cory Bernardi, claimed climate science is a UN conspiracy and marriage equality would lead to legalising bestiality. Bernardi recently decided that the Coalition is not far enough to the right to match his peculiar world view - but that is another story.

Tasmanian Senator Eric Abetz attacked the ABC Science Show for “bias” when they broadcast a critical review of a pathetic attempt to cast doubt on climate science.

Their views are clearly at one extreme end of the political spectrum and a long way from mainstream public opinion, but the Senate voting system allows them to espouse their ideas with impunity. These politicians openly reject solid scientific evidence when it is in conflict with their ideology, their view of the way the world works.

As researchers in publicly funded institutions, we have a duty to continue to seek the truth and make it known. That responsibility is more important than ever as our politicians try to present “alternative facts”.

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

M@AusConservation

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 41

The Thesis Whisperer Inger Mewburn

The elephant in the room Look, it’s just impossible to write a column for this issue of Advocate without talking about the giant orange elephant in the room.

After the US election result, the majority of my academic friends seemed to cycle through Kubler Ross’s seven stages of grief in rapid succession. Shock and disbelief was quickly replaced by Anger. In the period before the inauguration the lefty, academic side of the Internet seemed to indulge in Bargaining (“maybe the electoral college won’t accept him?”) then guilt (“what about all the poor/white/ rural/factory workers whom we ignored or laughed at”). After the brief high of the women’s march, like many of my academic friends I slid right into stage four Depression. The feeling has deepened, as many Australian politicians seem to be falling over themselves to line up behind the whole Trumpapoolza thing.

Just, well – ugh.

The long term Trump effect on academic life and work is still largely unknown, but I do know one thing: we are all connected.

Academia has always been a globalised profession. Like many of us who are making an effort to understand this brave new world, I’ve been turning to history for inspiration. One thing that comes out loud and clear from the history of scholarship is the importance of mobility.

Scholars travelled ancient knowledge networks through what is now China, India, North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe - long before there was any idea of this thing called the university. Indigenous peoples in Australia travelled and shared their forms of learned scholarship for many thousands upon thousands of years before that. There is still so much to be learned about how humans have spread knowledge through the ages.

In this context, the US travel bans – temporarily squashed, but potentially reactivated any day now – hold the potential to affect the world far beyond the USA. Lately I’ve been looking at the fate of various scholars who had the misfortune to live in periods of conflict and oppression.

One of my favourite ancient scholars is

Abū Rayhān Muhammad ibn Ahmad AlBīrūnī – better known as Al-Biruni. Al-Biruni was born in 973 at the height of the Islamic Golden Age. It was the era of the polymath: no disciplinary silos or university governance structures could hold Al-Biruni back.

He wrote many books on many subjects, from philosophy to mathematics and the natural sciences – he even wrote the first ever text-book on gemstones.

There is still so much to be learned about how humans have spread knowledge through the ages.

An amazing smarty-pants from a young age, Al-Biruni was well versed in at least seven languages and is perhaps best known for his writing on India, which is one of the first ethnographies. Despite what Wikipedia says, many historians of the period believe he never set foot in India. That he was able to write such an amazing, and apparently quite accurate work, just by interviewing other people, gives us some idea of how impressive he was as a scholar.

What is even more impressive is that Al-Biruni did most of his work while he was essentially a prisoner of war. He was one of many scholars taken by Mahmud of Ghazni when he formed his imperial court. It seems Mahmud liked having scholars around to add to his prestige and legitimacy as a ruler, it’s less clear whether Mahmud or any of his successors were interested in the work itself.

Unlike many of his contemporaries during that time of rich Islamic scholarship, AlBiruni was not able to travel and spend time at other courts. As a consequence Al-Biruni’s work was not as well known as his contemporary and correspondent, Avicenna. In fact, it’s probably due to his ability to be mobile that we benefit from Avicenna’s scholarship today, largely

page 42 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

because his books travelled too and were translated into Latin. As a result, Avicenna’s ideas spread far and wide. Meanwhile, a large proportion of Al-Biruni’s work lay undiscovered for centuries. Who knows what inventions, innovations and insights the world missed out on because Al-Biruni was denied mobility?

The Internet is an amazing gift to scholarship, but it will only get us so far. Academics still need to spend time face to face with their peers and, more importantly, they need access to specialised spaces within which to learn and teach. While the travel ban was active, scholars started to organise to offer tangible help to stranded colleagues. Websites sprang up where you could offer a space, library access or even a bed to sleep in. Which brings me back to the last two of Kübler-Ross’s seven stages of grief. Although I don’t think I’ll ever reach acceptance, the willingness by the academic community to reach out to other scholars in need gave me much needed hope.

Let’s not let the work of the next Al-Biruni lie forgotten and unloved for centuries. In these times we must actively nurture our global networks – in whatever way we can and our unions will be even more important than ever. We are stronger together and we can resist the tide of ignorance and fear.

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

M@thesiswhisperer Above: A statue of the 11th century Persian astronomer Abū Rayhān Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Bīrūnī in Park-e Laleh, Tehran, Iran. Credit: David Stanley/Flickr

Letter from Aotearoa/NZ Sandra Grey

Benign language hides awful truth of privatisation of public education It’s incredible how innocuous governments can make major change to legislation education sound. Phrases like “consistent treatment of public and private tertiary education providers” and “increased funding flexibility ...to respond quickly to changes in student demand and government policy” seem somewhat benign on a casual read.

The truth is these innocuous sounding changes, which are part of a bill tabled by the current National-led Government in February, are the pinnacle of decades of privatisation and corporatisation of the New Zealand tertiary education sector.

Even the title of the bill – The Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill – seems to down-play the depth of the shift proposed.

Those who make it their business to defend quality public tertiary education, like members of TEU and NTEU, are clear why they dislike any approach that turns our sector into a market. Public provision is under attack worldwide. It is eerie how similar the NZ legislation looks to the changes proposed in the UK right now.

The words “consistent treatment of public and private tertiary education” will further undermine institutions that should first and foremost serve the public good and will allow profit-driven companies to gain even more public funds to line their pockets with taxpayer money.

It’s only been in the last decade that tertiary education providers in New Zealand have lost their “special” status in the eyes of government policy and funding.

When the National-led Government first announced it would be allowing “competi-

tive tendering” for public money in tertiary education, but on a limited and trial basis, we warned the public and opposition parties this was the beginning of a major plan to privatise provision of education.

In the first round of funding public tertiary education providers lost $32 million dollars of funding for entry level courses and around 26 courses with over 2000 student places were affected by the funding loss. That was phase one, since then we have witnessed even deeper cuts.

Where did the money go? In many cases it went straight to for-profit companies, putting taxpayer money into the pockets of shareholders.

If tertiary education institutions are too tightly tied to government and business, we will see the degradation of intellectual and scientific discovery in favour of small advancements in knowledge which are marketable and have profit potential.

It’s not just that taxpayers’ money will be used to line the pockets of shareholders that is worrying. The market has no interest in delivering programmes to rural communities or students with high-learning needs. Further, the market has no interest in research which will not turn a profit.

The effect of an increased use of market levers is hitting at the very heart of our public providers. Our bosses are responding to “market incentives’, which in reality means they are bowing to government demands regarding what should be taught and researched and, in some cases, how. And the Government now wants this ramped up. The current bill allows for increased flexibility in funding so that tertiary education institutions can respond more quickly “to changes in student demand and government policy”.

Universities, polytechnics, and wānanga have a broad set of purposes legislated for in New Zealand in the Education Act

1989 (part 13). These public roles can only be carried out if tertiary education is independent of the current political, economic, and social elites. Our tertiary education institutions must not be subject to the whim of each new government. When asked about the composition of university Councils in 2012 one Council member said, “politics is often about expediency for the moment.” But our universities, by necessity, must have much longer term visions for their staff and students, and for the contribution the institutions make to our society, our economy, and our environment.

An autonomous tertiary education sector is also crucial for ensuring that the educational and research objectives of tertiary institutions benefit all New Zealanders, a key pillar of public tertiary education.

If tertiary education institutions are too tightly tied to government and business, we will see the degradation of intellectual and scientific discovery in favour of small advancements in knowledge which are marketable and have profit potential. Even a more functional output of the tertiary education sector, such as training workers, justifies the protection of institutional autonomy.

Australian communities are now seeing the impact of privatisation and market approaches because of the decimation of TAFEs. TEU is working now to ensure Kiwi families and communities speak out against the Government’s harmful proposals before it’s too late. Staff in the sector will not stop the onslaught of privatisation and marketisation on their own. Good evidence of the harm done to education and students will not do the job, it’s only voters that can really make this bad idea disappear. And as we approach a general election it is incumbent upon the opposition parties to set out an alternative vision for tertiary education that stops the creeping privatisation of our sector in its tracks.

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. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 43

My Union NTEU LGBTIQ conference

Raising Our Voices Almost every NTEU Branch was represented at the first national Queer Unionists in Tertiary Education (QUTE) conference for over a decade held 27-29 January 2017 in Melbourne with the Midsumma Pride March being the final event.

The QUTE Caucus was first set up within the NTEU in 2002 and re-invigorated within the Victorian Division some years later. The purpose of the QUTE Caucus is to develop networks between members within the LGBTIQ communities and foster opportunities for action within the Union and broader labour movement and community.

IDAHOBIT events to kick start Division QUTE caucuses A major purpose of the national conference was to bring together a new generation of activists who could go back to their Branches and Divisions to get their caucuses going again. The view has always been that there needs to be a caucus in each Division as a means of developing activists and encouraging membership from the visibility gained from holding LGBTIQ events.

To kick start the process, the National Executive endorsed a proposal from the conference that the NTEU celebrate IDAHOBIT (International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia) across the county on 17 May with an event in each Division.

Understanding and learning from our history Jeannie Rea, NTEU National President opened the conference and set the scene for a fast moving action-packed two days. A diverse mix of speakers engaged participants in lively discussions that in combination with reflection at the end of each segment means that we now have a rich set of data to analyse that will provide ideas of how the Caucus will proceed and how we can grow from those who attended to being a significant voice within our union.

Speakers on the first day included Gender and Sexuality Commissioner for Victo-

ria, Ro Allen who outlined her role and described how she is able to influence decision makers (because of her status) in many aspects of government policy.

Liz Ross from Australian Lesbian and Gay Archives led us through the public face of our struggles. She was also able to show the role trade unions played in supporting actions across so many different fronts.

Associate Professor Nicole Asquith and Dr Tania Ferfolja presented on the Western Sydney University gender and sexuality survey that had some new issues to consider and as a piece of research could become a template for other universities to look at where they are ranked with issues of gender and diverse sexualities.

A panel deliberated ‘The pink ceiling is too low’ – 20 years on. Each speaker shared their views on what this meant for them personally and professionally. Panellists, Virginia Mansel Lees (La Trobe), David Rhodes (ECU), Peter Black (QUT) and Erin Greaves (Deakin) gave spirited dialogue that led to a great Q&A session.

Focus on organising Day Two kicked off with Tiernan Brady fresh from the Irish experience of successfully advocating and organising for Marriage Equality speaking about what his role will be in Australia in trying to gain the changes to the Marriage Act so that same sex couples can marry. From an organising perspective, there were many tips on how to persuade people who perhaps had not had to confront the issue being able to understand why they should vote in the affirmative. The workers’ activism session led by Will Stracke and Amy Jenkins from Victorian Trades Hall outlined in detail how mobilising people around a cause can be empowering both for them as well as for their communities.

page 44 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

A new resource guide for union negotiators and employer representatives on LGBTIQ rights developed by the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights lobby was launched by Jay Morrison an organiser with the CPSU. It is a fantastic resource that is on our website so do look it up and use it. Ivan Jukic presented on superannuation with his slides also now on our website so that you can look in more detail about what you need to consider and how to go about it.

Tony Briffa from Oii (Organisation Intersex International) Australia challenged many

What did you like most about Raising Our Voices?

Katrina Alexander, SCU I have never been so interested in every speaker and felt inspired and bolstered by a conference like this one. I am still feeling the vibe and the positivity and that everything is possible in future if you just keep at it!

Dr David Rhodes, ECU It was great to connect with other queer advocates from the tertiary sector across the country, particularly those from regional areas like myself, who often work in isolation and with limited resources. Well done NTEU – a great step toward inclusion for Queer unionists.

My Union What did you like most about Raising Our Voices?

Rachel Neumann, TAFE Vic The experience of being in the minority for two days was a highlight; fully understanding for the first time the emotional impact of being the ‘other’ even in a very welcoming and engaging environment. of us on issues for the intersex worker and people agreed we learned much about how little we really know and that the language used is not helpful. A great session that left much to mull over.

Our final speakers were Professor Bill Blayney and Dr Gemma Mann from Central Queensland University on activism and challenges for rural and regional LGBTIQ communities (see report, overpage). In telling their stories, both speakers highlighted the issues of isolation, loneliness and the dangers inherent in being out in a country setting, but also cheerfully affirmed that being out and active is the only way to be. A fitting end to two days of inspiring dialogue that had ‘what’s next’ on everyone’s minds.

The Conference Dinner featured young local band Sisters Doll, whose repertoire perfectly suited both delegates’ wide age range and musical taste, with most people dancing the night away. Pride March on the Sunday was well attended, and with

all unions coming under the banner of the Victorian Trades Hall, we certainly made our presence known. A great conference so do consider coming to our next event.

Please also consider becoming involved so we can grow our activist base, and reach out to more LGBTIQ members and staff.

Remember we are starting with celebrating IDAHOBIT Day in every Division on the 17 May with speak outs on family, this year’s international theme. Contact dwillis@nteu.org.au, who will put you on to your local Organiser.

Virginia Mansel Lees, QUTE Caucus Convenor and National Executive member QUTE www.nteu.org.au/QUTE IDAHOBIT Australia idahot.org.au

Above left: Ro Allen, Victorian Gender and Sexuality Commissioner. Above right: Tony Briffa, Oii Australia.

Below: Conference participants on the steps of the NTEU National Office in South Melbourne.

Credits: Paul Clifton, David Willis

Louise ManningWatson, CDU This has inspired me to ensure I take on the challenge to shake my establishment to wake up, and acknowledge we are behind the times if we don’t encourage inclusion, safe spaces, set up Ally networks, educate and develop clear guidelines/expectations for our SGD staff and students groups.

Simon Cole, QUT Bonding with colleagues and cooking up ideas for action; such as using SGD (Sexuality and Gender Diversity) as a more accessible acronym for non-LGBTIQ folk, and suggesting cultural awareness training as part of student orientation and staff code of conduct.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 45

My Union Bill Blayney: Activism and challenges for rural and regional LGBTIQ communities Over two years ago at NTEU National Council, Virginia Mansel Lees and I had a conversation at the back of the room about how we could try and get a conference organised for the LGBTIQ members. And finally it happened.

Can I thank Virginia and David Willis for the great program and providing a safe and encouraging space for members to share views, ideas, histories that build on the resilience of our community. I was indeed honoured and privileged to be part of the organising committee, and also asked to close the conference with the final session entitled: Activism and challenges for rural and regional LGBTIQ communities.

I was also privileged to co-present the session with my good friend and colleague Dr Gemma Mann. Gemma has been a staunch activist in regional Queensland for LGBTIQ rights and has a strong visible presence in our community to the point where anything to do with LGBTIQ issues the press seem to contact Gemma as that person to go to. Her story was deeply moving. As a woman who attended a girls Catholic school many years ago facing the challenges that we all face when we know that we are different, touched many of us by her comment that the reason she is here today is that being gay was considered less of a sin than suicide. At that point the whole audience took a breath and understood her journey.

At the conference it was my job to provide a history of what it was like to be a gay man in regional Queensland in the early 80s. I started out as a young 26-year-old man in Queensland in 1986 teaching at the new TAFE college in Rockhampton after deciding to get out of Sydney following a disastrous relationship and start afresh.

Originally I was posted to Brisbane, but as I remember very clearly on Easter Thursday I received a telegram from the Queensland Education Department saying I was posted to Rockhampton. After wondering ‘Where is Rockhampton?’, it was time for a

Above: Bill on his first day at ATFE in 1986.

Right: Bill and Christopher. Author supplied change and I moved to Rockhampton in July 1986.

At this time during the days of the conservative Bjelke-Petersen Government being a gay teacher in Queensland was grounds for instant dismissal. After coming from Sydney this was indeed a revisit to the closet that I had come out of years before. Being a gay man in regional Queensland in those days was at times a very scary place to be.

Meeting places were hard to come by to meet other gay men, and gay hate crimes, although they didn’t have a name in those days, were prevalent.

After a few close calls I managed to survive and meet other men with similar situations such as mine. When the conservative government was voted out in 1988 and replaced by the Labor Goss Government in 1989, male homosexuality was decriminalised in Queensland and suddenly I was free to be me. However, across Australia we were still trying to regain traction as a voice and as forces to be reckoned with from the $3 million Grim Reaper AIDS television campaign of 1987 that began the demonisation of gay men.

Living in regional Queensland with not a lot of health services to support people who were HIV positive was indeed a struggle for many of my friends and, at the time, my partner. Christopher was a young man I met when visiting the UK who I fell in love with and dragged back to Queensland. Sadly he was diagnosed with HIV six months after he arrived.

Unfortunately for us he became the first person diagnosed with HIV in Central Queensland and the journey was difficult and eventually too much to bear. After all the discrimination and isolation we experienced during this time and the medications failed to work any longer, I had to take him home to his parents where he died soon after at age 26.

So what did we all learn out of this experience? We learned that whatever life dishes

page 46 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

up you need to draw upon your resilience and the support of friends and family if you can, to get you through the difficult circumstances that we endure at various stages in our life. I was fortunate to have the support of friends and family during such a difficult period and of course I was lucky enough to find love again three years later with my current partner (of now 21 years), Bruce.

Living in regional Queensland today is very different as Gemma commented in her presentation following mine. While discrimination is still there and comments such as fag, dyke etc. are still prevalent there is certainly an air of freedom to be yourself much more than that has ever been before. Of course this is all due to people like us saying we will not take this anymore, we are who we are. We are no different to you or anybody else and we deserve to be treated equally in all aspects of our life.

During the presentation I used the story of the famous drag queen from Ireland, Panti Bliss who played a major role during the marriage equality vote to highlight the journey we still must fight concerning marriage equality. She stated “So, grow some balls. Make the decision that it’s no longer a reasonable subject for debate. Full equality for gay people, as far as I’m concerned is a debate that’s over and done with for the vast majority of people in this country” (Panti Bliss, 2016).

I suppose for me the heartening journey of what I saw at the conference was a young generation of empowered LGBTIQ Union members who are prepared to continue to fight the good fight and be who they are and true to themselves. My final comment to the conference after meeting all of these wonderful participants was, the LGBTIQ community has a voice that will no longer be silenced and I believe our future is in safe hands.

My Union I thank the NTEU for supporting LGBTIQ members in making this happen. It was an important journey for many of us to be recognised as activists not only for the rights we fight for our members on a daily basis, but for the rights of human beings to be who they are in their workplaces and not feel unsafe or discriminated against for promotional opportunities or just for doing your job. Finally I leave you with a quote which I think summarises so much of what we all try to say.

“My unsolicited advice for today and every day going forward: tell the story of who you are and who and what you love and refuse to be erased. It matters.

We matter.“ (Noah Nicholson, Huffington Post, 20 Jan 2017).

Professor Bill Blayney, Dean of Education the Arts, previously NTEU Branch President, CQU.

QUTE conference reflections Sharn Riggs, General Secretary, NZ Tertiary Education Union Irena Brorens our National Industrial Officer and I had the immense pleasure of being able to join our Australian sisters and brothers at the NTEU’s QUTE conference in Melbourne in January. We both came away really excited, not only to have been immersed once again in the warm embrace of the LGBTIQ community (these are always unique and informative and fun-filled places to be), but also to know that we had come away with some fantastic new resources and ideas that we can share within our union networks.

Hearing stories, being immersed in others’ experiences (painful as well as joyous) and knowing that the Union is a place where change can happen for us in our communities as well as our allies gives strength to us all. Congratulations to all in the NTEU who made this fantastic event happen and thanks to everyone there who made us feel so welcome and included.

Nathan O’Brien, Flinders University The Queer Unionists in Tertiary Education (QUTE) Conference at the NTEU National headquarters in Melbourne on January 27 and 28 held a range of information sessions, workshops, and plenty of time for discussion, networking and reflection.

Speaking as a young gay man working in the higher education sector, it was fascinating to hear about the history of LGBTIQ activism and the involvement of trade unions in this. The opportunity to connect members of our community from around the nation and across generations is rare, and is a wonderful way to combat the feelings of isolation that can be common within the LGBTIQ community. Through these connections and the information shared throughout the conference, I was able to expand my knowledge beyond that of the gay man’s experience in Australia to include perspectives from all aspects of our community from regional and metropolitan areas of Australia and New Zealand.

Above: Bill Blayney speaking at Raising Our Voices.

Below, left: Tiernan Brady (centre) from Marriage Equality Australia with Virginia Mansel Lees, QUTE Convener and Jeannie Rea, National President.

Below right: Panel for ‘The Pink Ceiling is too low’: David Rhodes (ECU), Peter Black (QUT), Virginia Mansel Lees (La Trobe), John Pezy (NTEU SA) and Erin Greaves (Deakin). Credits: Paul Clifton, David Willis

As a group, we discussed and celebrated the work that has already been done, as well as highlighting the work that still lays ahead of us to ensure our workplaces are open, welcoming and supportive spaces for all workers. We know there will be challenges and hurdles along this road and that changing cultures is never easy, but I am sure I’m not the only delegate to return to my Branch inspired to play my part in ensuring we get there. Whether they happened during sessions, over lunch, or over a drink at the end of the day, there were a myriad of fantastic conversations, shared experiences and new connections over the course of the conference that left me feeling amazed at the breadth of knowledge, experience and enthusiasm within the LGBTIQ community and our allies.

The path to equality will not be an easy one. It is networks such as QUTE and opportunities like this conference that let us share the load, find inspiration and work together as we strive to make a difference.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 47

My Union NTEU Lecture

Reviving Civic Culture in a Trumpesque World The nature of the political world is changing, and this requires shifts in how we think about the role of universities in fostering and developing a strong civic culture, said Dennis Altman when presenting the sixth annual NTEU Lecture in Sydney in December.

Dennis, a Professorial Fellow in Human Security at La Trobe University, is the author of thirteen books, since Homosexual: Oppression & Liberation was first published in 1972. In 2006, The Bulletin listed Dennis as one of the 100 most influential Australians ever, and he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2008.

But the signs coming from universities are not good, and if anything they are going backwards. Dennis used the example of the latest research funding regime (ERA) that emphasises commercial possibilities above all else. Applicants are required to describe the environmental, economic and social impact their research project will have, but ignore the political or cultural impact.

The signs around universities fostering and nurturing public debate are not good either. “When discourse becomes more a question of people yelling past each other, rather than seeking to understand and explore complexities, there is a real problem with universities wanting to crack down on their staff doing this and censor debate,” he said.

Dennis described a recent incident where Murdoch University tabled a proposed new definition of misconduct as part of enterprise bargaining, which included ‘risks to the reputation, viability or profitability of the university.” (emphasis added).

This, in Dennis’s view, is the “best single example of what has gone wrong with universities.”

Dennis noted that political support for universities is declining, in spite of thousands of extra people attending.

“Governments can slash our budgets and

there’s no blowback,” he said. Why is this?

It’s because universities have so effectively privatised themselves that most people see them in the same way they view other corporations.

“This isn’t surprising when universities pay their Vice-Chancellors as much as CEOs, when they run glossy ads on television and bus shelters. There is a declining awareness of the traditional role universities have played as part of society’s common ‘good’,” Dennis said.

Dennis had just spent two weeks in the USA, during the presidential election campaign. He compared his experiences there with those during the Australian Federal Election campaign in June.

He described a queue of people outside a polling station in Los Angeles, where there was no activity other than people lining up to vote, and compared this with the hive of activity and social interaction that happens at most Australian polling booths.

“Fortunately we still have a culture that sees the connection between everyday life and political life. We are not the USA,” he said, “our politics and system are much different, and better.”

But our system is fragile, and with the rise of One Nation again we’re already starting to see signs of the polarisation occurring in the USA and elsewhere. The growing

populism on the right is appealing to the worst instincts of people.

This can make it impossible to keep parties and politicians honest. “We need politicians to stand back and say there are moments when you do what is right and decent, not just what is popular.”

We need to strengthen both social movements and political parties, Dennis said.

He was heartened by the numbers of new young activists involved in social movements he had encountered at the ALP National Conference last year, as well as in different Greens election campaigns.

He is not pessimistic about the ALP and Greens working together, and sees it as almost inevitable if progressive forces are to be effective.

“We need social movements putting pressure on governments and political parties to help translate the demands of movements into government policy.”

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.

Michael Evans, National Organiser A video of Dennis’s Lecture (and past Lectures) can be viewed at www.nteu.org.au/lecture/2016

The NTEU Lecture

page 48 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

My Union NTEU Staff conference

ence. This is a bicycle that individuals, and even whole societies, can forget how to ride.”

NTEU’s 130 staff gathered in Melbourne in December for a conference aimed at further developing a recruitment and retention culture within the Union, as well as provide opportunities for staff to share experiences and activities.

• Structural economic change and aggressive employers leading to low strength and low levels of activism.

One of the highlights of the conference was a presentation by Tim Lyons, former ACTU Assistant Secretary, now a Research Fellow at independent think-tank Per Capita. Tim was invited to expand on his comments in the journal Meanjin, where he claimed that the union movement’s loss of power and influence was due to a failure of leadership and a pre-occupation with the politics of elections, at the expense of organising workers around core industrial issues.

Tim outlined the economic and employment trends and a litany of reasons why the trade union movement has shrunk from nearly 60 per cent of workers in the 1950s to its current size:

He highlighted what he sees as the main aspects of the ‘cycle of decline’ of unions:

• A focus on electoral politics that doesn’t build the movement or power in the workplace.

• Inadequate adaption by unions, resulting in a lack of visibility, unions being ‘denormalised’ and reduced institutional power.

• A lack of transformative change by unions.

So how do we make our unions big, strong and effective? Firstly, identify the immediate problems.

• That the Union as a bargaining agent & insurance is insufficient. Bargaining to organise is not enough.

• We spend too much money on things that don’t build power.

• That ‘recruitment’ without building activism leads to a hollow, weak union.

Tim concluded by outlining some possible solutions to the movement’s current problems. He advocated planning properly and allocating resources to opportunities, not problems. He suggested a good split might be 60 per cent spent on breakthrough campaigns, 30 per cent on workplace organising and 10 per cent on member support.

Unions need to set membership, activism and outcome targets. We need to break out of the collective bargaining straitjacket – members need to take collective action outside of the narrow strictures of bargaining.

Unions need to develop and nurture member-to-member contact as an effective organising tool. We need to use technology to create organising, not campaigning, spaces.

• That changing the political environment isn’t about having a better election campaign.

And finally, unions need to trial new and creative forms of membership and inclusion that are different to the way we’ve always done things.

• That islands of unionism can’t survive – the movement matters.

Michael Evans, National Organiser

• ‘Risk shift’ from employers to workers, through the explosion of insecure employment and contracting.

• Technological substitution of workers.

• Australia is a low tax, low government spending economy compared to most of the OECD. • Labour’s share of national income has fallen steadily since 1980.

• Union density is now the lowest it’s been since the Harvester judgement in 1901, and is lower than the UK, Canada and New Zealand.

• Collective action since the onset of WorkChoices is “almost extinct”.

Tim noted that the idea of collective activity was gradually disappearing. “People don’t reach for a collective response to their problems in the workplace because such a response is beyond their experi-

Protected Action ballots For any member taking industrial action at a workplace, the AEC requires your latest home addresses.

UPDATE YOUR DETAILS AT nteu.org.au/members

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 49

My Union State of the Uni survey returns in 2017 In May, NTEU will be inviting university staff to complete our 2017 State of the Uni Survey.

This is the second biennial survey, the first in 2015 attracted nearly 8,000 respondents from universities around the country, both Union members and other staff.

The survey is part of an ambitious project to build longitudinal information about university staff attitudes to: • The higher education sector • Your university • Your conditions at work • Unions in the university workplace.

The survey will be open to everyone who works in universities regardless of union

membership. About 2,700 staff who were not union members completed the survey in 2015.

We will send a link to the survey via email in May. We will be asking you to share the link with your workplace colleagues and encourage them to complete the survey.

2015 survey findings The key findings from the 2015 survey indicated that for staff working at Australian universities: • A lmost none (2.6 per cent) believed that the current government’s higher education policies were taking Australia’s universities in the right direction.

• O ver nine out of ten (93.8 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed that the government has the responsibility for investing in our universities which they saw as being intimately tied to the essential public character of Australian higher education.

• S even out of ten (71.6 per cent) respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their work, although about the same proportion (76.7 per cent) lacked confidence or strongly lacked

2017 NTEU

STATE OF

THE SURVEY UNI Have your say!

confidence in the senior management of their institutions.

• T he report shows that academic staff worked on average more than 50 hours per week.

• O f those professional and general staff who reported working uncompensated overtime, the average number of hours per week was 5.7 hours.

• Almost one in two staff (48.5 per cent) felt that their job was insecure.

Michael Evans, National Organiser www.nteu.org.au/stateoftheuni

Testimonial Helen McDonald recently retired from her academic position at James Cook University, and sent this letter to the NTEU to advise that she would also be retiring from the Union.

Why I was a member 0f an education union for 50 years I have been a union member since I first began my teaching career 50 years ago, first as a teacher in the public school sector and then as an academic at James Cook University.

Of course in that time, society has changed and, with it, the industrial relations environment. However, for me being part of the Union has always been based on the idea of the collective – working with others to ensure one’s own rights as a worker but, equally important, working towards ensuring the rights of colleagues in the context of a fair and just society.

invaluable when trying to make sense of the complex university environment.

Without this knowledge, it would be difficult to make sensible decisions that serve the interests of fellow workers as well as students and the wider society.

In some ways, being part of a union is selfish. The NTEU gives the collective strength so that you end up with better pay and working conditions. The NTEU will stand by you when your job is threatened – the NTEU is insurance!

While there are many advantages to be being a union member, one thing I have really appreciated the work of the NTEU in providing members with rigorous analysis of the various policies and practices of both governments and university administrations. As busy academics, who has time to sift through so many policies, so many restructuring documents, and so many Enterprise Agreements?

Having access to the expertise of fellow Union members and officials has been

page 50 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

However, the reason why I have been a proud member of the NTEU is because it is a union that is committed to social justice within the workplace and society, where you can be part of the decision making. I am particularly proud of being part of an organisation that has been in the forefront of gender equity and Indigenous rights.

Helen McDonald

My Union New NTEU staff

outcome in the long-running Carlton United Brewery dispute. In her spare time she likes scuba diving, travelling and spending time outdoors.

Emma Barnes Industrial Officer Vic Div

Dylan Griffiths Branch Organiser WSU

Emma Barnes is a new Industrial Officer in the Victorian Division. Emma graduated from her postgraduate law degree in 2014 and soon after accepted a role with the Victorian Branch of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU).

Dylan has recently joined the NSW Division as a part time Branch Organiser at Western Sydney University. He has recently finished his term as the University of Sydney SRC Education Officer, recently graduated from the University of Sydney with majors in history and chemistry, and has previously been a NTEU member

Emma gained a broad range of experience during her two and a half years with the ETU, with a highlight being the successful

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

AUR is listed on the DEEWR register of refereed journals.

Dylan has a passion for academia and recognises the need to build the Union and demand more federal funding as fundamental to curbing the precarious working conditions that haunt the sector.

Over the past two years, Dylan has worked closely with the NTEU as well as the wider union movement organising students against university cuts, in the Save Medicare campaign, and in the refugee movement. He looks forward to ensuring a just EBA for Western Sydney University staff in the challenging year ahead.

AUR is published twice a year by the NTEU.

vol. 56, no. 1, 20 14 NTEU

Published by

while working for the University of Sydney Union.

ISSN 0818 –8068

AUR

Australia n Unive rsities’R eview

NTEU members are entitled to receive a free subscription on an opt-in basis .

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

www.aur.org.au

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 51

www.memberadvantage.com.au/nteu

”We use our NTEU member benefits and

save $300* per year

on restaurant

bills.”

For more information, email at

page 52 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 24 no. 1 • March 2017 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

* Indicative only. Dining saving based on 12 restaurant visits with a discount of $25 applied.

info@memberadvantage.com.au or call on 1300 853 352

“The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows.”

Sydney J. Harris

Every day you inspire, helping people grow.

You’re the leaders, the educators and the professional staff that make students’ dreams possible.

That’s why we’re invested in you.

As a customer owned bank, dedicated solely to the education community, our profits go back to you through competitive financial solutions, more personalised service and support of education.

Tertiary employees and their families, nationwide are welcome to bank with us.

Call 1300 654 822 I Visit victeach.com.au

Bank

I Save I Borrow I Invest I Protect

Australia’s only super fund DEDICATED TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SECTOR

SUPER FUND

unisuper.com.au 1800 331 685