Advocate 26 01

Advocate vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au • ISSN 1329-7295

20

pages of e lection analysis + scorecard s

Federal Election 2019 ɓɓWe score the parties on the main issues: ɓɓHigher education policy & funding ɓɓResearch policy & funding ɓɓIndustrial relations ɓɓA&TSI policy ɓɓClimate change & energy ɓɓParty statements on higher education

ɓɓThe Defenders of Tertiary Education ɓɓPre-election submission season ɓɓVU staff reject non-union agreement ɓɓThe Year of Indigenous Languages ɓɓFlinders restructure a travesty ɓɓChina’s thought police in academia ɓɓ$39k back pay in wage theft case

ɓɓSchool Strike for Climate ɓɓStanding up to racism ɓɓGrieving in Aotearoa/NZ ɓɓReview the Ruddock Review ɓɓARC grants controversy ɓɓEpidemic of invisible work ɓɓ...and much more.

Love UniSuper?

Your family can too!

We’re passionate about helping our members save for an exceptional retirement. And now your family can join our award-winning* fund too.

A UniSuper Personal Account offers your family great value for money with a range of investment options, low fees, excellent service, competitive insurance premiums and a national financial advice team.

See what’s to love at unisuper.com.au/personal.

Prepared by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799, AFSL 235907) on behalf of UniSuper Limited (ABN 54 006 027 121, AFSL 492806) the trustee of UniSuper (ABN 91 385 943 850). This information is of a general nature only. Before making any decision in relation to your UniSuper membership, you should consider your personal circumstances, the relevant product disclosure statement for your membership category and whether to consult a qualified financial adviser. *SuperRatings awarded UniSuper 2019 Fund of the Year. Visit unisuper.com.au/awards for more information.

Contents 2

Standing for academic integrity From the General Secretary

Cover image: Students at the Schools Strike for Climate with an NTEU sign. (N. Clark)

3

4

$39k back pay in wage theft case

NTEU fights for workload rights at UNE

5

VU staff vote down non-union Agreement, again

Members sought for academic time & motion study

6

$100,000 settlement for English language teachers

Palace Papers campaign continues

7

A strike, a non-union ballot & a sausage ban at UC Multi-party strategy reaps rewards

12 Sexual harassment is a workplace threat SECURE WORK NEWS 13 ‘Change One Thing’ to support casual staff A&TSI NEWS 14 Local A&TSI Forums an opportunity for members to get more involved

National A&TSI Unit to increase campus visits

FEDERAL ELECTION 15 Federal Election 2019 Our in depth election guide for members.

16 Changing the rules on IR For the first time since 2007, industrial relations will be centre-stage in a Federal Election.

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

p. 15

federal Election 2019

Vote 1, Australian tertiary education

10 Students march for their future

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

p. 10

Editorial, National President

9 Flinders restructure a travesty

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

All text and images © NTEU 2019 unless otherwise stated.

NTEU National Office, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia phone +61 (03) 9254 1910 email national@nteu.org.au website www.nteu.org.au Feedback, advertising and other enquiries: advocate@nteu.org.au

UPDATE

8

Environment ISO 14001

Advocate ISSN 1321-8476 Published by National Tertiary Education Union ABN 38 579 396 344 Publisher Matthew McGowan Editor Alison Barnes Production Manager Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance Anastasia Kotaidis

18 Freedom, funding and fees Our major issues in this election are academic freedom, funding levels and students fees.

20 Pork Barrelling 101 A CSP funding freeze has not stopped some good old fashioned pork-barrelling.

21 Research slashed Block grants have lost $328 million over 4 years.

28 Is the economy outstanding or underperforming?

What is the true state of Australia’s economy?

30 Postgrad wishlist CAPA says that universities and their students are in crisis, but the government can do better.

31 Students are asking for more support Under the Coalition, higher education students have been short-changed, says the NUS.

32 Party statements: ALP and Greens

43 NTEU members aplenty in 2019 Honours list INTERNATIONAL 44 China’s crackdown on dissent Xi Jinping has placed further curbs on existing roadblocks to academic freedom.

COLUMNS 46 Election web-watch

News from the Net, by Pat Wright

47 Why free TAFE matters

Immediate Past President, Jeannie Rea

34 Member candidates 35 Meet the Defenders

48 Epidemic of invisible work

Thesis Whisperer, Inger Mewburn

Who are the Defenders of Tertiary Education?

49 Counting the Coalition’s failings

FEATURES

Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

36 Standing up to racism After the horrific Christchurch mosque shootings, there have been heartening displays of solidarity with Muslim communities.

38 Review the Review!

The Government’s Religious Freedom Review has left many LGBTIQ people feeling isolated, vulnerable and fed up.

39 The marketisation of attention John Morss posits that The Favourite is an allegory of tertiary education in Australia.

40 Complexities of celebration Yearning for more in International Year of Indigenous Languages: more talking with Elders, more family, more Country.

42 National honour for Astrophysicist AO awarded to USyd astrophysicist Elaine Sadler.

p. 40

50 Together we grieve, together we respond to end racism Letter from NZ, Michael Gilchrist, TEU

DELEGATES 51 Delegate profile: Tracie Pollin 52 NSW Delegates conference MY UNION 53 Book review: Towards a more collaborative university 55 Obituary: Lily Pereg

NSW Summer interns

NTEU Scholarships 2019

56 New NTEU staff p. 42

22 Pre-election policy submission season The LNP has had very few wins on the higher education field over the last 2 election seasons.

23 Protecting the national interest?

What effect will a so-called ‘national interest test’ have on Australian research?

24 CDP is racist and must be abolished Labor and the Greens have promised to abolish the Community Development Program.

26 Climate the hot topic Climate change is likely to be a significant issue in this year’s Federal Election.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 1

From the General Secretary Matthew McGowan, General Secretary

Standing for academic integrity NTEU is supporting court action to try to hold management at the University of Wollongong (UOW) to account for its governance failures in approving the establishment of a Ramsay Centre degree at the University.

The Vice-Chancellor chose to by-pass the usual way in which proposals for new degrees are subject to scrutiny as to curriculum and pedagogy. These procedures are in place to ensure that students are not offered a course simply because someone with a huge amount of money and a political agenda wants it run. This is in part why the Academic Senate of the University passed a resolution 28–16 objecting to the VC’s ‘fast-track’ approval of the degree without the usual academic scrutiny.

Many union members at UOW and nationally have objected to the Ramsay Centre’s political agenda. Backed by Tony Abbott and John Howard, the Ramsay Centre has a specific political agenda based upon promoting the superiority, or at least centrality, of studying ‘Western civilisation’ as the true means of enlightening students. Some academics have suggested that the whole project is built on implicit racism.

While these are important debates, they are not part of the Union’s objection to the Ramsay Centre’s involvement in UOW. The Union is not participating in a fight with The Australian or Quadrant about the ‘culture wars’. Nor does the Union object to genuine philanthropic support. But the Union does stand for academic freedom and academic integrity.

As a hospital patient, we expect that medical decisions will be made by medical staff on medical grounds – not by accountants, politicians, managers, or those who donate to the hospital. So it should be

with higher education. Decisions about the courses to be run, their content and teaching methods, how staff will be selected to teach, and what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that donors have no capacity to influence course or research content, should all be made by proper and transparent collegial processes, which include staff with expertise in the relevant academic field.

These principles are found in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, adopted unanimously by Australia and other UNESCO members in 1997. It states: The principles of collegiality include academic freedom, shared responsibility, the policy of participation of all concerned in internal decision making structures and practices, and the development of consultative mechanisms. Collegial decision-making should encompass decisions regarding … curricula, research, …, in order to improve academic excellence and quality for the benefit of society at large.

The protection of genuine collegial processes is therefore not really about the rights of academic staff – it is about the obligation of institutions to uphold academic excellence in the service of society, rather than the political agenda of donors or the short-term financial interests of the institution.

These principles have not been upheld at Wollongong. In upholding the principles of academic freedom and integrity, the Union is likely to earn the ire of many on the left and right, and sometimes even its own members.

In 2002, also at the University of Wollongong, the NTEU took the management to court when it sacked Dr Ted Steele without proper process after he criticised

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

National President Vice-President (Academic) Vice-President (General Staff) General Secretary National Assistant Secretary

Alison Barnes Andrew Bonnell Cathy Rojas Matthew McGowan Gabe Gooding

National Industrial Coordinator Wayne Cupido National Senior Industrial Officer Kelly Thomas National Industrial Officers Campbell Smith,

Emma Barnes-Whelan Industrial Support Officer Renee Veal

A&TSI PC Chair

Shane Motlap

Policy & Research Coordinator Policy & Research Officer

National Executive: Rachael Bahl, Nikola Balnave, Damien Cahill, Vince Caughley, Jonathan Hallett, Andrea Lamont-Mills, Louisa Manning-Watson, Virginia Mansel Lees, Michael McNally, Kelvin Michael, Catherine Moore, Kerrie Saville, Melissa Slee, Ron Slee, Michael Thomson, Nick Warner

National A&TSI Coordinator National A&TSI Organiser National Organiser National Publications Coordinator National Membership Officer

page 2 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

colleagues in his own Department for alleged ‘soft marking’. Many members were initially angered by the Union’s position, as Steele had criticised fellow union members. However, the Union maintained that there is no academic freedom if management can arbitrarily sack employees without due process, regardless of who is being attacked. The Union won.

More recently, the Union has defended those from across the political spectrum.

Dr Tim Anderson at the University of Sydney is a controversial campaigner against the policies of the Israeli Government, and Peter Ridd who holds contrarian views on climate change, have both had their rights to express controversial views publicly defended by the NTEU. In both cases legal assistance was offered but the individuals chose to run their own legal cases.

While the Union actively encourages its members to engage around the issues, the Union itself must uphold a position of ‘discipline neutrality’ where all members know their academic freedom will be protected.

In the higher education sector, it is important for us to be ideologically blind in these matters. We cannot have integrity defending the rights of those we agree with if we do not also defend the rights of those we don’t. It is the rights that the Union is tasked with defending, not the subject matter. The subject matter is rightly the province of academic debate.

The University of Wollongong has trampled on the academic governance required to maintain independence and integrity. Win or lose, this is an issue we will take on, not because it is Ramsay, but because academic governance is important everywhere.

Matthew McGowan, General Secretary mmcgowan@nteu.org.au

Education & Training Officers Ken McAlpine, Helena Spyrou Executive Manager ICT Network Engineer Database Programmer/Data Analyst Payroll Officer

Peter Summers Tam Vuong Uffan Saeed Jo Riley

Manager, Office of Gen Sec & President Anastasia Kotaidis Paul Kniest Executive Officer (Meeting & Events) Tracey Coster Terri MacDonald Admin Officer (Membership & Campaigns) Julie Ann Veal Leanne Foote Adam Frogley Receptionist & Administrative Support Celeste Liddle Finance Manager Glenn Osmand Gracia Ho Michael Evans Senior Finance Officer Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze, Paul Clifton Finance Officers Lee Powell, Daphne Zhang Melinda Valsorda

Editorial Alison Barnes, National President

Vote 1 Australian tertiary education Welcome to the Federal Election edition of the Advocate. In this edition we’ve examined the policies of the ALP, Coalition and Greens to help inform you about what this election means for higher education.

As part of our election campaign, we have developed a Defender of Tertiary Education pledge. NTEU activists have been busy catching up with politicians and candidates around Australia, seeking their commitment to: • Increase government funding.

• R educe the reliance on insecurely employed staff.

• Strengthen the rights of all workers to take industrial action.

• Decrease the debt burden on students.

These issues are vital to the future of universities in Australia. (You can see who has signed the pledge so far on p. 35 of Advocate.) NTEU will continue to add signatories to our web site and social media right up until the election.

Adequate government funding and academic freedom go hand in hand – to be able to speak or criticise in one’s area of expertise without fear or favour requires university independence and autonomy.

The funding dilemma in our universities is highlighted by the debate over the Ramsey Centre for Western Civilisation in the ACT, NSW and Queensland. Universities should not seek to increase revenue by entering into agreements that may compromise academic freedom and autonomy.

Members and students experience the impact of funding cuts daily through ever-increasing workloads, growing class sizes and the under resourcing of support services. More than half of undergraduate teaching is performed by casual academic staff who face the well-documented difficulties associated with insecure employment.

Just as decreasing funding affects the working lives of NTEU members, the erosion of employees’ ability to take industrial action undermines the quality of our working lives by enhancing managerial privilege and power.

Professor Emeritus Raewyn Connell, in her recent book The Good University (see review, p.53) notes that managerial prerogative is particularly evident in decisions made by university management: This is particularly visible in ‘restructures’, where units such as faculties, schools and departments are reorganised, amalgamated or abolished from above, whether they want it or not. (p.

136)

Industrial action is one of the principal ways in which we can confront concerns such as the increasingly insecure nature of work in our departments and class rooms. This is one of the many reasons why we need to change the rules.

Current restrictions on the right to take industrial action limits our ability to check this burgeoning managerial prerogative.

While workers’ industrial rights have been pared back, we are increasingly seeing industrially aggressive employers such as Murdoch University or Victoria University use these same laws to bludgeon staff and seek to erode wages and employment conditions.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) views the right to strike “to be one of the principal means by which workers and their associations may legitimately promote and defend their economic and social interests.” (ILO, 1996d, paras. 473475.) This right has been effectively stymied in Australia and thus undermines our

collective right to disagree by withdrawing our labour.

ILO conventions may seem far removed from campus life, but the principles outlined are vital to ensuring that Australian universities are safe workplaces in which people are securely employed on fair wages and conditions. Industrial action is one of the principal ways in which we can confront concerns such as the increasingly insecure nature of work in our departments and class rooms. This is one of the many reasons why we need to change the rules.

The recent strike for climate action that saw thousands of young people take to the street, demonstrates the power of the collective. These young people should inspire us to ensure that they can continue to develop their ideas and their voice through higher education.

Regardless of which party is elected, we must ensure that any legislative or policy amendments are not sold back to us in a diluted form. Focusing on changing the rules via electoral politics is not enough As I wrote in the most recent version of Connect we must continue to work together to build grassroots power in our work units, departments and on our campuses by building our membership and our levels of organisation and activism so that we can: • Ensure our current enterprise agreements are enforced.

• Stop the petty tyrannies of university management, and • Secure significant wins for all staff in future rounds of enterprise bargaining.

It is this grass roots activism that is vital to the health and strength of our union and our universities.

Alison Barnes, National President abarnes@nteu.org.au

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 3

Update $39k back pay in wage theft case NTEU support has helped a Union member in Sydney recover more than $39,000 in unpaid wages, overtime, superannuation and leave loading entitlements.

Ali discovered that the private higher education provider* he was working for had been paying him below the

minimum rates set out in the Education Services (Post-Secondary Education) Award 2010 since 2014.

Ali’s employer initially tried to force him to sign a confidential settlement worth less than half of what he was owed.

However, when the NTEU issued a right of entry request to inspect employee records identifying sixteen suspected breaches of the Award and the Fair Work Act 2009 the company agreed to pay the full amount of his back pay claim, plus payment for outstanding annual leave.

“I was constantly being underpaid, NTEU helped me face my employer,” Ali said.

Ali encourages all of his friends and colleague working in the higher education sector to “Join the NTEU and to find out about your workplace rights and entitlements.”

While it was pleasing that back-payment has been made, NTEU is concerned that Ali’s case is indicative of a more widespread and systemic issue of wage theft across the private higher education sector.

Kiraz Janicke, Senior State Organiser, NSW Division *The name of the company has been withheld at the request of the member.

NTEU fights for workload rights at UNE In February 2018 members working in two Schools (the School of Education and the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences) received a direction from the then Dean, advising that their teaching workloads would be increased, with limited discounts, in what the NTEU asserted was a failure to correctly apply the workloads clause of the Agreement.

A key clause central to the dispute was the obligation at Clause 20.3.2 of the Agreement that: Each School, through collegial consultative processes with its academic staff, will develop, implement, review and revise an Academic Workload Policy on a School basis. The Academic Workload Policy will be considered by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor who will provide input.

A School meeting will be called to consider the policy and it will be ratified by consensus. Where consensus cannot be reached, a majority decision, by vote of the applicable School staff, will determine the School Academic Workload Policy.

NTEU made an application for interim orders to maintain the status quo for union members. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) granted interim orders which applied collegially developed workload policies to employees from the 9 July 2018, the commencement of Trimester 2, 2018.

NTEU witnesses from both Schools appeared in the FWC hearing on 30 May 2018, held in Armidale, and the Union wishes to thank again all of the witnesses who gave their time and efforts to stand up for their workload rights.

On the 10 October 2018, the decision on the workload dispute was made, and again the workload policies, and not the Dean’s direction, continued to apply to employees. Management appealed this decision, and the workload dispute was considered again by an FWC Full Bench hearing in December 2018.

In January 2019, the Full Bench upheld the decision of the FWC in applying the workload policy in the School of Education.

The Full Bench found the situation of the School of HASS different however, finding at paragraph 20 of the decision that: [20] In respect of the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS) the situation is different. Upon the formation of the new faculty, the three former Schools (School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences; School of Humanities; and School of Arts) ceased to exist and became a single School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences.

[21] Although the AWPs applicable to the three former Schools were each

page 4 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

made by the University and the academic staff of each of those Schools in a collegiate manner under clause 20.3.2 of the Agreement, they were not made between the University and the academic staff of the newly formed School. Upon the formation of that new School and the disbandment of the three former Schools, only the combined effort of the University and the collective academic staff of the new School could create an AWP that meets the requirements of clause 20.3.2.

Accordingly, the Full Bench of the FWC referred the question of whether the Dean’s direction was a lawful exercise of managerial prerogative, an original question in the dispute, back to the Commissioner to determine.

Management representatives and the NTEU held two conferences with the Commissioner, and by consent the parties have finalised the matter. Members in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences are now working to implement a collegially developed workload policy for their School.

Jeane Wells, Senior Industrial Officer, NSW Division

Above: UNE members before the FWC hearing in Armidale. (Trevor Smith)

Update VU staff vote down non-union Agreement, again Staff at Victoria University (VU) have again voted down a management proposal for a non-union Agreement. NTEU continues to apply pressure for movement in bargaining.

In late September 2018, NTEU applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a Protected Action Ballot Order (PABO) at VU. The application was objected to by management on the basis that NTEU was not genuinely trying to reach agreement and that exceptional circumstances existed that justified the extension of the notice period.

The ‘genuinely trying to reach agreement’ issue was agitated on the basis that we had not sufficiently put to VU the scope of the proposed Agreement vis-à-vis the inclusion of VET teachers. The ‘exceptional circumstances’ argument was put on the basis that VU’s new block mode first year delivery meant that any industrial action would have a disproportionate effect on VU’s ability to take defensive action.

However, the FWC was satisfied that NTEU had sufficiently put management on notice of our desire for one Agreement. In regards to the exceptional circumstances issue, the FWC found that the circumstances complained of must truly be ‘exceptional’ rather than just out of the ordinary.

Despite finding that the block mode teaching was out of the ordinary, it was not sufficiently so to satisfy the first limb of the test. With management’s objections rejected, the order was granted largely in the terms sought by the NTEU.

Turnout was high in the ballot and all actions were approved. The Union subsequently applied for an extension of the 30-day period in which to take industrial action. VU management objected to the application which resulted in the matter going to arbitration.

VU argued that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in taking the industrial action and therefore this should weigh against the FWC exercising its discretion in favour of the NTEU. It also said that such applications shouldn’t be used as a means to ‘mop up’ actions not taken within the 30-day timeframe.

The FWC agreed with the NTEU’s argument that the primary matter for the FWC’s consideration when exercising its discretion is whether the will or intent of employees to take industrial action had changed since the ballot. As the NTEU provided evidence that its members still intended to participate in the action, the application was granted.

Between late October 2018 and mid-December 2018, a further five meetings took place with little progress made. VU management announced it would again go to ballot with another non-union Agreement, with the ballot opening on 14 February and closing on 18 February. The ballot result saw 66.6% of staff voting NO to management’s proposal.

Negotiations resumed on 5 March, and the NTEU is still seeking movement from VU on a number of key issues, including: • The right of the Union to raise a dispute in its own right.

• Inclusion of a comprehensive managing change process.

• J ob security (forced redundancies as a last resort).

• The maintenance of current professional staff conditions, such as TOIL at overtime rates for HEW8.

Emma Barnes-Whelan, National Industrial Officer

Below: VU members voting at a meeting on campus.

(Rifai Abdul)

Members sought for academic time & motion study Participants are sought for a project to reassess the contemporary academic workload models.

Supported by a grant from the NTEU Griffith Branch, the study will be run by Inger Mewburn (ANU), Susan Mayson (Monash) and Karine Dupre (Griffith). They aim to collect their first round of data in April and May 2019.

They are looking for academics working in Australian universities at level C (Senior Lecturer) and D (Associate Professor) on the academic payscale who use a Mac (either laptop or desktop) to do the majority of their computer based work.

The research method will involve gathering ‘time and motion’ data, using a program which runs in the background of your computer as you work. This software can be adapted to track your time spent in various programs or websites, such as your email client. Data about time spent away from the keyboard, in meetings and teaching, can be easily added to this automatically captured data to create a holistic picture of how you spend your time at work.

The researchers hope to see how many hours people are actually working and how this does (or doesn’t) correspond with assumptions made in workload planning.

NTEU is sponsoring this research to inform our enterprise bargaining work around the country. This project is also being part funded by the developers of the ‘Timing’ app for Mac. The team are looking for expressions of interest in the project and its aims.

If you are interested, please fill out the form (link below) and one of the researchers will contact you to further explain the technical design of the project and its parameters.

Register your interest at: www.nteu.org.au/invisiblework See also: ‘Epidemic of invisible work’

by Inger Mewburn, p. 48.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 5

Update $100,000 settlement for English language teachers NTEU has finalised a settlement with Wingate Avenue Community Centre for almost $100,000 to cover an alleged underpayment of wages to 12 casually employed English language teachers.

Questions about the correct rate of pay arose when Union members found that their workload was substantially increased due to additional State Government compliance requirements. Their request to be paid more than a small end-of-term allowance for the work was refused.

Further investigation found that the casual teachers were only being paid a flat rate of $45 for one hour of face-to-face delivery of classes, which did not fully compensate them for administration, assessment and student consultation.

Union meetings were held after work in Ascot Vale at the nearest available meeting place – the aptly named Union Hotel, situated on Union Road! The meetings started out with just a few members and grew as word about the issue spread. There were lots of energetic discussions about the best way to represent their claims and how to frame responses to their employer.

The process for pursuing the claim also involved three separate dispute meetings with their employer and two conciliation meetings with all parties at the Fair Work Commission. Most of the teachers attended and spoke at one or more of these meetings which demonstrated to management and the Commission the depth of feeling about the issue.

In addition to back payments, final settlement included an agreement to pay casual teachers the equivalent of 1.5 hours for

Palace Papers campaign continues

The outcome is a vindication of the teachers’ concerns and of their collective demand for dignity and respect in the workplace. It was a long campaign yet everyone kept their spirits up throughout, including through some very difficult circumstances. Congratulations to Wingate teachers for standing up for your rights and winning an excellent outcome that will also protect these rights for future colleagues.

Serena O’Meley, Industrial Officer, Victorian Division

Above: NTEU members attend the Fair Work Commission to discuss their dispute. (Serena O’Meley) peal the latest court decision in the High Court of Australia.

Professor Hocking described the path to this point in the last issue of Advocate (vol. 25 no. 3, pp. 38–39). In November 2018, the legal team was launching an appeal on the original Federal Court decision to find that the papers were ‘personal’ and not ‘Commonwealth records’.

The theme of Professor Jenny Hocking’s presentation to NTEU National Council last year was ‘Sustainable campaigning’. Not environmental sustainability, but rather, how do you sustain a campaign over months or even years?

The campaign in question? Access to the ‘Palace Papers’: correspondence between the Queen and the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr relating to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government.

Professor Hocking has previously said, we cannot properly understand this part of Australian history – and the operation

each contact hour of teaching delivery.

Other duties, such as meeting attendance, training and performance appraisal, attract an additional hourly payment.

Most of the teachers are now employed in secure positions.

In February 2019, the majority of the Full Court dismissed the appeal in a split 2:1. In his dissenting judgement Justice Geoffrey Flick indicated that it would be ‘difficult to conceive of documents which are more clearly ‘Commonwealth records’ and documents which are not ‘personal property’, than the Palace letters. of our democracy – without having access to this information.

The next chapter in the campaign to gain access to the Palace Papers started this month with Professor Hocking filing an application for Special Leave to Ap-

page 6 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

The campaign continues.

Rachael Bahl, ACT Division Secretary Donations in support of this important legal challenge can be made at: chuffed.org/project/release-thepalace-letters-the-high-court-appeal

Update

A strike, a non-union ballot & a sausage ban at UC Following a half-day strike and a bizarre sausage ban, NTEU members at the University of Canberra (UC) have gone on strike for a full day. The strike coincided with UC Management attempting to bypass members and put their offer to an allstaff vote. Management badly underestimated the resolve of UC staff, who voted almost 3-to1 to reject their offer.

In the last edition of Advocate, I reported on the progress of the bargaining campaign at UC. NTEU members have been firm in their resolve that a new Agreement must value, support and respect UC staff.

That last article told how UC members had gone on a half-day strike, with a rally coinciding with a lunchtime barbecue.

We enjoyed plenty of support, despite UC management threatening that non-members having a sausage in their lunch break ‘may constitute [unlawful] participation’ and warning that ‘unlawful action attracts a minimum 4 hour pay deduction’.

We followed up Sausagegate (as it came to be called) with a members’ meeting on 25 October, which resolved to go ahead with a further full day strike on 1 November.

members. The UC Branch had not taken industrial action in more than a decade, and the one-sided nature of the result was a reward for their effort.

On 31 October, the day before the strike, UC Management announced that they were putting their offer to an all-staff vote. This was a move which came as little surprise to NTEU members at UC, and the local Branch was prepared.

Bargaining continues – we’ve already had an all-staff meeting this year and will have more. But the dynamic has changed.

Management – no doubt shocked by a result that insiders have told us they believed they would win – are now willing to discuss issues which we’d previously seen no movement on. It is a clear example that agreements are won by member involvement and campaigning. The negotiators at the bargaining table are there only to formalise results which are earned through the activity of union members.

Our strike soon became the beginning of our Vote NO campaign, with a vibrant mixture of purple ‘Strike Today’ and red ‘Vote NO’ signs. Members picketed three entrances at UC before marching into the university concourse. As luck would have it, senior UC Management (including Vice-Chancellor Deep Saini) were walking across the concourse as the march arrived.

Our members delighted in the opportunity to remind management, through vociferous chanting, that there is power in the Union.

In the week that followed the announcement of the ballot, NTEU members at UC stood up to be counted. They made phone calls, they talked to colleagues, they put posters up in their work areas – and plenty of new members joined the NTEU. There was an NTEU presence at UC Management briefings on their offer, and our members weren’t afraid to ask hard questions of the UC bargaining team.

When the voting period – a small Thursday to Sunday window – opened, our members knew what to do. A significant majority of staff voted, and of those 74.1 per cent voted to reject the UC Management offer.

While the strikes were empowering, it was the announcement of this overwhelming result on the Monday which underlined the significance of what we’d done to

Ultimately, this round of bargaining will be significant for the working conditions of UC members and also for the strength of the UC Branch. The UC Agreement was improved by the UC Management offer, and the strong rejection of the offer means that a final Agreement will improve upon that as well. While the pay and conditions will improve, it is the culture of the University where we are already seeing our biggest win.

UC has transformed from a university where myriad problems exist, but people were afraid to speak out, to a workplace where members are emboldened to not only identify problems but to demand change.

These problems won’t be fixed overnight, but as UC members come to realise the power they have built through their hard work, change is all but assured.

Lachlan Clohesy, ACT Division Organiser

Above: UC members supporting the Vote No campaign.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 7

Update Multi-party strategy reaps rewards NTEU members at the Institute of Continuing and TESOL Education at the University of Queensland (ICTE-UQ) have taken a stand against the one-size-fits-all plans by management.

We eventually won the following modifications for all ICTE staff: • ‘Hot desking’ was considerably reduced and desk sizes were more equitably assigned based on function not contractual status.

• Segregation of ‘casuals’ was reduced, helping maintain a positive workplace culture.

• Redefinition of architects’ plans also helped to create more meeting space, although difficulties in managing private conversations would remain.

ICTE-UQ is a leader in the field of TESOL and educational services both in Australia and overseas. It has just over 200 staff in total, with approximately 100 specialist TESOL staff.

For over 10 years, the Institute was housed in a purpose-built facility. However, in the first half of 2018, without much forewarning, University management emailed staff to announce that they would be moved to a part of an older building on campus, which would be renovated for ICTE’s needs… or so we thought.

Soon after, glitzy architect’s documents were distributed to staff, which clearly had been drawn up based on recently-drafted, generic space management guidelines. It was obvious that there had been little if

any accommodation of the specific functional needs of staff in various roles at the Institute and that the new space design would inhibit the ability of many staff to do their jobs.

The core issues with the plans were that: • Casual language teachers were assigned smaller ‘hot desks’. However, a significant number of those teachers are long-standing, full-time employees who work at least equivalent hours onsite to continuing language teachers. In fact, 50% of teaching is done by casuals.

Management’s mistake was to think ‘casual’ equals ‘part-time’.

• C ontinuing and casual language teachers were segregated into separate seating areas. Management did not understand that all language teachers work together as program teams irrespective of their contractual status.

Segregation was impractical and highly likely to denude the positive workplace culture at ICTE. • P rivate office and meeting space was significantly reduced. Managers who had offices before now wouldn’t, based on an arbitrary management position linking offices to pay grade. For example, the Director of Studies with responsibility over 100 teaching staff was now sitting in an open plan office where private conversations could not happen.

• U Q executive had become tone-deaf to concerns raised through the Institute Director and UQ’s management hierarchy.

Given that the renovations would establish our working space for possibly the next ten years, it was time to take action.

Non-partisan & collaborative strategy On the whole, this was a non-industrial attempt to shape our workplace, although significant logistical and advisory support was provided by the Union. A key part of this action was that it was not your classic ‘management’ versus ‘staff’ tussle. At no

page 8 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

time was this language used because the targeted concerns were shared by the majority who worked at ICTE-UQ. Similarly, although NTEU members at ICTE drove the bus, it was a conscious decision not to make any of our non-union colleagues feel alienated or not welcome to participate in the action.

The strategy was a team effort involving: 1. Initial meetings with NTEU reps open to all staff to decide on a plan of action.

2. Collective drafting and editing of a physical petition letter by all staff, including significant management support and input.

3. NTEU members circulating the petition to collect signatures from ICTE staff.

4. NTEU’s delivery of the petition under Union letterhead.

5. Follow-up meetings with the NTEU and staff concerning UQ’s responses.

The arguments for change in the petition letter were comprehensive in targeting the very real negative consequences of the existing plans which were backed by evidence. These overwhelming functional arguments resulted in 70% of ICTE staff signing the hard copy of the petition letter.

This exemplar in workplace organising demonstrates the power of tapping into collective concerns and turning that anger into action. It’s often said that a union is only as strong as its members. As our members in ICTE have shown, collective action can effect positive change to our workplace, without the reliance on industrial agreements or legal action.

What we achieved was democratic and inclusive – decisive action that targeted our specific needs and issues, drawing on the NTEU for advice and support.

Martin Dutton and Chris Vidal, ICTE-UQ

Below: ICTE-UQ teachers at a campaign meeting.

(Fiona Wiebusch)

Update

Flinders restructure a travesty

ments and reissued the proposals with further process flaws. The documents were again withdrawn and rewritten according to the terms of the Deed but with mistakes of substance. Further revisions were made but with no commensurate extension to consultation.

Flinders University is the epitome of mismanagement, symptomatic of a neoliberal corporate style, where the mission of a university has become largely irrelevant. An alleged ‘restructure’ was not only an egregious misuse of the public purse, but has seen significant loss of staff depth and wisdom and is disrupting classes across the university.

Over 200 concerned staff and students attended the December meeting of University Council. Three senior academics addressed the meeting with compelling arguments against the restructure. The Vice-Chancellor remained silent throughout and the Chancellor read a meaningless pre-prepared statement.

Replacing academics with teaching-only staff Late last year, NTEU notified a dispute over Flinders University management’s intention to spill upwards of 250 academic positions as part of a ‘restructure’. Affected staff were individually listed in the change proposals.

There was no real restructure but rather a poorly disguised attempt to replace current teaching/research academics with externally recruited teaching-only staff.

Affected staff were advised they could apply for the spilled teaching/research jobs or the new teaching-only or research ones but management reserved the right to not appoint them. The NTEU dispute overturned this flawed approach.

A Deed of Agreement defining industrially compliant change processes was made in the Fair Work Commission and this necessitated withdrawal of the original change proposals. Management made amend-

Staff & students protest

A voluntary redundancy round proceeded with a significant staff loss. Management will not release information on how many redundancies were made. There are now a significant number of academic vacancies moving to external advertisement. Classes are being cancelled because there are insufficient available staff. Academic workloads are unregulated and are the subject of a new NTEU dispute.

Disestablished It isn’t personal, I tell myself.

I dress my broken self with such placards, and wonder why They don’t soothe, nor make right, nor assuage this very personal pain.

Then it dawns on me what’s wrong.

It’s not whether it is personal or not, it’s their need to tell me it isn’t so.

It is their need to block out any understanding of what this means for each of us, to grasp what their actions are and own them.

Stanley Milgram was ahead of his time – put a white coat on an atrocity, or corporate slogans on a restructure – and each denies their own complicity in the acts that follow.

It isn’t personal, I tell you.

And it should be.

– Anonymous

This was a ‘growth’ restructure, so the costly and disruptive redundancies were entirely unnecessary.

Students protested at the University Council meeting on 14 March 2019, and were initially denied speaking rights, but persisted.

University management has now issued a draft Intellectual Freedom code that prohibits disruption and this will be the subject of further NTEU disputation.

Annie Buchecker, SA Division Industrial Officer

Above: Students and staff protested outside the Flinders University Council meeting, 14 March 2019.

(Dr Katerin Berniz) Right: Flinders Branch President Andrew Miller and SA WAC rep Darlene McNaughton. (Dr Katerin Berniz)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 9

Update Students march for their future On 15 March, thousands of Australian students joined hundreds of thousands of their peers across the world in the Global Climate Strike.

NTEU was proud to be a supporter and many NTEU members around the country joined in and supported these inspiring young campaigners. It was also a welcome development that several universities supported attendance at rallies by both staff and students.

The generation who will have to live with the effects of climate change are speaking out now demanding that governments around the world take climate action before it is too late; and finally their message is not going unheeded.

In acknowledging the international action by an astonishing array of the world’s young people, UN Secretary General António Guterres observed that “These schoolchildren have grasped something that seems to elude many of their elders… we are in a race for our lives, and we are losing. The window of opportunity is closing; we no longer have the luxury of time, and climate delay is almost as dangerous as climate denial.”

the young voters of the future on this issue. While the message is of frustration and anger, there is much to be hopeful about as we witness a new generation becoming politically aware and active.

MARCH

There could be few if any of the students who attended the rallies in capital cities and regional cities and towns, who were not aware of the power of their vote, and who were not determined to exercise it in support of their objectives as soon as they are able.

While the young people organising these marches do not yet have the power to vote, we do. In this election edition of the Advocate we rate the political parties on a range of policies, including their position on a net-zero carbon pollution target and we urge members to consider the parties’ positions prior to voting (see p. 26).

Gabe Gooding, National Asst Secretary

Images this page, from top: Global Climate Strike poster; NTEU members at the rally in Adelaide (Juliet Fuller); Students demonstrating loudly in Brisbane (Lachlan Hurse).

NTEU has a long-standing commitment to action on climate change and we welcome and encourage the activism of

page 10 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

15

In cities and towns

ACROSS Australia A Federal Election is around the corner, yet climate impacts are growing in intensity and our politicians won’t stop massive new fossil fuel project like Adani’s mine.

Join us on March 15 by taking the day off school, uni or work to show our politicians that we’re serious about climate change and they should be too.

#Climatestrike MORE INFO

schoolstrike4climate.com lstrike4climate.com schoo

Opposite page, clockwise from top: In Melbourne ‘Kids agree. We’re not stupid!’ (Toby Cotton); Boy in Perth with sign containing a Greta Thunberg quote (Eileen Glynn); Raise your voice in Hobart (Emma Gill); Generations at the Brisbane rally (Lachlan Hurse); NTEU members at the Sydney rally (N Clark).

Update

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 11

Update Sexual harassment is a workplace threat

Respondents who reported online harassment in the workplace said the most prevalent form was sexually explicit comments made in emails, texts, other messages or social media (women 6.57%, men 5.24%).

NTEU has used its submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in the Workplace to call for both regulatory and political change that would treat sexism and sexual harassment as a workplace threat.

Failure to deal with sexual harassment

The Union’s call is based on the findings of our survey on sexual harassment, sexism and gender bias, which found that just under one in five respondents had personally experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and just under 40% of all respondents said that they were aware of others who had been sexually harassed in their workplaces.

Forms of sexual harassment In the NTEU’s survey, almost twice as many women as men reported they had personally experienced sexual harassment, with the majority of incidents occurring ‘occasionally’. For both men and women the most common form of sexual harassment was sexually suggestive comments or jokes that made the person feel offended (women 36.69%, men 22.83%).

For women respondents, the next most common form was inappropriate staring or leering that made them feel intimidated (29.84%) and intrusive questions about their private life or physical appearance (27.13%). Over a quarter of women also reported unwelcome touching, hugging, kissing or cornering (25.41%), while 16.17% experienced inappropriate physical contact.

For men respondents, the second most common forms were equally unwelcome touching, hugging, kissing or cornering and intrusive questions about their private life or physical appearance (13.52%). Just under 1 in 10 (9.34%) reported inappropriate contact, and slightly fewer experienced intimidating staring or leering (8.05%).

Respondents also indicated that events outside the workplace but associated with their working life (such as conferences or social gatherings) were far more likely environments for sexual harassment.

Over 90% of respondents to the NTEU survey said they were aware or had familiarity with their university’s policy and complaints processes, leading to the question of why the current processes aren’t effectively dealing with the high levels of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The answer can be found in the extremely low rates of reporting, with the survey finding that only 3.25% of men and 5.64% of women respondents who had experienced sexual harassment made a formal complaint (and there were similar numbers for informal complaints).

When asked why they didn’t make a complaint, just under 45% of respondents said they thought people might think they over reacted – and another almost 40% said they didn’t think anything would be done. Around 38% didn’t have any trust in the process, with almost as many concerned that complaining would hurt their career prospects. Just under 19% were fearful of losing their jobs if they did complain about sexual harassment.

Disturbingly, of those who did complain, close to 60% were unhappy with the process and results of the complaints process. This dissatisfaction can be seen in the results reported by respondents – when asked, the majority (just under 40%) said that no action was taken, and almost as many (37%) said they were encouraged to drop the issue altogether.

Almost 34% reported that they were labelled as troublemakers or bullied for reporting, and another 30% said it had a negative impact on their careers.

Fourth national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces, and we support the AHRC’s findings that sexism, sexual harassment and assault, gender based discrimination and bias is not only both widespread and prevalent, but appears to be growing. This is despite universities having a plethora of policy and process around harassment and discrimination. Clearly, the current approaches are not effective.

The need for reform The survey results reinforce the Union’s view that the current approach of both employers and government, which views sexual harassment as a personal problem for the individual and not as a workplace hazard, is the primary reason we are failing on these issues.

The refusal by university managements to take sexual harassment as a serious concern in the workplace can be seen by the denial by all but four universities to allow staff who under confidentiality obligations in non-disclosure agreements to make a confidential submission to the Inquiry by the Commission.

Clearly, universities are more concerned with reputational risk than they are concerned about risks to the health and safety of staff in their workplaces.

As a result of our findings, the NTEU is using the Inquiry to lobby for legislative change, including within the Fair Work Act and Work, Health and Safety (WHS) Act, so that sexual harassment and assault, sexism and gender based bias are treated as industrial issues.

We are also calling for the Australian Government to sign on to the new ILO Convention on Violence and Harassment in the World of Work later this year, which specifically states that sexual harassment is a workplace issue and must be addressed by governments, employers, workers and their unions.

When asked who were they least comfortable discussing a complaint with, over half said university management, closely followed by their university human resources department. However, almost 70% said they would be comfortable speaking to their union.

Like the campaigns to ensure that bullying, harassment, racism and gender based violence in the workplace are treated as serious hazards, it is only by viewing sexual harassment and sexism as a broader industrial issue that we can hope to change attitudes in the workplace. Employers must treat these issues as serious workplace risks and take responsibility for ensuring that our workplaces are safe and free from threats of sexual harassment and gender based discrimination.

The NTEU’s findings correlate with that of the AHRC’s report Everyone’s business:

Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer

page 12 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Secure Jobs News

1512_NTEU_Casuals_Poster_1.pdf

1

16/03/2016

1512_NTEU_Casuals_Poster_2.pdf

3:11 pm

1

16/03/2016

3:11 pm

‘Change One Thing’ to support casual staff Advocacy for and with casual staff in tertiary education is gaining traction. There have already been some significant developments in NTEU, including the formation of a National Casuals Council, the ever-growing SuperCasuals campaign and the launch of the University of Queensland’s (UQ) Charter of Casual Rights. These are important strides and the increased focus on casual issues is heartening, however we still have a ways to go.

Casual staff face many challenges including (but certainly not limited to) insufficient access to resources, delayed organisation of employment contracts, insufficient or delayed payment for work (or non-payment), and exclusion from decision making, meetings and university events.

As highlighted by UQ’s Charter of Casual Rights, there is also a lack of respect for casual employees’ knowledge, labour and needs that hinders their ability to work effectively in a supportive work environment. These problems are indicative of broader structural conditions which foster precarity by favouring casual and short-term appointments over continuing, secure employment. This is but one area that has been shaped by the rise of neoliberalism in higher education.

1512_NTEU_Casuals_Poster_3.pdf

1

16/03/2016

3:10 pm

While there is no doubt that the rise of precarious employment in tertiary education is a structural issue, the challenges described by casual staff illustrate that the effects of casualisation are experienced on an everyday level. Given this, I think we need to consider how these effects might be challenged on a micro level by those who employ or manage casual staff while continuing to work for structural change.

In particular, I would like to see a focus on tangible, everyday actions continuing staff can do to support casuals, while remaining mindful that continuing staff are also likely to be constrained by the same structures that affect casuals. This is not a call to place undue burden or blame on any staff, but rather an observation that while many ‘stand with casuals’, we do not necessarily know what ‘doings’ might best support this stance.

A comprehensive list of supportive actions was put together by a working group assembled by The Australian Sociological Association (TASA). The working document in response to contingent labour in academia was published in 2017, and highlighted seven main areas through which continuing staff could address challenges experienced by precariously employed staff1. These avenues of building support include: 1. Developing equitable and efficient employment processes.

2. Being clear about expectations.

3. Providing access to necessary resources.

4. Communication.

5. Offering professional development.

6. Building community.

7. Recognising the contributions and expertise of contingent academics.

For each avenue of building support, the working committee have included small, tangible actions that work towards bettering the everyday experiences of precarious staff. For instance, one element

of developing equitable and efficient employment processes is “Providing contingent staff with information about their rights, responsibilities, and university/ disciplinary/individual supervisor expectations. This includes encouraging staff to join the NTEU”.

Part of being clear about expectations is clarifying whether tutors and markers are expected to attend lectures or develop teaching materials. Communication might entail including contingent staff on mailing lists. Some of these actions might seem unnecessary or assumed, but casual testimonies indicate that the existence of these supports cannot be expected and their absence significantly impacts on the working lives of casual staff.

While no staff member can or should be expected to tackle every action on the list, the working group encourages a commitment to change ‘just one thing’ about the way our institutions interact with precarious staff.

The working group’s report focussed specifically on precarious academic staff, but many of the suggested actions relate to both academic and professional casual staff. These recommendations (or others developed in conversation with casuals at your institution) should by no means take the place of activism and campaigning against casualisation and for casual rights.

But while we are engaging in the fight against increased casualisation and the structures underpinning it, we might also consider how we could ‘change one thing’ on a micro scale to better the experiences of casuals in the meantime.

Zoei Sutton, Flinders University Branch Committee Member (Casual Staff) 1. https://tasa.org.au/blog/2017/01/12/ tasa-working-document-responses-contingent-labour-academia/ “I Stand With Casuals” posters: unicasual.org.au/resources/ istandwithcasuals

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 13

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News Local A&TSI Forums an opportunity for members to get more involved Each year, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) members from across the country get together in a series of Division A&TSI Forums to network and discuss business on campus.

Run between the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Unit, the A&TSI Policy Committee and the various Divisions, the Forums give an opportunity to not only ensure A&TSI members are heard at all levels of the Union but also to bring local members together with the leadership

and staff across the country to promote advocacy and networking.

The Division Forums are designed to feed into the National A&TSI Forum – to be held this year in June – taking motions and debates about poignant issues at a local level to the National level. Business from the National Forum then forms the motions that are taken to NTEU National Council each year.

In addition to this though, Division Forums give the opportunity for members at campuses across the state or territory – in particular those who hold elected positions – to gain strength from collaboration with their fellow members and office bearers.

The opportunity to have these discussions at a local level not only acknowledges that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in different communities have different needs but also ensures that these experiences are incorporated into the work the Union does nationally.

NTEU has long had a commitment to A&TSI business being union business. Part of this commitment recognises that each community is different and therefore the needs and issues at one campus do not necessarily impact A&TSI staff working in other communities. It allows the Union additionally to engage in local campaigns

National A&TSI Unit to increase campus visits Finally, as part of the NTEU National Council 2018, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Unit will be undertaking a round of campus visits in 2019.

Some of these will happen in conjunction with the Division Forum trips and others will be held from August onwards. These visits will incorporate everything from members’ meetings to seminars and to NTEU information sessions.

All A&TSI members will be updated on these visits where relevant and are encouraged to also contact the National A&TSI Unit if they are interested in assisting at their local Branch.

Adam Frogley, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Coordinator

page 14 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

– whether they’re workplace issues or broader social justice campaigns. Finally though, it helps to break down some barriers between NTEU staff and local members, so members know their representatives and their support staff and feel confident approaching them when needed.

The Division Forums this year will start in April, with SA Division followed by NT Division kicking off proceedings. As of early April, the Division Forum dates are: South Australia

10 April

Northern Territory 16 April Tasmania

7 May

Queensland

17 May

Western Australia

5 June

NSW

12 June

ACT

Wk beginning 1 July

Victoria

TBA

More information for those interested will be posted online. Members should also expect to receive an invitation from their Division containing the date of their local forum and the RSVP date.

Celeste Liddle, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Organiser

Below: NSW Division A&TSI Forum 2018

Federal Election 2019 Welcome to the Advocate’s 20 page Federal Election special feature, where we take a close look at the issues we believe are most significant for our members.

Higher education policy

Economic management

Paul Kniest looks at the key issues affecting higher education policy (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it’s not much different to the last election…).

Jim Stanford from the Centre for Future Work looks at the key economic issues facing the country, pointing out that Australia’s recent economic performance has been ‘downright mediocre’.

As for past Federal Elections, we contacted the main political parties – the Liberal/ National Coalition, the Australian Labor Party and the Greens – and sought their views on a range of issues in order to compile scorecards on a range of the most important topics.

Paul Kniest also looks at the significant cuts to block research grants over the last four years, as well as a tongue-in-cheek analysis of the pre-election policy submission season.

We also asked each of the parties to provide a statement about their specific policies on higher education. Unfortunately, the Coalition did not respond. We have completed the Coalition’s scores based on its known existing policies, where possible.

Here is a run down of the issues we cover in this special feature.

Industrial relations Ken McAlpine examines industrial relations policies, how the momentum-building ACTU campaign to Change the Rules has made this an important election issue, and what are the rules that need changing for NTEU members.

And while the Government may have frozen the level of CSP funding, that has not stopped it engaging in some good old fashioned pork-barrelling.

Research policy

Meanwhile, Joy Damousi discusses the Coalition’s interference in ARC grants.

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander policy Celeste Liddle outlines the reasons why the Government’s Community Development Program is so hated by Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) communities and must be abolished, as well as looking at higher education issues affecting A&TSI people.

Climate change & energy Michael Evans provides an overview of the parties’ policies on climate change and energy, and why these issues will be significant at this election.

Students’ views Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) President, Natasha Abrahams and Desiree Cai, President of the National Union of Students (NUS) present their unions’ election wishlists.

Member candidates We profile NTEU members that are standing as candidates in this election.

Defenders of Tertiary Education And finally, we feature the sitting politicians and candidates who have signed up to the NTEU’s Defender of Tertiary Education pledge. An initiative we first introduced for the 2016 Federal Election, it seeks specific commitments from candidates to support key principles and issues affecting tertiary education and the people who work in the sector.

We hope you find our special feature informative and useful for when you get to exercise your democratic right to help determine Australia’s future direction.

Above: Australian Coat of Arms, Canberra. (Paul Clifton)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 15

Federal Election 2019

Changing the rules on industrial relations For the first time since the 2007 election, when voters comprehensively rejected John Howard’s WorkChoices regime, industrial relations policies will be centrestage in a Federal Election.

Credit for this in large part goes to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which has focused concerns about inequality, insecure work and unfair laws into the Change the Rules campaign.

A little history In 2004, the Liberal National Party (LNP) Coalition introduced WorkChoices, which allowed employers to use individual contracts to undermine award conditions.

WorkChoices abolished award protections for new workers, wound back protections against unfair dismissal laws and weakened union rights.

Labor defeated the Coalition in 2007, in part due to a campaign by unions to abolish WorkChoices. It restored award protections, most protections against unfair dismissal, and abolished the statutory individual contracts called Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). These were important gains.

However, Labor’s Fair Work Act retained many of the provisions which undermined employees’ rights .The NTEU warned its members at the time that the Fair Work Act would be no friend of union members.

Why NTEU members need the rules to change Forty years of steady deterioration in the rights of employees has had a real impact on the lives of many workers, including those in tertiary education. We have seen: • Growth in insecure employment – casual and fixed term employment, sham redundancies and contracting-out.

• P rofits steadily growing but wages stagnating, with penalty rates cut in many industries.

• The gap in pay between men and women barely contract in the past 25 years.

• U nregulated excessive hours of work for many while others remain unemployed.

• G rowing and more blatant wage theft, especially against the most vulnerable.

Industrial relations ‘reforms’ have been important in pushing these changes. For example: • Most disputes cannot be arbitrated.

• T he right-to-strike has been wound back by restrictions about how, when and why workers can take industrial action, and industrial action is not per-

page 16 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

mitted to threaten the ‘welfare’ of any part of the population.

• E nterprise Agreements can be terminated by employers as a weapon during bargaining, and there are many restrictions on what can be included in Enterprise Agreements.

• Workers cannot bargain at an industry level.

• T he minimum wage has been allowed to run down, and for skilled and professional employees, award rates of pay have been run down to the point of irrelevance.

Labor offers important changes Labor responded to the NTEU’s questionnaire. Importantly, it has said: Labor it will announce more workplace relations policies prior to the election.

Policies will be progressively uploaded on the ALP website (alp.org.au).

NTEU members will remember that Murdoch University used the law to have its Agreement terminated during bargaining, depriving all staff of important conditions.

Labor has promised to change the law to no longer allow the unilateral termination of an Agreement. In its response, Labor also states: Labor in government would focus on dealing with issues of increasing job insecurity, casualisation and low wages growth.

Industrial relations policy d Scorecar Although Labor’s plans are, at the time of writing, not explained in detail, they should be very welcome in higher education and VET, where a clear majority of employees are in insecure work.

Bill Shorten has also given general support for adjusting the minimum wage above poverty levels. Labor has also promised to introduce ‘same job, same pay’ protections to stop work being contracted out as a means of cutting pay, and to restore cuts to weekend penalty rates.

Labor has as yet made no commitments to restore the rights of union members to take industrial action or to allow industry-level bargaining, however it may do so closer to the election.

Greens policies mostly announced If Labor wins the election, the presence of the Greens, especially in the Senate, will be important for industrial relations changes.

The Greens have already announced a summary of their policies. These include: • Removing the right to terminate agreements as a bargaining tactic.

• A legislated presumption in favour of secure employment.

• Support for employees being able to bargain at whatever level they wish.

• The law to provide a right of unions to organise and represent employees.

• Workers should have the right to engage in industrial action, including the right to strike, consistent with international law and not limited to artificially restricted bargaining periods. Legislation banning secondary boycotts and strike action should be repealed.

#1: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Policy

Remove the right of employers to terminate enterprise agreements as a bargaining tactic

✖

✔

✔

Legislative action to reduce the use of insecure casual & fixed term employment

✖

✔

✔

Establish the right to strike in line with Australia’s ILO treaty obligations

✖

?

✔

Allow unions to bargain & take industrial action at the level they choose: enterprise, industry or supply-chain

✖

?

✔

• W orkers should be free to determine what matters relevant to their social, economic and environmental interests they want to bargain about

Silence from the Coalition The Coalition did not respond to our invitation to put its case directly to NTEU members, and has not yet made any promises to change IR laws. The fairest thing therefore, is to look at their record in Government.

The Liberal Party website currently lists achievements in Government on industrial relations, under the heading ‘Tackling Union Lawlessness’. These include: The Australian Building and Construction Commission has been restored to protect 1.1 million employees and 350,000 small businesses and tradies in the building industry from CFMMEU lawlessness.

The construction union protects workers in one of the most dangerous industries, and its militancy in protecting safety and

gaining pay rises has long made it a target of anti-union ideologues. Much of the ‘lawlessness’ to which the Government refers is the exercise of basic union rights: Around 35,000 owner-operator truck drivers were saved from a hostile union takeover, with the abolition of the so-called ‘Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal’ established by Bill Shorten.

This Tribunal found that many trucking companies could only be profitable by forcing drivers to work unsafely, endangering themselves and the public. The Tribunal had established minimum safe trucking rates to avoid this, but was abolished by the LNP. At a more general level, the LNP has been careful in recent years to avoid talk of further ‘reforms’ given the public memory of WorkChoices.

Ken McAlpine, Education & Training Officer

Below: NTEU members at the Change the Rules rally in Melbourne, October 2018. (Paul Clifton)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 17

Federal Election 2019

Freedom, funding and fees For the NTEU, the major issues on higher education policy in this election are academic freedom, funding levels and students fees.

Autonomy & academic freedom Institutional autonomy and academic freedom at our universities has not only come under threat with the offer of the Ramsay foundation to partner with universities in the development and offering of a degree in Western civilisation but also by the Government caving into howls of protest about the need to protect free speech in our universities.

Without going into the merits or need for a ‘great books’ degree to be offered by our universities, the Ramsay proposals undermine institutional autonomy and academic freedom by having and external funding partner having a say in both curriculum and staffing.

Despite institutional assurance that all of the appropriate policies and procedures would be followed while discussion are held in secret, the outcome at the University of Wollongong put a lie to that guarantee. The Vice-Chancellor at Wollongong used his authority to short-cut the course approvals process by effectively cutting the University’s Academic Senate out of the picture. On Wednesday 20 March, the

Senate objected with a vote of 28 to 16 to the Vice-Chancellor’s use of the fast-track approval. It also voted unanimously to review the use of the fast-track approval in the future. University management have indicated they do not believe that the Senate’s objection has any direct impact on the partnership between the University of Wollongong and the Ramsay Centre.

NTEU considers the Government’s decision to appoint Justice Robert French to undertake a review of academic freedom and free speech to be an example of a government in search of a policy solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist. The LNP’s response seems to be an effort to placate the concerns of conservative think tanks, especially the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), that raised concerns about student protests against conservative speakers, including Bettina Arndt, on campuses around the country.

The ALP and Green’s do not believe there is a crisis of free speech on our university campuses.

Higher education funding There have been considerable cuts to public investment in our universities, TAFEs and research over the last decade from governments of both political persuasions.

A full analysis of the extent and composition of these cuts can be found in the NTEU’s 2019-20 Pre-Budget Submission.

page 18 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Therefore, the LNP’s decision to freeze the level of funding that each university receives for Commonwealth supported student places continues an increasingly common theme of government’s seeing higher education as the go-to policy area when in search of significant budgetary savings.

The current Government claims that in spite of its decision to freeze the level of Commonwealth supported place (CSP) funding for each university at 2017 levels, it will continue to invest record levels of public investment in our universities.

While this might be strictly accurate it is important to understand that the Government’s own Budget papers show the freeze will deliver the Government in excess of $2 billion in budgetary savings over four years. Therefore, the ‘freeze’ represents a massive cut in public investment.

(See Pork-Barrelling 101, p. 20) Both the ALP and the Greens are committed to reversing the funding freeze and reinstalling the demand driven system.

The ALP is also committed to introducing three-year funding contracts. While the ALP is guaranteeing an increase in funding per CSP as a consequence of reversing the Government’s funding freeze, the Greens are promising to go one step further and increase the level of real funding per CSP by 10%. The Greens have also indicated they will tie some of that increased funding to reduced reliance on insecure employment.

Higher education funding Student fees and debt

d Scorecar

As at January 2019, the total level of outstanding Higher Education Loans Program (HELP) debt in Australia was $62 billion – a fivefold increase since 2005-06 when it was about $12 billion. Over that period, the average level of debt has more than doubled increasing from $10,477 to $21,557. The most recent data also show that there were more than 200,000 people with debts in excess of $50,000.

The LNP’s response to this increasing level of debt is to make students repay their debt sooner and faster, by reducing the income threshold from which students need to start repaying debts from about $55,000 p.a. to $45,000 and capping the lifelong loan limit to just in excess of $100,000. The rapidly increasing level of HELP debt is not only a function of increasing student numbers but also very much a function of the level of tuition fees Australian students pay to attend university. The evidence shows that Australian students pay amongst the highest fees in the world to attend a public university.

The only reason that we do not have fully deregulated university fees and $100,000 degrees in Australia right now is because the Government failed to get support for its policies in the Senate, due in great part to a concerted campaign by NTEU. One only wonders what the trajectory of HELP debt would have been had the Government been successful in deregulating fees.

The Greens policy is to eliminate tuition fees for all undergraduate and vocational education training courses, which will also address rising HELP debt levels. Labor says it “believes that it is reasonable for students to make a contribution toward the cost of their degree.” They also point out that they “fought hard in the Parliament to stop the Liberal’s attempts to Americanise our universities and introduce $100,000 degrees.” They promise to “waive upfront fees for 100,000 students to attend TAFE.”

#2: Higher Education Policy

Guaranteeing university autonomy and academic freedom

✖

✔

✔

Reversing the funding freeze on CSPs

✖

✔

✔

Increasing real level of public investment per CSP

✖

✔

✔

Abolishing tuition fees for CSPs

✖

✖

✔

The release of LNP’s population policy, which gave great weight to encouraging migrants to settle in regional Australia, included 4,720 annual $15,000 Destination Australia scholarships over the next four years for students studying at a regional campus of a university or VET provider. It has been reported that the scholarships will be available to both international and Australian students, but no other detail has been provided. International students will also be eligible to apply for an additional 12 months to their Temporary Graduate Visa.

2019 Federal Budget As anticipated, the Government did not use its improved bottom line to reverse the freeze on university funding or restore demand driven funding, let alone deliver a significant boost to public investment in higher education. The Budget includes a number of highly targeted funding initiatives including $60 million for a Tropical Enterprise Centre at JCU, $5 million for University of Melbourne underground physics lab at Stawell, $25 million for Harry Butler environment Centre at Murdoch, $10 million for Dementia Centre of Excellence at Curtin as well as money for CSU, Newcastle, Monash and WSU. The Budget also including the new Destination Australia ($94 million) policy as

well as $72 million to remit the HELP debt incurred for recognised teaching qualifications who teach for a minimum of four years in very remote schools and support for gender equity in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) by committing $3.4 million to extend the Science in Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) program.

VET The Budget included the Government’s response to the review of VET undertaken

by Steven Joyce, former NZ National Party Minister. While the Government is yet to release Joyce’s report, its response is called the Delivering Skills for Today and Tomorrow (DSTT) package. According to the Budget papers the package includes a total of $525.3 million over five years from 2018-19 much of which will be used to provide additional subsides to employing apprentices in trades where there are identified skills shortage.

Any new funding in VET funding needs to be put in context given the billions of dollars in cuts to public investment in VET, as outlined in some detail in the NTEU’s Budget submission.

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator

Below: University of Melbourne. (Paul Clifton)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 19

Federal Election 2019 Pork-Barrelling 101

3.9 3.4 3.3

Bendigo (Vic) Chisholm (Vic) Perth (WA)

2.9 2.3 2.2

Eden-Monaro (NSW) Isaacs (Vic) Macquarie (NSW)

1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1

Braddon (Tas) Griffith (Qld) Dunkley (Vic) Macnamara (Vic) Wentworth (NSW) Lindsay (NSW)

4

2

1

3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3

2

Boothby (SA) Page (NSW) Hasluck (WA) Dickson (Qld)

2.8 2.3 2.1 2.0

Petrie (Qld) Banks (NSW) Robertson (NSW) Flynn (Qld)

1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0

1

ore

ico

rni

a (Q

(NS

ld)

ld)

W)

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.1

0.1 Herbert (Qld)

A) (W

Gilm

Cap r

e (Q

0.7

an Cow

3

Pearce (WA) Swan (WA) La Trobe (Vic) Bonner (Qld) Dawson (Qld)

P e rc e t a g e n Sw i n g

Vic)

0.8

4.7 4.6 4.5 4.0

4

3

Qld) an (

gm Lon

Reid (NSW) Cowper (NSW) Casey (Vic) Leichhardt (Qld)

Ford

The LNP has clearly abandoned the demand driven system in favour of a marginal vote driven funding system for the allocation of CSPs. As if this wasn’t bad enough, it should also be pointed out that these additional votes are being bought at the expense of research block grant funding which has been cut to pay for the additional places.

Wills (Vic) Dobell (NSW) Hotham (Vic) Indi (Vic) Lyons (Tas) Moreton (Qld) Richmond (NSW)

5

Corangamite (Vic)

While this is being sold as a boost to the regions, the allocation of the additional places corresponds very closely with highly marginal LNP held seats including Petrie (1.6%) and Dickson (2%) in Brisbane’s northern suburbs, Robertson (1.2%) on the NSW central coast, Page (2.3%) on the NSW north coast, Capricornia (0.63%) on the Queensland central coast, and La Trobe (3.2%) in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne.

4.9 4.8 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0

er (

In the 2018-19 Budget it allocated $124 million for additional places for the University of the Sunshine Coast’s (USC) Moreton Bay campus, UTAS Burnie and Launceston campuses, and Southern Cross University. Since then the Government has announced even more for additional places (at a cost of $94 million over 5 years) for Federation University’s Berwick campus, USC’s Caboolture and Fraser Coast campuses, Newcastle’s Central Coast Medical school, CQU and JCU.

5

Coo p

Since the imposition of the freeze, the Government has announced funding for additional CSPs for selected universities.

Electorates with a university campus Local campus received additional funding Nearby campus received additional funding

ALP held electorates Coalition held electorates Independent held electorates

0.6

While the Government has frozen the level of CSP funding, this has not stopped it engaging in some good old fashioned pork-barrelling.

Figure 1: Additional CSP funding mapped to the current electoral pendulum

page 20 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Research policy

Research slashed d Scorecar NTEU’s analysis shows that since May 2018, the Turnbull-Morrison Government has slashed research block grants by more than $328 million over four years.

In addition to these cuts to block grants, the data also shows that the value of competitive research grants (primarily Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)) grants also declined from $1.64 billion to $1.39 billion between 2014 and 216 – a fall of 15%.

The decline in competitive grants has partially been offset by an increase to more targeted, including commercially focused and applied research grants. The Government has however, established the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) with initial capital of $20 billion with $1.4 billion to be spent over the first five years. MRFF is not administered by NHMRC funding and is overseen by the Australian Medical Research Advisory Board.

According to the Times Higher Education, grants worth more than half of the $1.4 billion of the available funding have been announced since February this year. It has been suggested that Health Minister Greg Hunt’s captain’s picks (not following NHMRC competitive grants processes) have been allocated to pet projects, which strongly suggest more pork-barrelling?

#3: Research Policy

Reversing the freeze on research block grants

✖

?

✔

Increasing the value of ARC grants

✖

✔

✔

Removing the Minister’s power of veto over ARC competitive grants

✖

✖

✔

Should the ALP win government, they have indicated they will maintain the real value of ARC grants but in addition have asked Professor Ian Chubb to chair a thorough review of Australia’s research sector including the levels and composition of funding. The Greens have indicated they support both reversing the funding freeze on research block grants as well as increasing ARC grants.

Political interference The other emerging issue in relation to university grants arose when it was revealed in Senate estimates hearings in October 2018 that the former Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, used Ministerial discretion to veto eleven grants that the ARC had recommended for funding. Birmingham had no intention of making his decisions or the reasons for doing so public.

As a response the Government (Minister Tehan) moved to include a so-called National Interest Test (NIT) for all future ARC grants. Tehan has also said an LNP Government will publish details of any grants rejected by the Minister. (See ‘Protecting the National Interest’, p. 23)

Labor have said that in order to maintain the integrity of the ARC process, they will legislate a requirement that Ministers must table an explanation in Parliament within 15 sitting days of rejecting any recommendation for funding by the ARC. Labor are also committed to legislate to add an Australian version of the Haldane principle – that politicians should not interfere in peer review grant processes – into the ARC Act. Labor will abolished the NIT. In a speech to deputy VCs with responsibility for research, Labor Senator Kim Carr is reported to have said that, while the ALP was still finalising its research polices, he was keen for Labor to commit to restoring the $3.9 billion Education Investment Fund, restoring the link between ERA results and research funding and was sympathetic for providing better R&D tax incentives for business research collaborations with universities.

The Greens support the NTEU’s position which is to remove the Minister’s power of veto over ARC grants.

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator

(Image: Grzegorz Skaradziński)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 21

Federal Election 2019

Pre-election policy submission season When asked by comedian Jerry Seinfeld in 2015 what sport is most comparable to politics, Barack Obama answered: “It’s probably most like football, because of a lot of players, a lot of specialisation, a lot of hitting... a lot of attrition.

But then every once in a while, you’ll see an opening.” 1 The football analogy is very apt in relation to the upcoming Federal Election especially when it comes to higher education policy.

The Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Government is like the team who has had very few wins on the higher education field over the last two election seasons. Indeed, Team Coalition has suffered a number of record breaking and humiliating defeats (who can forget coach Pyne’s “I’m a fixer” press conference?) in ultimately failing to introduce a radical new, deregulatory, strategy.

Taking it one day at a time Rather than admitting that its overall strategy is wrong and that education is far too important to be left to the market, Team Coalition has decided to place the blame for its atrocious results on its players. While it has sacked two coaches (Pyne and Birmingham) it has doubled down on its mean and lean strategy by putting all players on a strict diet (funding freeze) followed by a long and exhausting pre-election season of policy reviews.

For the higher education sector, including the NTEU, the first two months of 2019 has been an endless and exhausting round of policy reviews. This pre-election policy submission season, leading into the 2019 Federal election, began with a review of Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector officiated over by the former New Zealand National Party Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, Steven Joyce. Known as Mr Fixit (and therefore sharing a moniker akin to our own Christopher Pyne), Joyce presided over substantial cuts to TAFE funding in New Zealand. Sandra Grey, former President of NZ Tertiary Education Union has described

Above: Practice match between Collingwood and Melbourne prior to the 2018 AFLW season. (DustyNail/Wikimedia) Joyce’s time as minister as a “real disaster” noting that “the real cost of his cuts is a $3 billion shortfall over 10 years”.2 The opening pre-season game therefore was the equivalent of the Antipodean VET funding cutting championships.

NTEU’s submission to the Joyce Review emphasised the importance of looking at the big picture issues in relation to VET, including developing a consistent and coherent funding and regulatory framework which would cover both higher education and VET. We felt that a review of VET would be meaningless unless it focused on: • Q uestioning whether the philosophy and pedagogy of the existing narrow occupation focused competency based training is still fit for purpose, and • Examining how to replace the existing market based contestable funding and regulatory framework with a wellplanned public accountability framework.

Finals season The pre-season opener was followed by the all team pre-budget submission round, where teams from all over Australia in all divisions are invited to participate in what is effectively a knock-out competition. The final this year has been brought forward, with the winners to be announced in the Budget on Tuesday 2 April. We used our submission to this round to emphasise the need to: • Develop a coherent funding and regulatory framework to cover the whole of tertiary education.

• Increase public investment in both learning and teaching and research.

• Increase public investment in VET. • Reduce student fees and debt.

• Reduce the reliance on insecure employment at our universities.

page 22 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

These two opening rounds of reviews and submissions were followed by a tight schedule (over the period February and the first half of March) of more selective reviews and submissions into: • R egional Education Strategy (Dr Denise Napthine).

• Performance Based Funding (Prof Paul Wellings).

• A cademic Freedom and Freedom of Speech (Justice Robert French).

• Provider Classification Standards (Prof Peter Coaldrake).

• Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (Peter Noonan).

From the NTEU’s submissions point of view the key issues in regional education review were reversing the current funding freeze and improving student income support for students from regional and remote areas that need to leave home to study.

In the performance based funding review our primary focus was to support the development of a broad based public accountability framework, rather than the narrow outcomes based performance fund being proposed. Our approach to the Provider Classification review was based on defending the notion that universities are autonomous teaching and research institutions, noting that the introduction of teaching only universities, as is being contemplated would be very much an own goal. In our submission to the AQF we very much cautioned that attempts to further tighten up some of the rules had the real danger of compromising institutional autonomy for our universities.

The preseason was capped by NTEU’s participation in the Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in the Workplace being conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Our submission included data from a survey of NTEU members that

Research policy confirmed that sexism, sexual harassment and assault, gender-based discrimination and bias is not only both widespread and prevalent but appears to be growing. This is despite universities having a plethora of policy and process around harassment and discrimination. Clearly, current approaches are not effective.

Performance indicators So now that the higher education election pre-season has largely been run and done, the question is whether it will improve the Government’s higher education performance when it comes to the main competition, the 2019 Federal election. To date there is very little evidence that this is will be the case. It seems the Government may have left its best (albeit ineffective) efforts on the training paddock.

All the evidence so far is that the Government will use a small target strategy when it comes to higher education. This includes a good dose of old fashioned (small scale) pork-barrelling as they provide funding for additional Commonwealth supported places at selected regional and outer metro campuses which just happened to be located in or near marginally held LNP electorates (see p. 20) and the announcement of 4,270 $15,000 per annum scholarships for students (both domestic and overseas) attending regional universities, TAFE or other provider regional campuses as well as adding 12 months to the temporary post-study visas of overseas students who studied at regional campuses.

There may yet be some highly targeted announcements in relation to performance funding in the Budget, but we are not anticipating a significant increase in the level of public investment in higher education, VET or research under this LNP Government, despite their claims of an improving economy and improved Budget position.

It will also be interesting to see whether the Government makes any announcements in relation to free speech on campus, especially given the review was clearly designed to placate conservative think tanks – Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) – and other commentators seeking greater protection of speakers with controversial (and what many would consider to be politically incorrect) views.

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator 1. Peter Jacobs (January 2016), ‘Obama has a great explanation for why politics is like football’, Business Insider.

2. Alice Workman (29 November 2018), ‘A New Zealand Politician Who Left A $3 Billion Hole In TAFE Funding Running Australia’s Skills Review’, Buzzfeed.

Protecting the national interest?

In October 2018, the Australian research and academic community was angered by the revelation that former Minister for Education & Training, Simon Birmingham, vetoed eleven Australian Research Council (ARC) grants.

All grants had been recommended for funding following a rigorous peer-review process. The Minister did not provide reasons for his secret intervention, which resulted in a cut of $4.1 million to grants in the humanities. Academics are rarely united as one, but social media was filled with statements from more than a dozen peak professional associations, and staunch public pronouncements by five Vice-Chancellors, all four Learned Academies and Universities Australia – to name a few – who were unanimous in their condemnation. Why did the research community respond in such a highly public and united way? Birmingham’s decision to exercise his right to veto grants, and to do so by stealth and without providing robust academic reasons, severely undermines the independent and rigorous peer-review assessment of applications for funding.

In response to Birmingham’s actions, current Minster Dan Tehan, agreed to introduce a new system whereby applicants would be made aware if a minister vetoed their application. A further provision, the so-called ‘national interest test’, would also be introduced, requiring applicants to demonstrate that their research meets the ‘national interest’. It remains unclear how this will differ from existing national benefit and impact statements applicants are already required to provide.

The introduction of a ‘national interest test’ in research needs to be ferociously scrutinised for three fundamental reasons. First, there are fears that such a test will further damage the outstanding peer-assessment process already in place.

If research is undertaken to satisfy a politically defined ‘national interest test’, this is not research at all. Research on topics such as climate change, gender politics, sexuality, or Indigenous rights that do not align with the ruling political party of the day could easily be dismissed as not in the national interest.

Progressive movements for social change over the past century or more have at

some point been dismissed as not in the ‘national interest’. The right of Indigenous communities to land rights, to human rights, to not have their children stolen from them, to be voting citizens have, at different times in Australia’s history, been dismissed as not in the ‘national interest’. Women’s right to vote, to equal pay, to abortion, to keep working after marriage have over decades been seen in some quarters as a threat to contemporary understandings of ‘the national interest’. Social reforms are invariably introduced when movements challenge the very perception of the ‘national interest’ of the day.

Second, the highest quality research questions orthodoxy, challenges conventional approaches and methods, and introduces new and innovative ways of addressing a problem or problems. It opens our eyes to new ways of seeing. In order for these possibilities to be fully explored, the results of such research may not be immediate or instant, but in fact may take decades for the benefits to be seen or be made transparent. If research grants are judged through a utilitarian and short-term focus on a present definition of ‘national interest’, it will not allow what researchers often need: to take the long-term view of how research is conducted and the time it can take to have an impact.

Finally, researchers engage on the world stage and internationally. Scholars work within a global community, which has enormous benefits to Australia, both to international collaboration and to the field of study to which they contribute. The best research thrives in this environment and extends knowledge nationally and internationally. If we look only to a ‘national interest’, it could force a narrowing of focus and research, which is inward-looking and parochial.

The broader issue at stake is the type of nation we want to be in the future and how our most outstanding and talented researchers will take us there. If the research community is asked to define what it does through a lens mediated by the political interest of the day, it will not only prohibit imaginative, original, creative, dynamic, and transformative research, but it will create the conditions where intellectual conformity, compliance, and orthodoxy are rewarded. This dangerous and treacherous precedent should be anathema not only to the research community but to all Australians.

Joy Damousi, University of Melbourne This is a slightly abridged version of an article first published in the Australian Book Review, Dec 2018, no. 407. www.australianbookreview.com.au

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 23

Federal Election 2019

CDP is racist and must be abolished Since 2015, many communities in regional and remote Australia have been subject to the Federal Government’s so-called Community Development Program (CDP). In effect, the program itself is a targeted Work for the Dole program, except that participants in the communities it has been applied to are required to work 25 hours per week, all year round, in order to comply with this program and receive their basic unemployment payment.

not covered by Occupational Health & Safety legislation, they do not accumulate any superannuation, and are not afforded any of the other protections that regular workers enjoy.

Despite working the equivalent of a parttime job, usually in roles which would form basic council work in most other parts of this country, these workers are

Whilst the current Coalition Government stands by their program and insists it will lead to increased job prospects and therefore prosperity in these regional and

Private enterprises are also eligible to apply to become CDP providers and therefore have the opportunity to profiteer off an endless pool of free Indigenous labour.

In addition to this, reports have found that CDP recipients have been penalised for non-compliance at a rate about 70% higher than other welfare recipients in this country.

Unions campaign against CDP The ACTU, together with the NTEU and other unions, have long argued that the CDP is an inherently racist program. In the communities to which the CDP applies, over 83% of the people on unemployment benefits are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people. What’s more, many of these people are already on welfare quarantining measures such as the BasicsCard.

When reports of malnutrition due to increased poverty levels in CDP regions started coming through, it was therefore unsurprising news.

page 24 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

remote areas, a number of reports have now been released proving it has done anything but. If anything, it has set the clock back decades while leaving already disadvantaged communities in dire straits with almost no avenues for recourse.

Election promises In the lead-up to this year’s Federal Election, the Australian Labor Party have promised that should they be elected, they will remove the CDP. Describing the CDP as ‘discriminatory, punitive and ineffective’, Labor’s assistant Indigenous Affairs spokesperson Senator Pat Dodson promised a new scheme geared around consultation, community capacity-building, training and economic development.

Plans for the ALP’s replacement scheme are yet to be released, however. The NTEU hopes that any plans the ALP proposes in the run-up to the election and beyond include proper and secure employment opportunities for current CDP participants.

The ALP call to remove the CDP joins that of the Australian Greens who raised a motion to abandon it in the Senate last November. The Greens have long been critical of the CDP with Rachel Siewert calling for it to be abandoned or overhauled back in 2017.

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander policy d Scorecar

Change the Rules for A&TSI people Since 2017, the union movement has committed to a campaign to Change the Rules when it comes to employment in this country.

Along with addressing the climbing rates of precarious employment contracts employees find themselves on, closing the gendered pay gap and ensuring workplace legislation is no longer tipped so squarely in favour of the bosses, they have also committed to pushing to scrap the racist and discriminatory CDP.

Stolen Wages, rebooted In 2019, Australia should not be in a position where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander labour is still expected to be provided for free. For many decades, this was the case as A&TSI workers were paid less, or not at all, and their wages disappeared into government trusts never to be seen again.

The fight for the return of decades’ worth of Stolen Wages continues to this day as the country continues to grapple with rectifying past injustices.

The CDP is a troubling return to the types of conditions our forebears worked under.

More than 50 years after the Wave Hill Walk-Out began, not to mention the 1968 equal pay decision for Aboriginal stockmen, A&TSI people are still expected to provide their labour for free, and are then harshly punished if they do not do so.

#4: A&TSI Policy

A treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

✖

✔

✔

Abolition of the Community Development Program (CDP)

✖

✔

✔

Increasing the level of Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP) funding by at least 40%

✖

?

✔

Instead of working with communities to ascertain need and promote local capacity-building, successive governments have been continually focussed on punishing A&TSI communities. They have continually expected A&TSI people to relinquish their civil rights in exchange for the provision of the most basic of services.

They have reinforced poverty, reintroduced indentured servitude and demonised populations.

A 25 hour per week commitment yearround is not ‘Work for the Dole’. It is not work experience, nor is it training. It is an employment situation which fills a community need and workers engaged in such ways deserve the same pay and conditions that other workers engaged in similar capacities across the country get to enjoy.

Abolition of CDP Should the Labor Party be successful in winning power at the 2019 Federal Election, the NTEU looks forward to hearing more regarding their plans to abolish the CDP and create proper employment and training opportunities in remote and regional communities.

We encourage the ALP to ensure they work in conjunction with the communities ensuring proper consultation at all steps along the way. If we are to Change the Rules to make Australia fairer for workers, the rights of A&TSI workers to receive proper payment and conditions for work they engage in is paramount to this goal.

A&TSI education in the Budget On 2 April 2019, the Federal Budget committed $276.5 million over five years from 2018-19 to support Indigenous students to undertake and complete study to help close the gap in education outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, including $200 million for additional scholarship placements and mentoring support for Indigenous students.

Celeste Liddle, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Organiser

Opposite page: Workers’ rights poster from the First Nations Workers Alliance (FNWA).

Below: Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander union leaders gathering in Cairns in Feb 2019 to yarn up about changing the rules, abolish CDP & get fair funding into our schools. (Images courtesy FNWA)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 25

Federal Election 2019

Climate the hot topic For the first time since the millennial drought, climate change is likely to be a significant issue in the 2019 Federal Election.

The Australian summer of 2018-19 brought home to Australians the reality that the climate is changing, and for the worst – soaring temperatures, massive heatwaves and raging bushfires; torrential rains and devastating floods, depending on which part of the country you’re in.

December 2018 and March 2019 were the hottest of those months on record, with temperatures in March 2019 more than 2°C above average. 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, the three hotter years being, 2016, 2015 and 2017.

Australia has warmed by an average 1°C since 1910.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report predicted that the world has only 10 to 12 years to limit global warming to 1.5°C above 2005 levels, or risk serious catastrophe if warming goes above this. Carbon pollution will have to be cut by 45% globally by 2030, and be reduced to zero by 2050 to limit warming to 1.5°C. An Ipsos poll in March indicated that 46% of Australians agree that climate change is “entirely or mainly” caused by human activity, while a further 33% agree that it is “partly caused by human activity and partly caused by natural processes”. Only 11% said it was “entirely or mainly” caused by natural processes only. And only 13%

said that the Coalition is doing a “good job” dealing with climate change.

Since we wrote to the major parties asking for their views and policies on climate change and the other issues covered in this pre-election special, both the Coalition and the ALP have released major climate change and energy policies that are broader than the issues covered in the scorecard, so here they are in a bit more detail.

Coalition policies Climate change denial has been the Coalition’s default position since Tony Abbott wrested the leadership from Malcolm Turnbull in 2009, over Turnbull’s attempt to reach agreement on the then Labor Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Since then, the Coalition’s contribution to addressing climate change issues has been to remove the successful carbon pricing mechanism put in place by the Gillard Government with the Greens’ support, and ‘Mickey Mouse’ initiatives such as the Emissions Reduction Fund, which pays polluters to implement carbon reduction schemes which in many instances would have been implemented anyway.

But the Morrison Government has been dragged kicking and screaming into having to at least acknowledge that climate change needs addressing, not least by the Wentworth by-election in October last year, when Malcolm Turnbull’s previously ultra-safe seat was won by Dr Kerryn Phelps on a platform that included the need to address climate change and the switch to renewable energy sources.

page 26 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Energy policy has also been extremely fraught for the Coalition, with the ultra-conservative backbench elements and Nationals sinking the National Energy Guarantee before it had been put in place, and continually agitating for more coalfired energy production to be built.

The Coalition announced the following measures before the Budget: • The Coalition will underwrite a New Generation Investments program, taking on the risk of building new electricity generators and covering any losses. It is considering 12 projects for possible government support.

• In addition the Coalition will provide $10 million for a feasibility study of a range of possible projects for Queensland, including a possible low emission (HELE) coal-fired power plant.

• I ts commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions remains at 26% on 2005 levels by 2030, notwithstanding that Australia’s current emissions levels continue to rise.

• I t will create a $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund, an extension of Tony Abbott’s ‘direct action’ Emissions Reduction Fund, to partner with farmers, local government and businesses to deliver ‘practical’ solutions to climate change.

• $ 1.4 billion is earmarked to build the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project.

• A nd in one of the most cynical pork barrelling exercises ever seen, a one-off Energy Assistance Payment of $75 to individuals and $125 for couples will be made to welfare recipients prior to the Federal Election.

Climate change & energy policy d Scorecar ALP policies The ALP has a far more serious approach to recognising the dangers of extreme climate change and the necessity to address carbon pollution and move to sustainable renewable energy production.

#5: CLIMATE CHANGE & ENERGY Policy

A net-zero carbon pollution target

✖

✔

✔

A commitment to energy efficiency

✖

✔

✔

A commitment to ending coal mining

✖

✖

✔

Its major policies, announced on 1 April, the day before the Budget, are: • All businesses that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year will be subject to greenhouse pollution controls. These businesses will have to keep their emissions below a ‘baseline’ level, with $300 million in subsidies available to help the most emission intensive industries. But it excludes most of the big polluters, including energy production and transport, and covers only one-fifth of emissions producers.

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45% on 2005 levels by 2030, reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

• 50% renewable energy target by 2030.

• Scrap the use of ‘carryover’ credits from previous targets to meet current targets.

• 5 0% of new car sales to be electric vehicles by 2030, while the Government’s passenger vehicle fleet to be 50% electric by 2025.

• Will aim to phase in an emissions limit on small vehicles of 105 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.

• Will scrap the Coalition’s Climate Solutions Fund (previously the Emissions Reduction Fund) and reinstate the Carbon Farming Initiative, which offers subsidies for tree planting. It will also provide $40 million for research into new ways to deliver carbon reductions.

• $ 5 billion will be committed to modernise the electricity sector.

• A $2000 household rebate for household batteries will be introduced.

• A Just Transition Authority will be established to build new industries in communities impacted by change.

• D ouble the government financing available for clean energy projects through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, from $10 billion to $20 billion.

Greens policies The Greens have the most progressive policies of the major parties around climate change and sustainable energy production. Their policies include: • Re-powering the economy by transitioning from coal, fracking and drilling for gas to clean and exportable renewable energy.

• Providing ongoing access to free training to give workers the skills they need for a renewable future.

• Commit to a just transition for workers employed by fossil fuel industries.

• The Greens would create a public retailer that only sells renewable energy.

• Prioritise and properly fund clean, safe, affordable public and active transport.

• Kick start the electric vehicle revolution and reduce the cost of electric vehicles.

• Ending political donations from mining companies.

The future of coal And then there is coal. The Coalition has fetishised it in the last few years (who can forget the embarrassing waving around of a lump of coal by Scott Morrison and other ministers on the floor of Parliament?), while Labor seeks to have a bet each way on what to do about it, and more importantly, when.

It is quite clear that if we are to avoid the IPCC’s catastrophic predictions about global warming by 2050, extreme measures are necessary, including the complete phasing out of the use of fossil fuels as soon as possible. In many ways the Australian public seem way ahead of both the main parties. Strong grassroots movements involving farmers and rural communities have developed over the last few years in response to the push for extracting coal seam gas and developing new coal mines at the expense of fertile farmland for food production and threats to water supplies.

The #StopAdani movement, opposing the Indian company’s push to develop Australia’s biggest coal mine ever in central Queensland, has become strong all around the country and is symbolic of a ‘push back’ by everyday Australians. The Coalition and the ALP ignore or deny these movements at their peril.

Michael Evans, National Organiser

Below: Lake Eucumbene, NSW, during the millennial drought, 2007. (Andrew Gerrand)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 27

Federal Election 2019

Is the economy outstanding or underperforming?

As the election approaches, voters can expect the Coalition to loudly recite standard slogans about their supposedly superior ‘economic management’ skills.

They claim that under their stewardship, Australia’s economy has done very well, creating over 1 million new jobs since they came to office in 2013. That fulfilled a pre-election promise made in 2012 by then-Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

In an attempt to overcome their disadvantage in the opinion polls, the Prime Minister is now promising to create an even larger number of new jobs over the next five years (if his party is returned to government). Keep a steady hand on the economic steering wheel, goes the argument, or Australia’s economy will be in jeopardy. The Prime Minister even warned darkly that electing any other party to government will throw Australia into recession.

In fact, however, Australia’s recent economic performance has been downright mediocre, not stellar at all. And Mr. Morrison’s threat of recession is especially ironic, given that Australia’s economy has already slowed dramatically – under his party’s leadership.

In fact, GDP growth over the second half of 2018 was the slowest of any six-month period since before the Global Financial Crisis – and the Australian economy is now close to tipping into contraction (the first in 28 years). Falling property prices, weak business investment, and crumbling consumer confidence all suggest things are likely to get worse, before they get better.

It’s hard to blame the Opposition for a recession that may have already begun even before the votes are counted! The Coalition’s claims about job-creation in particular are vastly overblown. They boast about the absolute number of jobs created: over 1.1 million new positions between 2013 and 2018. (We use annual averages to minimise monthly fluctuations in the employment data.) Let’s consider whether that is truly an outstanding achievement.

A million ain’t what it used to be In fact, Australia’s employment performance since 2013 was relatively weak in

page 28 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

historical terms. Firstly, it is not unusual to create 1 million jobs in a five-year period.

In fact, the 2013-18 period marked the tenth time in Australia’s history that over one million net new jobs were created in five years. The first time was 30 years ago – when Australia’s labour market was barely half the size it is now.

Obviously, the absolute number of new jobs created must be considered relative to the number of people who need work.

Australia’s working-age population (defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as anyone over 15) is over 20 million strong. Moreover, it is growing relatively quickly compared to other industrial countries.

Creating one million jobs, over five years, is not such an achievement, given the size and growth of Australia’s population.

In fact, Australia must create more than one million new jobs every five years, just to keep up with population growth. So rather than counting the absolute number of jobs, it’s better to consider the rate of growth of employment.

By that standard, job creation over the past five years was actually relatively weak: 1.88 per cent per year from 2013 through

Economic management 2018. That was slower than average over the past sixty years – and one of the slowest rates of any non-recession period since World War II.

Part-time nation We must also consider the types of jobs created. Almost half the new jobs created between 2013 and 2018 were part-time, and the share of part-time work in total employment grew notably.

For politicians this might be convenient: part-time jobs convert a given amount of ‘work’ (measured in hours) into a larger number of jobs (by dividing available work into smaller ‘parcels’). But that comes at the cost of reduced income and underemployment for those in part-time work.

Most part-timers are casual workers, without entitlement to paid sick leave, paid holidays, and other normal entitlements.

Part-time jobs offer much lower earnings: average weekly wages for part-time workers were just $670 in 2018, compared to $1700 for full-timers. And 30% of part-time workers are ‘underemployed’: that is, they would prefer more work, but can’t get enough hours. For all these reasons, the rapid growth of part-time work is undermining overall incomes and job stability for Australian workers.

If we measure the total hours of work, rather than the number of jobs, then the amount of ‘work’ performed in the economy grew more slowly than the number of jobs: by just 1.59% per year since 2013.

That was slower than the growth of the working age population – hence the work available, on average, for each working-age Australian declined under the Coalition’s term in office.

worse in the last five years; in fact, total underutilisation was the worst since the recession-racked 1990s.

With too many workers chasing too few jobs, it is not surprising that the quality of work has also deteriorated markedly under the Coalition’s watch. By several indicators, typical jobs are less secure, have fewer hours, and benefit from fewer contractual protections than five years ago. Hence, even Australians who have a job are experiencing worse working conditions and greater precarity.

Table 1 summarises the deterioration in several job quality indicators. More jobs are part-time. And more jobs are casual (lacking paid leave and other entitlements), a trend which has especially affected many academic workers.

With outsourcing and the ‘gig’ economy, self-employment has also become very insecure – especially part-time roles which are especially insecure and poorly-paid.

The rapid decline in collective agreements is another worrisome sign.

Thanks in part to employer attempts to terminate Enterprise Agreements (as occurred at Murdoch University), only about 15% of Australian workers are now covered by a current Enterprise Agreement.

Wages going nowhere

Inadequate quantity, declining quality

Given the shortage of work, the deteriorating quality of jobs, and the lack of bargaining power for most workers, the slowdown in wage growth in Australia’s economy is not surprising. Since 2013 wages have been growing only about 2% per year: the slowest sustained rate of wage growth since the end of the Second World War. That’s barely enough to keep up with inflation, and implies stagnation in real wages (despite ongoing improvements in labour productivity).

In sum, the quantity of work available in Australia’s labour market in recent years was inadequate to the needs of a growing population. Underutilisation of labour (which includes unemployment, underemployment, and non-participation) got

This decline in compensation for workers is utterly inconsistent with the Coalition’s claims that the economy – and the job market in particular – are in good shape.

If the labour market was really bursting at the seams, workers would be able to

Table 1: Indicators of Job Quality 2013

2018

Part-Time Work

30.2%

31.7%

Casual Work

23.7%

25.0%

Part-Time Self-Employment

5.1%

5.5%

Employed Covered by EBA2

22.0%

15.0%3

1

Source: Authors’ calculations from ABS Catalogue 6202.0, Table 1; ABS Catalogue 6291.0.55.003, Data Cube EQ04; Catalogue 6333.0, Table 2.3; Dept. of Jobs and Small Business, “Trends in Federal Enterprise Bargaining.”

1. As share total employees (excluding self-employed).

2. Federally regulated only.

3. First 3 quarters.

demand better wages, and more secure conditions, from their employers. That this is not happening, attests to the profound underutilisation and deep insecurity that typifies Australia’s labour market today.

Contrary to the political rhetoric, the performance of Australia’s labour market over the past five years has been mediocre, at best. There hasn’t been nearly enough new work to absorb the number of Australians wanting and needing it. The falling quality and compensation of work, meanwhile, imposes real hardship on millions of households. They struggle to make ends meet despite inadequate and insecure hours and working conditions.

Australia’s labour market is coming out of this five-year period of supposedly historic prosperity in rough shape, indeed. But now things are getting worse, and fast.

We need an urgent change in direction.

Rather than throwing around empty slogans about who are the ‘best economic managers,’ it’s time for Australians to debate the real policies that are needed to create more jobs, and better jobs.

Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work This article draws on a more detailed review. See the full paper at: www.futurework.org.au/what_s_in_a_ million_anyway

(Image: suntezza/123rf)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 29

Federal Election 2019

Postgraduate election wishlist Universities and their students are in crisis.

Federal research investment is abysmal.

The Government is increasingly demanding that universities deliver more but with less funding, forcing universities to enrol ever more full-fee paying students to offset inadequate Government investment.

Unregulated tuition fees for most postgraduate students have seen $100k degrees become a reality. Students, particularly in high cost of living areas, are struggling to afford necessities like food and shelter – let alone the expenses of study such as books and public transport.

Due to universities’ dependency on casual and contract staff, many of the highly educated people teaching these students are themselves in similar financial quandaries. The stress of poverty impacts mental health, but students tell us that waiting lists for counselling at their universities prevent them from accessing support when it’s most needed. These interrelated issues need urgent action to protect Australia’s place as a research and education leader.

These pain points have guided CAPA towards articulating four major changes that are necessary in order to ease the pressure points on postgraduate students in particular, and protect the higher education sector as a whole.

The reversal of higher education and research funding cuts made by the Coalition Government. Reversing these cuts would go a long way to reversing the damage done over the term of the Coalition Government, and help Australia to remain a world leader in research and teaching.

Capping of the cost of full-fee places at Australian universities. Young graduates should not have to start out their working life with $100,000 in student debt.

Capping university fees for full-fee places would ensure that universities are open to all Australians who meet the entry criteria, regardless of their financial capacity – making universities an equalising force.

The extension of income support to all postgraduate students. Despite postgraduate degrees becoming a more common pathway to employment, CAPA research has shown only 28% of postgraduate courses in Australia are eligible for income support through programs such as Austudy. Estimates from the Australian Greens suggests that extending income support to all full-time domestic postgraduate students would cost $572 million per year.

The guaranteed continuation of the Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF), which funds student support and advocacy services. The SSAF is the lifeblood of most student support, advocacy and representation programs across Australian universities and funds programs for students struggling with academic, financial and welfare issues throughout their time at university. The guaranteed continuation of the SSAF would enable these critical support services to continue.

We have asked major parties and key minor parties where they stand on the issues of most importance to postgraduate students, and in the lead-up to the election, we will release an evaluation of their stances.

Government investment in higher education would alleviate many of the problems inherent in our university communities.

The current Coalition Government, however, have made it crystal clear that they see universities as a place of excess – a convenient place to make cuts in order to deliver a short-term budget surplus. Meanwhile, Labor has committed to policies which increase access to university education, but has not stated commitments to scaffold equity outcomes for current

page 30 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

undergraduate and postgraduate students. We are encouraged by the Greens’ higher education policy platform, released in December, which includes income support for postgraduate students, free undergraduate degrees, free TAFE, and a boost to university funding levels. Other minor parties largely tend towards being conservative, and do not have detailed education policy platforms.

Sadly, we must note that a change in Government is not sufficient to remedy some of the most pressing issues in our universities. Even if an incoming Government pledges increased higher education investment, there will still be significant hardships experienced by those at the bottom of the pyramid.

Extracting free labour out of casual staff and research students is one way that universities have been able to deliver ‘less with more’. Research students form the majority of human resources devoted to Australia’s research output. University staff, particularly casual and contract staff, are paid for a limited number of hours in which it is completely unrealistic to complete their duties. However, if insecurely employed staff do not work extra hours for free, students won’t be helped, essays won’t be marked, experiments won’t be finished – and they won’t be granted that contract next semester.

The Government must pull their policy levers in order to reduce universities’ reliance on insecure labour, and universities must take greater responsibility for creating a conducive environment for the production of knowledge and provision of quality teaching.

Natasha Abrahams, CAPA President, & Owen Myles, Policy & Research Advisor

Below: Graduation Ceremony at the Melbourne Town Hall. (Tirin)

Students

Why students are asking for more support Since the election of the Liberal-National Coalition Government, higher education students have been short-changed, and have felt a lack of support throughout their higher education learning experiences.

and this Federal Election is an opportunity to change the government and put our issues back onto the agenda.

for the modern workforce and critically investigate the sustainability of individual debt as a barrier to higher education.

Government policy must ensure that accessibility and equity are prioritised in higher education. Since the demand-driven system was introduced, higher education has been opened up to people from all backgrounds. The diversity of student experience needs to be accommodated and supported, flexible learning options should be available for students from less typical backgrounds, who have work commitments, caring responsibilities, or live long distances away from campus.

The rising cost of living has also changed the way that students live, work, and study. High rental and housing prices mean more students than ever have to travel further to attend university, and students are spending a higher proportion of their time working to earn money.

Since 2014, when the threat of deregulation was introduced, changes to higher education policy from the Coalition Government, including the introduction of a $104,000 loan limit on HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP, and the lowering of the HECS repayment threshold from $55,000 to $42,000 has made it harder for students to access their education. At the same time, students are finding it harder to cover the cost of living, of textbooks and other essential items, with a report by Universities Australia showing that one in seven regularly skip meals because they can’t afford to eat.

However, the increasing corporatisation of universities and cuts to higher education funding, including the $2.2 billion funding freeze to universities in 2017, has resulted in a reduction of adequate support and services throughout courses.

We have seen not only a lack of vision for the future of young people but also a lack of interest in talking to us at all. The policy areas that affect students most have been largely neglected in the past 6 years. At the same time, funding cuts to universities have seen impacts on the student experience, increases to class sizes, declines in the quality of support and services at universities.

We have seen the Coalition Government neglect the needs of students since 2013,

Our education system must also be accessible for students returning to university to reskill, as there is an increasing demand for life-long learning. There has been a substantial increase in the number of university-educated Australians in the last decade, from 24% in 2008 to 31% in 2018.

As a result, there has been a massive shift in what university looks like, the types of students accessing university, the role of university education in our workforce today, and what students need from their degree but there have not been adequate changes on the government policy level to reflect this.

Labor’s proposed review into higher education is a promising first step in addressing the changing landscape of student needs. It must address the role of post-secondary education in preparing graduates

These financial pressures come at a cost for university students, with 52% of financially independent students reporting that their work commitments negatively impacted their performance at university. Financial pressures have also led to more students relying on student income support to maintain their studies, however, the rate of these payments has not increased with the increasing cost of living.

Student poverty is a reality for many, with the maximum payment for an individual on Youth Allowance falling at 57% of the Henderson poverty line. This lack of support for students must be addressed, and while Labor has committed to a review of the rate of the Newstart allowance, we need to ensure that a review of student income support is included in this.

What students need is a government that has a vision for the future, who will listen to us and work with us, and who understands the value of supporting students and our education. We are demanding actions and policy from the Government so that we are adequately supported, and so we can look towards a future worth fighting for.

Desiree Cai, NUS President

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 31

Federal Election 2019

Party statements NTEU invited the three major parties to contribute brief statements to The Advocate to pitch their respective plans for the tertiary education sector. Labor and the Greens responded, the Coalition did not.

Dr Mehreen Faruqi, Greens Senator for NSW and Education spokesperson

ensure secure work for staff and the best working conditions for research, learning and teaching.

We will boost university funding by 10% per student. That’s an extra $16 billion dollars over the next decade for universities to improve the learning and teaching environment, reduce class sizes and give researchers the resources they need.

I’ve been an academic, a researcher and a proud card-carrying member of the NTEU for years.

Now, as Greens Senator and spokesperson on education, I’m proud that we are the party of public education from early childhood to primary and secondary schools, and all the way to TAFE and university.

Our bold plan for higher education is changing the conversation about what is possible and how to get there. For too long, both the Liberal and Labor parties have used higher education as a piggy bank. Round after round of funding cuts have put immense pressure on staff, academics and students. For public investment in tertiary education, Australia is now ranked 30 out of 34 OECD countries.

The time for fair, sustainable and equitable education is here and now.

That’s why the Greens plan massively increases investment in universities. Our plan means guaranteed lifelong access to fee-free uni and TAFE for all, and it will

But the opportunities of a funding increase cannot be realised without ensuring certainty for university staff.

For years, staff have been undermined by a deliberate strategy of casualisation and contract work. We know conditions have been eroded by unfair industrial relations laws that stack the deck against workers.

The Greens will ensure universities are held accountable. To do this, we will work with staff and unions to link funding under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme to reductions in the rate of insecure, casual and fixed-term employment.

We fully support the ‘Change The Rules’ reforms that will protect your right to strike and industrial rights across the board.

As a former academic, I know that we will not begin to address future challenges unless our researchers are given the time, resources and support to tackle them. The Greens will reverse the freeze on research block grants to universities and increase the value of Australian Research Council (ARC) grants to $100 million a year.

We will continue to stand in solidarity with you against threats to academic freedom like political intervention in ARC grant decisions or attempts by the Ramsay Centre to hijack universities with their narrow ideological agenda. I have introduced a bill in the Senate to remove the Education Minister’s ability to veto ARC grants.

Education is a right, not a privilege and no one should graduate with a decade of crushing debt ahead of them.

The cost of living remains a substantial barrier to higher education, particularly

page 32 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

to those from regional areas and low socio-economic backgrounds. I’ve watched too many students fall behind because they have been forced to juggle multiple jobs. In addition to fee-free higher education by raising Youth Allowance, Austudy and Abstudy by $75 a week and expanding eligibility for Austudy to all postgraduate students, we will support students so they can focus on their studies.

For graduates with existing debts, we will halt the Liberal Government’s punitive plan to lower the repayment threshold to $45,000. Instead, we will tie the threshold to the median wage so graduates won’t be making repayments until they can afford to.

Our plan to shake up the status quo for universities is ambitious, but affordable.

Scrapping fossil fuel subsidies for big mining companies and charging them royalties for extracting offshore gas will more than deliver our plan, even before you consider the social and economic benefits of a strengthened higher education sector.

We know education is not a commodity.

Students are not customers. Staff are not mere service providers. Universities and TAFEs are educational institutions, not money-making business units. They are places for intellectual growth and critical thinking, and must be inclusive and democratic. This suite of policies is a transformational vision for higher education in Australia.

I look forward to continuing to work with my NTEU colleagues to make this vision a reality for all.

Federal Election 2019 Tanya Plibersek, ALP Member for Sydney and Shadow Minister for Education

Labor sees universities as the centre of our economic, intellectual and cultural life. Universities serve our nation through knowledge, research and innovation; as employers, providing the nation with the equivalent of 130,000 full-time jobs; and teaching more than 1 million Australian students and around 400,000 international students.

Universities have a broader role as anchor institutions to assist the nation in tackling contemporary issues like reducing inequality, building prosperity, spreading knowledge, and challenging social norms and structures.

We can’t have a robust, liberal democracy without universities upholding the tradition of academic freedom.

Labor is the party for education. That is why we are prepared to invest billions more into education in this country.

We are committed to delivering universal access to three and four year old early childhood education and a properly funded, needs-based school funding system with a $14 billion commitment to extra public school funding.

Reversing the decline of TAFE In too many towns and regional centres across Australia, TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back

and fees have increased.

Labor will reverse the decline of TAFE and make sure quality public vocational education is available in our suburbs and regions by putting TAFE back at the centre of our vocational education system, and making it possible for Australians to access the quality education and skills development they need throughout their working life.

We will guarantee at least two out of three public vocational education dollars go to TAFE, with the balance going to notfor-profit community and adult educators, and only high quality private providers with demonstrated links to industry.

Labor will also waive upfront fees for 100,000 students to attend TAFE and invest $100 million to modernise TAFE facilities around the country.

Additional university funding Labor has consistently stood with students and staff to fight the Liberal’s cuts and attempts to Americanise our universities.

A Shorten Labor Government will, from 2020, reinstate the demand-driven system – lifting the funding caps put in places by the Liberals.

This will see $10 billion in additional funding flow to universities over the next decade and will provide around 200,000 additional undergraduate places over the next decade or so.

Labor has also announced a $300 million University Future Fund to ensure fast-tracked funding for high priority research and teaching projects.

And we will also guarantee three-year funding agreements.

In return for these investments we will have big expectations of our universities in return.

Inbuilt to new funding agreements, universities will be required to outline how they are meeting community expectations.

We have already indicated two areas where we expect action: raising the standard of entry to teaching courses and addressing sexual assault and har-

assment on campus and in residential colleges.

National Inquiry into Post-secondary Education Equity needs to be back at the heart of our higher education system. That is why we have announced a $174 million fund for equity and pathways to support students from areas with low graduation rates to get the confidence and skills they need to go to university.

Labor has also announced that we will undertake a once in a generation National Inquiry into Post-secondary Education.

The NTEU was part of our expert panel to assist in the development of the Terms of Reference of this wide-ranging inquiry.

These are available at www.tanyaplibersek.com/nationalinquiry.

Labor wants to fundamentally reconsider the structure of our post-secondary system.

The National Inquiry will be tasked with a number of important tasks, including: • Setting new participation and attainment targets; and • Examining all the recommendations of the 2017 Evaluation of the Higher Education and Participation Pathways Program (HEPPP), including enshrining its funding into legislation.

It’s a serious failing of our system that someone in the North Shore of Sydney is five times more likely to get a university education than someone from Moreton Bay in Queensland.

Labor will also appoint a Regional and Remote Commissioner to our National Inquiry who will be responsible for developing strategy and policies to support regional students as well as our regional TAFEs and universities.

We will also better coordinate international education by putting in place a new international education council and develop a new strategy.

Labor has always been the party prepared to do the hard reform to raise education standards and the next Labor government will be ready for that challenge.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 33

Federal Election 2019

Member candidates A handful of NTEU members are running as candidates in this year’s election. We have asked them to tell us a bit about themselves and their campaign.

These members are in addition to sitting MPs and Senators who were formerly NTEU members, including Adam Bandt (Greens, Melbourne), Andrew Leigh (ALP, Fenner), Anne Aly (ALP, Cowan) and Mehreen Faruqi (Greens, NSW). Emeritus Professor Barbara Pocock, a longtime NTEU member, now retired, is the Greens candidate for the seat of Adelaide.

Stef Rozitis, Greens candidate for Boothby (SA)

Alicia Payne, Penny Kyburz, ALP candidate for Greens Senate Canberra (ACT) candidate for ACT

Stef Rozitis teaches in early childhood as well as at university. She’s interested in social justice, especially gender.

Alicia Payne is an economist and has focused on social policy.

Stef is keen to campaign about public education at all levels, with secure and fairly paid jobs as well as equal access for all.

This needs to be funded by the tax-dollar not by weapons manufacturers.

Two concerns she has are climate change, mindful that our children are pleading with us to do something before it is too late, and the way so many people are underpaid, in casual work, or unable to find work. Everything that we need as a society can be summed up in the four pillars of the Greens: peace and non-violence, sustainability, social justice and grassroots democracy.

Stef is seeking to bring real change to our government. boothby@sa.greens.org.au

C Stef.Rozitis.Greens.for.Boothby

Alicia has been a union member all her working life and was an NTEU member while working as a researcher at the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) at the University of Canberra, where she published on issues such as poverty and the impact of policy on households.

Alicia spent five years at the Commonwealth Treasury working in social security and tax policy. Most recently she was part of the Federal Labor Opposition team as a senior policy adviser on social policy.

Alicia has volunteered in the community sector for many years, with people facing homelessness, addiction and isolation.

Penny Kyburz is an innovator, entrepreneur, and academic in computer science at ANU. Penny has spent her career working as a lecturer, video game developer, digital rights campaigner, and policy adviser. She is running for the Senate in the ACT because she wants to represent Canberrans and their progressive values in our federal Parliament.

As a technology and AI expert, Penny understands the challenges facing the future of work in Australia and globally and the important role that universities and education will play in our future. She wants to see Australia rise to the challenge, not fall by the wayside.

Through her work and community involvement, she has seen the difference Labor Governments and progressive policy can make in people’s lives. Alicia is running because she wants to be a voice for the Canberra community and for fairness in Parliament.

As an academic, Penny understands the threat that universities are facing from funding cuts and casualisation. The Greens’ policies on supporting students, increasing university funding, and making staff more secure are a core reason why she is running as a Green candidate this election.

alicia.payne@act.alp.org.au

office@act.greens.org.au

C AliciaPayneforCanberra

C drpennykyburz

page 34 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

Federal Election 2019

Meet the Defenders For the 2019 Federal Election, NTEU has asked candidates to declare themselves a Defender of Tertiary Education by signing our pledge.

DEFENDER OF TERTIARY EDUCATION Universities inhabit an important position in Australian society as places of independent debate and research. But the statistics tell a different story...

Our public investment in universities ranks amongst the OECD’s lowest USA AUSTRALIA NETHERLANDS CANADA TURKEY NORWAY

Our students pay amongst the highest university fees in the developed world USA AUSTRALIA CANADA NETHERLANDS TURKEY NORWAY

Two-thirds of university staff are employed insecurely

FOR TEACHING-ONLY & RESEARCH-ONLY STAFF,

4-IN-5 ARE ON CONTRACTS

MY TERTIARY EDUCATION PLEDGE If elected in the 2019 Federal Election, I will support policies that: • Ensure university autonomy and academic freedom are protected.

• Increase public funding for research as an investment in our future.

• Reverse the freeze on university funding, and return the billions of dollars taken out of TAFE since the Coalition took office in 2013.

• Ensure the rights of tertiary education staff are protected by: • Reducing insecure employment.

• Removing the ability of employers to weaken pay and conditions by terminating enterprise agreements.

• Strengthening the right of workers to take industrial action.

• Reduce the debt burden on students.

Name

See all Defenders of Tertiary Education at www.nteu.org.au/defenders

L–R, top to bottom: Tanya Plibersek MP (ALP Deputy Leader), Sen. Richard di Natale (Greens Leader), Ged Signed ________________________________________________________________ Kearney MP (ALP); Adam Bandt MP (Greens), Andrew Giles MP (ALP), Sen. Mehreen Faruqi (Greens); Anne Aly MP (ALP), Tim Hollo (Greens), Sen. Louise Pratt (ALP); Sen. Malarndirri McCarthy (ALP) with NTEU national officers in Parliament House, Dr Mike Freelander MP (ALP), Jason Ball (Greens), Libby Coker (ALP).

Written and authorised by Matthew McGowan, NTEU, 120 Clarendon St, South Melbourne VIC 3205

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 35

After Christchurch

Photo: QUT students and NTEU members stand against Islamophobia, March 2019. (Studio 9001/Facebook)

Standing up to racism After the horrific Christchurch mosque shootings, there have been heartening displays of solidarity with Muslim communities. Four thousand people, Muslims and nonMuslims, came together at the Stand Together Against Racism rally in Melbourne the day after the tragedy to say that there is no place for racist hate in our society.

It shouldn’t take tragedies such as this to notice how entrenched racism and Islamophobia have become in Australia. The horrific violence was a product of decades of vitriolic Islamophobia and anti-immigrant racism, currently led by the Coalition Government in Australia.

Annette Herrera University of Melbourne

Apsara Sabaratnam RMIT

page 36 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

The Australian union movement – collective union leadership and grassroots activist alike – have a critical role to play in leading anti-racist initiatives. After Christchurch, we must stand up against growing racism and Islamophobia within our schools, universities and workplaces.

For many, Friday 15 March started as a day of unity as we walked in solidarity with students to draw attention to the climate emergency. By the afternoon, this exuberance had turned into collective shock as news began to break of the fifty innocent Muslim worshippers killed at two Christchurch mosques by an Australian right-wing terrorist.

The Christchurch mosque shootings have irrevocably changed the lives of many families across the Tasman. Sadly, this event did not come as a complete surprise to many in migrant and Muslim communities. They have experienced increasing xenophobia, Islamophobia and racist violence for years. Hate speech can become hate crime, political scaremongering about national security, refugees and immigrants contributes to an atmosphere that makes violence more likely.

The alleged killer’s manifesto and social media activities suggest his inspirations included both home-grown racists such as Blair Cottrell and right wing elements

in the US and Europe. The existing threat from the right cannot be dismissed as the actions of a lone wolf amplified on social media. The focus on Facebook very often avoids confronting the racism at the centre of Australian politics.

As WA Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John recently said in a passionate speech calling out racism in our politics, “We see a perverse attempt to disown the monster of [Senator] Fraser Anning without attempting to acknowledge and take responsibility for the collective roles played in the creation of that monster.” The words, the policies of political leaders matter.

Senator Steele-John was referring to the race-baiting political rhetoric and Islamophobic language that has become commonplace within our Parliament and manifest in our bipartisan refugee policies.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made a career of it, in 2010 he infamously argued for the Liberals to campaign against Muslim immigration, and three days after the shooting he was scapegoating immigrants for lack of infrastructure funding.

In the past year, Coalition senators voted for a One Nation motion stating that “It’s OK to be White.” Scott Morrison stoked fear and Islamophobic scapegoating in November when, tragically, a Muslim man with a history of mental health issues killed a man in Melbourne’s Bourke Street.

Even after Victoria Police ruled out terrorist motives in this terrible killing, the PM went on to state that Muslims must do more to call out terrorism. In one fell swoop, Morrison painted whole Muslim communities as being somehow indirectly responsible for this crime.

Then in February this year, when ranting about Kerryn Phelp’s medical evacuation bill, Morrison falsely accused sick refugees of being ‘rapists’, ‘paedophiles’ and ‘murderers’.

A coalition model to mobilise Seeing the rising tide of Islamophobia and racist scapegoating, union and anti-racism activists in Victoria took action last year.

The Stand Together Against Racism (STAR) community group was formed in the lead up to the Victorian state election as a bipartisan platform of unionists, Labor for Refugee members, Greens, Socialists and ethnic community groups.

STAR began to meet several times a month and mobilised several rallies last year to call out media and political racist vilification of so called ‘African gangs’ in the lead up to the Victorian state election. Several peaceful rallies were held in November and December with endorsements and participation from over thirty union, migrant community groups and other civil society organisations.

STAR had scheduled a Melbourne rally on Saturday 16 March in solidarity with anti-racism rallies occurring around the

world to commemorate the UN Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

As the Christchurch events unfolded on the Friday, organisers gave the platform to more Muslim speakers, and worked with the Islamic Council of Victoria to build and shape the rally.

The result was a rally and march of over 4,000 people that ended in front of the Liberal Party headquarters. Muslims and non-Muslims came together to mourn and draw strength from each other. In sadness and anger, an awareness was present on that day of the connection of many anti-racism struggles throughout our multicultural and Indigenous communities.

Many of the Muslim participants told organisers that they had never marched before. The speeches, most by Muslim and migrant women, held the crowd, as did an Iman leading a prayer outside of the Melbourne State Library.

...it will take strong civil society coalitions to call out racism, Islamophobia and White nationalist ideology in our politics, in our media and in our communities.

One of the first speakers was a Muslim activist and school teacher, Anam Javed.

She defined Islamophobia as a special form of racism revealing indiscriminate, negative attitudes directed at Muslims or Islam. An Islamophobic attack is any act comprising of abuse, hatred, vilification or violence directed at Muslims going about their daily lives.

Her sobering speech also cited a Deakin University study that highlighted that most Islamophobic attacks were aimed at Muslim women; often in a public place and often perpetrated by Anglo-Celtic men. Anam recounted the Islamophobic comments made against her even as she came to the rally and stopped for a coffee that morning.

Jasmine Ali, an NTEU member, chaired the rally and spoke passionately. She named and shamed the Coalition Government, calling out their Senate vote on One Nation’s motion that “It’s OK to be White” and their insistence in issuing a visa to Milo Yiannopolous. Yiannopolous is a notorious American white nationalist known for homophobic, transphobic and Islamophobic hate speech, who had previously said “Islam is Aids”. (His visa was only revoked after the events at Christchurch following public outcry.)

Jasmine went on to say that, “White supremacy is not a fringe ideology. It is hardwired into government policy and it is at the heart of the Coalition Government.”

The rally ended with a speech in front of

Liberal Party headquarters, delivered by Matt Kunkel from the Migrant Worker Centre at the Trades Hall – again with a call to action to not only join the union but that the union movement would stand up to racism and Islamophobia in all forms.

We would be deluding ourselves to think that the threat from the right will vanish with a possible change in government. In the coming years, it will take strong civil society coalitions to call out racism, Islamophobia and White nationalist ideology in our politics, in our media and in our communities.

Just as the push for gay rights was galvanised and sustained by the Australian union movement, unions must now be at the forefront of international mobilisation to stop growing strength of the right. A mass movement to stand together against racism in all its forms is needed.

A call to action As a union, we must of course condemn the attacks. But we must also condemn the Islamophobia and racism of the Coalition and the overt and covert actions of the right, white nationalism and the whitewashing of colonial history in the best ways we know how. Our words of grief and solidarity must be followed by actions. We could produce union posters for workplaces in solidarity with the Christchurch Muslim community opposing racism and Islamophobia as an example of one action.

The NTEU is in a strong positions to join student-led anti-racism initiatives already taking shape at universities and schools.

They can advance a strong message that freedom of speech carries a heavy price when it is used to mean free reign to hate speech.

Immediately after the shootings, Sam Huggard head of NZ Council of Trade Unions wrote: To our Christchurch union sisters and brothers, tēnā tatou katoa. I wanted to write with our love and solidarity for you all this afternoon, as like you I’m shocked and upset hearing about what has happened in your city today.

Injustice, intolerance and racism has no place in our communities nor anywhere in the world. I am so deeply sorry for our friends in the Muslim community in Christchurch for the devastation that this horrific act of violence and terror has caused.

Australian unions also have a role to play.

Our message must be that great union slogan ‘Touch one, touch all.’

Annette Herrera (University of Melbourne) and Apsara Sabaratnam (RMIT) are members of Stand Together Against Racism and NTEU activists Join Stand Together Against Racism: www.facebook.com/StandTogetherAR

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 37

LGBTIQ

Review the Review!

Like the postal survey that prompted it, the Government’s Religious Freedom Review has left many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people feeling isolated, vulnerable and fed up.

The Review, headed by Phillip Ruddock, was the Turnbull Government’s concession to conservative Coalition MPs. It was designed to ensure Marriage Equality didn’t shut the door on discrimination altogether.

For LGBTIQ people the Ruddock Review prolonged the damage the survey had started, giving a platform and permission for further messages of prejudice and discrimination. The recommendations revealed the extent to which exemptions to anti-discrimination acts across Australia mean that discrimination already exists in most states and territories against LGBTIQ students and workers in non-government schools.

Indeed, though the focus has been on schools, these ‘exemptions to equality’ affect workers in many sectors where religious organisations operate. However, it is educators who have born the brunt of this discrimination.

There is a long history of homophobic moral panic around LGBTIQ educators, students and schools, we have seen the latest iteration of this with the hysteria around the safe schools program and Morrison’s transphobic attacks on so-called ‘gender whisperers’ in schools.

Yet, the release of the Ruddock Review saw a public backlash not against LGBTIQ educators and students but against the Liberals and their conservative agenda.

The Ruddock Review exposed anachronistic discriminatory laws that activists had been shouting about for decades.

Discrimination of students in faith based schools proved so unpalatable that even Scott Morrison was forced to concede that the laws relating to gay students were

unfair. Notably, from the Liberals there has been no commitment to end the discrimination against trans and gender diverse students, nor LGBTIQ workers.

Moreover, the Liberals continue to postpone tackling the issue. In responding to the Ruddock Review in December 2018 the Government announced it would ask the Law Reform Commission to review five of the Review findings, unwilling to address the issues themselves before an election. Review the Review!

It even downplayed this decision by announcing at the same press conference the formation of the Australian Integrity Commission to deflect our attention away from the core issue of discrimination of LGBTIQ people. LGBTIQ communities were sidelined, again.

Several unsuccessful attempts were also made from the Parliament floor late in 2018 to legislate to end discrimination exemptions for faith based organisations.

The most significant of these, Labor’s ‘Protecting Students’ bill, was referred to a Senate inquiry. The Bill was severely limited in its focus solely on students, omitting the issue of workers rights. Nevertheless, it was disappointing that in mid-February 2019 this Senate inquiry did not recommend the bill be passed by the Senate, instead recommending it be referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission, yet another delay.

When the Ruddock Review was leaked in October 2018 the community backlash raised the hopes of LGBTIQ workers who work in faith based organisations; teachers, cleaners, health care workers, administrative staff, office workers and more. Discrimination for these workers is real. The Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby estimates that up to two hundred thousand workers, nationally, are affected by these homophobic and transphobic laws. For LGBTIQ workers this ability to discriminate manifests as fear and trauma with devastating consequences including humiliation, relationship breakdown, financial loss and a cost to mental health. It

page 38 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

also limits LGBTIQ worker’s ability to access standard worker’s rights and entitlements.

Some workers, for example, will avoid taking carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

It’s unclear how amendments to State anti-discrimination legislation, if attempted, would affect employment legislation.

Currently, the Fair Work Act provides the same discrimination exemptions at Section 351 for faith based employers that State anti-discrimination legislation protects. Amendment to the Fair Work Act clearly should also occur.

At its national conference the ALP committed to ending discrimination against both workers and students. This is welcome but we would be remiss to wait for the election. Every day that workers and students are forced into the closet is unacceptable.

Right now in Victoria Daniel Andrews could and should amend State anti-discrimination laws to end the religious exemptions.

In 2018, NTEU National Council moved unanimously to campaign to end the discriminatory exemptions in industrial law that permit adverse action against LGBTIQ workers in faith-based organisations including universities, schools, health and employment services.

In February 2019, a Melbourne rally demanded an end to discrimination against students and workers. There were many workers at the rally, proudly wearing their union t-shirts. These are the kind of actions we need to end this discrimination. If you’d like to be involved email Dave Willis dwillis@nteu.org.au Geraldine Fela, University of Melbourne member (QUTE) and Dave Willis, Victorian Division Organiser

Above: NTEU members at the Marriage Equality announcement in Melbourne, 2017. (Paul Clifton)

Art imitating life

The marketisation of attention In the court of Queen Anne, attention is hers to bestow. Becoming known to Her Majesty is the first, vital step towards some kind of security.

The achievement of this justifies the risk one takes in proactively applying healing herbs to her sleeping legs or coughing in her presence.

The Favourite – might be compared to the typical Australian university’s commitment of funding to competitive campaigns waged against similar organisations within, as well as beyond, these shores. The marketing of student enrolment is about consumer choice, about our products as against the products of others. In any event this comparison would hardly be specific to The Favourite. My point is about the economy of attention that is so well portrayed by the movie. Because an economy of attention is our current condition of life, not least in the tertiary sector.

This is no aristocracy. With Anne lacking an immediate heir, succession to the throne is a matter of parliamentary decision-making so that monarchical continuity is absent.

It is no meritocracy. Certainly this is no democracy. It is an attention-ocracy.

The marketisation of attention in the tertiary sector can be illustrated in a number of ways. In teaching massive numbers of students, the message is that one is attending to individuals as individuals – you and I are on first name terms; you have my undivided attention, and I have yours. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said in character in Jingle All the Way, to all his customers, “You’re my Number One Customer!”

Similarly, the publicly funded home of classical music, ABC Classic FM, has taken the low road of first-name-only presenters, of texted feedback from listeners (“Mozart is Awesome!”) and of talking over grabs of familiar music. The message is, “You are enjoying this so much, please don’t change the channel.”

Like many others I recently saw and much enjoyed Yorgos Lanthimos’ film The Favourite. The movie looks and sounds great.

It is refreshing to see men and ducks sharing equal, and equally lowly, screentime.

And the penny has just dropped that this movie is an allegory of tertiary education in Australia.

I do not mean this is in any superficial sense. It would be trite to compare the dysfunctional court of Britain’s Queen Anne with the typically well-managed Australian university. There is no comparison with the efficient manner in which decisions made by senior officials, concerning all aspects of the University’s functioning, are transmitted and implemented throughout a complex organisation. Queen Anne knew nothing of online compliance modules nor of mission statements.

True, the expense of taxpayers’ money on international warfare, to rather little effect at the end of the day – as portrayed in

The publicly funded ABC is delivering ‘serious’ music – lots of notes, not always familiar, sometimes challenging – to a marketplace that it feels it essential to keep expanding, indeed is desperately anxious not to lose. The result is The Wiggles.

Within teaching delivery, as in advertising, repetition of a message is thus designed above all to maintain attention. Attention will otherwise wander off. As with Queen Anne, attention may be captured by another favourite.

Another example is the role of express learning outcomes. The requirement to specify the formal outcomes of curriculum has been familiar in the tertiary sector for at least 40 years. The connection between such formulations of learning outcomes and actual student learning, was always moot. There is a risk in stating what graduating students will have gained from a given curriculum by gaining a pass mark, in the absence of any independent testing of those claims. It is to risk turning pedagogy into what every law student understands as ‘mere puffery’ in the law of contract: the not unlawful exaggerated pitch of the salesperson.

What has changed is that defined goals of units and courses are no longer ‘backstage’ but are integrated with the delivery of teaching. Students are encouraged to understand their experience as a learner in terms of those claims. In effect the selling of the product is being brought into closer and closer contact with its delivery. Thus we may have to speak of marketing as pedagogy and pedagogy as marketing, by means of which students’ attention is shaped and managed.

Similarly, in scholarship we have entirely gone over to the always present narcissism of the author. The ‘look at me’ social media presence is fast becoming the equivalent of yesterday’s PhD as entry ticket to the academy. It is Queen Anne’s court all over again.

And what more apt metaphor for our obsession with rankings, than a duck race with wagers?

John R Morss, Deakin Law School

Above: A scene from The Favourite (20th Century Fox)

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 39

International Year of Indigenous Languages

Photo: Elder Stewart Hoosan activating and painting our posters. (Author supplied)

Complexities of celebration In the International Year of Indigenous Languages, I yearn for more. More talking with Elders, more family, more Country, more story, more relational voice to the world, more of our own languages in the everyday. And yet I know this year will be no different unless things drastically change. Not in terms of voices to parliament or closing gaps, but in terms of the everyday lived experience of our children. These changes must shift the way we make meaning and experience life. This is personal, this is intergenerational. For real change I must transform my own life within my family, in the city, because it is the Western meaning making systems that raise and bind our children into this society, this shared reality.

Dr Jason De Santolo Assoc. Professor, School of Design, UTS M@JJDeSantolo

page 40 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

I am super privileged to be working in higher education and with my family and clan in a small way towards the revitalisation of Garrwa knowledge systems, languages, songs, dances. It is part of my own journey to reconnect with my own lineage and understanding how to be in this world of contested priorities.

This year I landed my first permanent gig in the School of Design at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). A huge shift from the years of working in the Jumbunna research team, this role offers a drastic shift, a creative re-imaging of ways to enact self-determination. Design in itself is new language, a process with genuine potential for re-orientating our understandings of truth.

Working in a university setting we ponder, critique and offer understanding of how to relate to this hegemony while also partaking in the resurgence of Indigenous knowledges and languages as both activators and vehicles for self-determination.

I have drawn strength from the journey back to my homelands through my family, within my language. While I celebrate each Garrwa language word used by my kids, I know that the complexities of celebration demand the challenging of this status quo of education. A system where English (and Western thinking, being, doing) dominates the curriculum.

Moving into this space of potential was not without a trajectory of deep community and research engagement and so in March we launched Indigenous Design Synergies (IDS) as a relational liberational ecology housed in the School of Design at UTS. How do we transcend colonisation by design and evoke the worldmaking prowess of our ancestral languages in higher education? In posing this wicked problem we asked our speakers to ponder the complexities of celebration given the current social and political climate.

In exploring the synergies of language revitalisation, community development and Country, the speakers revealed powerful notions of transformation through the lens of family and power. In this short piece I hope to reflect upon some of the inspirational moments that were offered by the speakers on the first day – in particular the notion that we are family across the continent and when our relationships are respectfully held our power is enhanced.

We were honoured by local Elder, Yuin, Dharug, Gadigal Aunty Rhonda Grovenor Dixon who opened the first session of Indigenous Design Synergies with her daughter Nadeena Grovenor Dixon. In this Welcome the process of connecting with family history was highlighted as a way to show that there is no separation in the lived realities of our ancestors and in the history of our political movement.

My Dad (Uncle Chicka Dixon) was a union fella, a Maritime Union wharfie... we still got those connections…so anytime you want us down here to support you, that in any way we would like to offer that to you and we are in that together aye Jason?

For Nadeena, the vitality of our languages is part of the way we uniquely see the world but “we were coming, travelling as family and kinship groups… we were not in one region”. These exchanges set a powerful tone of connectedness and love for each other, between the top end and east coast.

Elder Nancy Yukuwal McDinny, Jane Vadiveloo and Shannon Foster each delivered powerful accounts of their lived experience and long-term work in the area of language and cultural revitalisation.

Yukuwal is a Garrwa and Yanyuwa Elder from Borroloola, an outspoken leader for our Gulf clans and in the protect Country movement in NT. For Yukuwal, language is being in country with respect and is tied with the struggle for land and water and cultural rights. Yukuwal paints stories of the land, of resistance and of bush tucker and hunting. In this way she shares

knowledge in dynamic and intergenerational ways by design. By singing songs from her homelands with her sons and grandsons in protests there is a maintaining of a relational dynamic to direct action.

The Ngabaya song was highlighted as an important protest element for the Seed collective protest against Glencore mine in 2015 and at the recent occupation of Federal Parliament with WAR, FIST and Seed. Family is strength embodied.

Jane Vadiveloo is the founding CEO of Children’s Ground. For her, language is part of a massive shift in power: Children’s Ground is a 25 year systems change agenda, it is not an organisation, it is an agenda which says we have to completely smash the current system, it is completely defunct, it is killing people, and First Nations people have the absolute right to their own systems of law, education and society everything, and it’s time we drew the line in the sand, and not try to retrofit into an existing dominant paradigm, to try to make it sensitive to First Nations people, but to shift the control into First Nations peoples hands…my job is to shift the systems of power.

Shannon Foster (D’harawal) is a PhD candidate and casual academic in the Centre for the Advancement of Indigenous Knowledges at UTS. Her reflections on leading a masters project lab where the architectural design practice revealed that this “is not about place making, this place does not need to be made. What needs to be intervened with is humans and the way we engage with place and site which is Country”.

For Yukuwal, language is being in country with respect and is tied with the struggle for land and water and cultural rights.

Each speaker drew emphasis on the importance of maintaining deep respectful and relational long-term ways of working with our communities – with our knowledge systems, with our languages and practices. Language is like water, it is not a barrier, but a connector. Language activates relational power and story embodies assertive self determination and transformative potential in our everyday lives.

Truth is the pre-eminent concern right now. How does truth reside in everyday

practices, in the struggle for homeland rights, for cultural rights and in the right to language? Is this Government capable of being an honourable Treaty partner knowing that today both Labor and Liberal support the ongoing and multi-branded racist Northern Territory Intervention?

There is little truth in a celebration marked within an era of genocide and assimilation.

There is a lot of energy and resources being put into the Voice to Parliament & Uluru Statement. But I was shocked when BHP pledged $1 million to Pearson’s Cape York Partnership for the Voice campaign.

What does it mean when multinational mining interests are backing our own political rights campaigns? It made me question this Voice, does it really speak truth to power in our own language of family and love, does it challenge a deeply broken system?

NTEU today is taking such strong leadership in this contested space and I am proud to be part of this within the Indigenous research, design and higher education space. Exposing colonisation by design is one step in revealing the impact of false truth modalities and the distracting nature of fake discourses of hope.

We live in a mediated era where the terrorism of ‘white supremacy’ is forgotten in a week of fractured discourse. The message must be collective and clear in order to be heard: sending love and solidarity to Muslim families and communities in Aotearoa/ New Zealand.

I know that good story design ensures that we do not forget, that we do not stand down against these forces of destruction and hate. Our languages are alive and give us the energy and the means by which to carry messages of hope and love for all.

Our languages are worth fighting for just as much as our lands and waters. They have so much power that they in their own right can shield us as we move through these troubled times of climate crisis.

Our languages connect us, they flow with ancient rhythms that are deeply in tune with Mother Earth. As Elder Aunty Rhonda Grovenor Dixon reminded us we will stay stronger together in the language of family and love: And in that way, we joined the right way, the culture way, the loving way, supporting our people and fighting for the rights of our Countries and our Rivers and so we can have clean rivers.

Dr Jason De Santolo is a Garrwa & Barunggam man, and NTEU member at UTS

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 41

Elaine Sadler AO

Photo: The 35 m-diameter dish antenna of ESA’s deep-space tracking station at New Norcia, Western Australia. (europeanspaceagency/flickr)

National honour for Astrophysicist The 26th of January is a strange, contested day, on which we look back to our history, mull on our future, and reluctantly start thinking about work after the long summer break. It is also the day that Australia honours some of its most eminent citizens. This year, one of those was University of Sydney astrophysicist and NTEU member Elaine Sadler (pictured, opposite page), who was awarded the Order of Australia.

Associate Professor Maryanne Large School of Physics University of Sydney

page 42 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

It seems appropriate to honour astronomy on our national day. By any sensible reckoning it is our national science. With little light pollution and skies pointing to the centre of the Galactic plane, Australia is particularly well suited to observing the sky. Indigenous people have been doing so for millennia. Astronomy has been highly entangled with our history: Cook’s trip down the east coast was a detour after an astronomical observation (the transit of Venus), and the telescopes came out in Sydney shortly after the start of settlement. In the aftermath of the second world war, Australia became a powerhouse of radio astronomy, developing new instruments and techniques. Amongst the incidental benefits, developed in trying to track black holes, were techniques that now underpin wifi.

Professor Sadler has made profound contributions to this history. She helped produce a reference survey of the southern sky (Sydney University Molonglo Sky Survey), studied the evolution of galaxies, and helped to uncover a curiously symbiotic relationship between galaxies and black holes. Many galaxies have a large black hole at their centre, and radio jets from them can transport energy from the galactic centre to the outer reaches of the galaxy, where they can influence the rate of future star formation.

NTEU members aplenty in 2019 Honours list

Elizabeth Anne (Janie) Mason (AM) for service to nursing, and to the community of the Northern Territory.

She is based at Charles Darwin University and is an NTEU Life Member.

Over a dozen NTEU members were represented in this year’s honours list, most of them women.

Professor Sarah Miller (AM) for service to performing arts through research, education and advisory roles. Sarah is at Wollongong University.

Professor Kate Moore (AO) for service to medicine, medical research in urogynaecology, and to professional groups. Kate, based at St George Hospital, University of NSW, founded the Pelvic Floor Unit, of which she is now the director. She researches urge incontinence.

Professor Elaine Sadler (AO) for service to science as an astrophysicist, in galaxy evolution, and to gender equality. She is based at the University of Sydney (see article on this page).

Professor Carol Armour (AM) for service to medical education, and asthma management. Based at the University of Sydney, Carol heads the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research.

Professor Frank Bongiorno (AM) for service to tertiary education in history. He is based at the Australian National University.

Professor Mary Garson (AM) for service to education, particularly to organic chemistry, and as an advocate for women in science. She works at Queensland University.

Professor Afaf Girgis (AM) for service to medicine, and medical education in cancer control and psycho-oncology. She works at the South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW.

Professor Lynette Russell (AM) for service to higher education, particularly Indigenous history, and to professional organisations. Based at Monash University, Lynette focuses on developing an anthropological approach to the story of the past and with the history of anthropology itself.

Professor Lyndall Ryan (AM) for service to higher education, particularly to Indigenous history and women’s studies. Based at the University of Newcastle, Lyndall leads the Colonial Frontier Massacres Project that documented an interactive map detailing nearly 250 Aboriginal massacre sites. Lyndall delivered the 2018 NTEU Lecture.

Dr Doseena Fergie (OAM) for service to community health.

A Wuthathi and Mabuiag Islander woman, her work has been chiefly in Indigenous health. She works at Australian Catholic University on projects that place Indigenous history, knowing and culture in ACU curriculum.

Dr Elise Klein (OAM) for service to community through a range of social welfare roles. Elise is a lecturer in Development Studies at Melbourne University.

Dr Jane Page (OAM) for service to education. Jane is a senior lecturer in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at Melbourne University.

partnered with someone who did their fair share at home. Children were a lot of work, she added, but they grow up eventually (Rubin had four, all of whom got PhDs).

It’s a long way from where she started, aged 11, as the youngest member of an amateur astronomical group, comprising mostly retirees. Feeling a bit different was a feature of much of her early professional life. Almost all her lecturers and fellow students were male. But she had some excellent mentors along the way. In Australia, Ron Ekers (who received an AO on the same day) and Don Melrose were particularly helpful. Internationally, she was supported by Martha Haynes from Cornell, and Vera Rubin from the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Many people believe that Rubin, who discovered Dark Matter, should have been awarded the Nobel Prize1. Apparently, she was generous as well as brilliant and wise.

As a young scientist Elaine stayed at her house, and once came across her hand writing a note to the Pope about cosmology. She advised Elaine to make sure she

Elaine inherited from her mentors a desire to help make astronomy more diverse. As the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), she was influential in designing and implementing strategies to improve the representation of women. These included having targets for female speakers at conferences and on shortlists for jobs. Policy changes included allowing all staff the option of working part-time, having childcare at conferences and holding meetings in ‘core hours’. The measures were highly effective, with the fraction of female researchers increasing by nearly a factor of three (to more than 40%) over a seven year period. Vera Rubin would have been proud. All the measures applied to men, so they enabled fathers to take a more active role in raising their children.

“Change happens fastest when it comes from the top,” Elaine noted. Nobel Laureate Brian Schmidt decided to highlight the importance of gender equity by taking the role of Chair of CAASTRO’s Gender Action Committee. “CAASTRO benefited enormously from that decision. People took it more seriously: if Brian thought it was important, then they should too.”

The cultural changes that CAASTRO initiated remain. The toolkit of gender equity policies2 is one of the most important parts of its legacy. Professor Schmidt

credits CAASTRO as inspiring his work on SAGE (Science in Australia Gender Equity), for which he was a founding Co-Chair (with Professor Nalini Joshi). CAASTRO has helped support the careers of a new generation of female astronomers, such as Professors Tara Murphy and Tamara Davies.

The number and variety of female astronomers makes it easier for the next generation. They show that there is not a single way to be a female scientist: they have different backgrounds, have different interests, motivations and life choices.

For Elaine, there’s not much time to reflect on the past. She is currently doing three jobs: foreign secretary of the Australian Academy of Science, researcher as part of a new Centre of Excellence (Astro 3D) and Chief Scientist for CSIRO’s Australia Telescope National Facility. She’s helping to develop and troubleshoot ASKAP, a new radio telescope at Murchison in Western Australia, which will act as a ‘pathfinder’ for the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). And of course there is a SKA itself, a massive global project that will be partially based in Western Australia.

There is much to do scientifically, and plenty of scope to improve our scientific culture. As Oscar Wilde said: “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/opinion/why-vera-rubin-deserved-a-nobel.html 2. http://caastro.org/gender-action-toolkit

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 43

Academic freedom

China’s crackdown on dissent The increasingly repressive regime of Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sent a fresh wave of interference through the country’s universities in recent months, with further curbs on existing roadblocks to academic freedom.

Problematically, Xi has the dual goal of both tightening the party’s grip on universities, and indeed academic thought in China, while trying to boost the country’s innovation leadership as well as international university rankings.

Photo: West Gate of Peking University. (維基小霸王/Wikimedia Commons)

None of this is good news for a raft of western universities – including many from Australia – that have bought into the system in recent decades by running joint courses with tertiary institutions in mainland China.

The Communist Party has always been wary of universities, traditionally places where the open marketplace of ideas can give rise to debate and dissent.

Michael Sainsbury M@sainsburychina

page 44 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

During Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution that began in 1966 and did not officially end until his death in 1976 (despite Mao declaring it over in 1969), universities were shuttered from 1966 along with schools.

They began re-opening in 1970 but most major universities were closed until 1972.

When they re-opened entrance exams were replaced by a system where students were recommended by factories, villages and military units. The entrance exams were finally restored in 1977 as Deng Xiaoping emerged triumphant from 18 months of party infighting as Mao’s successor and began the process of opening up and reforming the nation.

Most crucially, it was university students that were the backbone of the pro-democracy Tiananmen Square protests in early June 1989 which were crushed in a brutal display of military force that saw hundreds murdered and thousands more injured and imprisoned, a turning point in postMao China.

The Communist Party committee at the University then launched new campus bodies responsible for disciplinary inspection tours as well as campus control and management. As if in response, neo-Marxist student groups began to emerge last year and the Government quickly moved to quash them.

It is likely no coincidence that the latest crackdown on academia comes ahead of the 40th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre this coming June, one of a raft of so-called ‘sensitive anniversaries’ in 2019 that will culminate in the 79th anniversary of the Communist Party’s win in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 on October 1.

In November, a mass meeting of students at PKU was warned against protesting in support of labour activists who had been protesting against job cuts. A clutch of both labour and student activists were arrested; with even the faintest whiff of the 1989 student-led protests in Tiananmen Square, party leaders are taking no chances.

The moves on universities under Xi have been part of a more broadly targeted program of crushing dissent from real and imagined enemies including boundary pushing media organisations particularly in southern Guangdong province, social media, rights lawyers, civil society, ‘Western’ religions Christianity and Islam and most recently and, ironically, a newly invigorated labour movement.

More specifically, Xi has had his watchful eye on China universities since stepping into the top job of Communist Party Secretary General in late 2012.

From 2013 a range of restrictions were increasingly introduced on various elements associated with ‘Western thought.’

At a two day December 2016 conference of senior academics, Xi really pulled focus on universities and academic thought, announcing that universities must become ideological ‘strongholds’ and ‘serve the rule of the Chinese Communist Party’ and ‘promote socialism’.

Following this, in early 2017 the Communist Party feared Central Discipline Committee that has been Xi’s main tool of power consolidation launched a new round of ‘inspections’.

The scale and scope of the escalated crackdown during 2018 was underscored in October when Lin Jianhua, president of the prestigious Peking University (PKU), was suddenly removed from his position.

He was replaced by Hao Ping, a professor and former Communist Party secretary of the University who had also served as a vice-minister of education.

Like businesses in China, universities have their own party committees that report back to party headquarters at a provincial or national level. The change of guard at PKU saw Qiu Shuiping, a senior cadre from state security apparatus with no education sector experience appointed party secretary of the University in order to enforce tougher discipline.

Increasingly in recent years, Chinese academics have been stopped from travelling to western nations for academic conferences, and more recently have been prevented from attending conferences in Hong Kong.

...a mass meeting of students at PKU was warned against protesting in support of labour activists who had been protesting against job cuts. A clutch of both labour and student activists were arrested; with even the faintest whiff of the 1989 student-led protests in Tiananmen Square, party leaders are taking no chances.

The crackdown on academic freedom and the forced education of university students in the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, are prime examples of Xi Jinping’s continued and alarming repression of thought.

To use an overused but nonetheless appropriate term, it is Orwellian.

In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Government of the super-state of Oceania polices not only the actions of its repressed citizens but also their thoughts through the Thought Police, a secretive police force.

“The Thought Police would get him just the same,” the book’s protagonist Winston Smith says. “He had committed – would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper – the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for

a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.”

It’s not just inside China’s universities where the nation’s thought police are making their presence felt. Last year England’s Cambridge University Press’ prestigious China Quarterly Journal capitulated, albeit temporarily, to Chinese censors, removing hundreds of articles from its library.

This was a stark wake-up call for much of the global academic community directly engaged with China – or those who were being deliberately ignorant about the stifling of academic freedom in the world’s second largest economy.

China’s interest in crushing academic thought that the Party sees as a threat has extended well beyond its own borders. In the past few years the Australian media, along with academic Clive Hamilton in his book Silent Invasion, have well documented the attempts by the Party’s notorious United Front Work Department to spread its web of influence through Chinese students on campuses in Australia.

And there have been more overt instances of China influencing offshore academics and creating an environment where western academics and academic journals have self-censored.

Cambridge University Press chief Tim Pringle has said that “The pressures of authoritarianism and what I call market fundamentalism have come together to bring perhaps severe constraints on research in China, which is not to say, by the way, that there isn’t some excellent research coming out of China … but it’s not easy, and it’s getting much, much harder.”

As noted earlier, that this comes at a time when China is determined to outstrip the United States in technology (including defence) advances, the repression of free thought seems counterintuitive.

A free and open academic environment system where debate and criticism are encouraged has been proven by history to be the best way to innovate. It’s no coincidence that alongside these thematics is the more open and increasingly strident criticism from the West – especially, at present, the United States, of China’s wholesale intellectual property theft and so-called forced technology transfer.

But the nature of the beast – in this case the Chinese Communist Party – is so often its own worst enemy.

Michael Sainsbury is a Bangkok-based Australian journalist and former Beijing-based correspondent A section of this essay was originally published in ucanews.com

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 45

News from the Net Pat Wright

Election web-watch Close followers of the forthcoming Federal Election might find some of the following online resources interesting.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is a vast collection of data on every election in every electorate in recent Australian history, as well as explanatory pieces on how the system works – preferential voting, proportional representation, the distribution of preferences, electoral redistributions, electoral swings, etc.

Finding one’s electoral division in this website is a simple matter and reveals comprehensive data about its history, past and present boundaries and voting patterns. The actual distribution of preferences among political parties in the electorate – rather than the nation-wide averages – can be quite disparate. Such voting patterns can vary quite markedly from polling place to polling place within the one electorate.

Such detailed data is mostly of interest to political parties for targeting their campaigning, and extensive data downloads for each polling place are available for easy, graphic presentation in spreadsheets or specialist electoral software. Indeed, the AEC provides a large sub-set of information for parties, candidates and scrutineers, as well as one for teachers.

Election day coverage On election day, the AEC’s official results centre, the Virtual Tally Room (VTR), provides vote counting on election night and progressive results until the final outcome is declared. The VTR can be accessed directly on election night from 6pm and radio and television commentary is based on these data.

The most comprehensive radio and television coverage of voting on election night is provided by the ABC, closely followed by SBS. For those who prefer more strongly-flavoured spin, there is also coverage on the commercial television channels. Being spoilt for choice, some people might select the channel with their favourite politicians on the panel, having been trained by the mainstream media over the past three decades to prioritise celebrity over policy.

All of these media agencies also provide newsfeeds on Twitter and Facebook, and some will provide live blogs on their websites. These services can be handy to get an overview of trends or tips of some quirky anomalies, which can then be followed-up on through the links provided.

Perhaps a couple of these agencies might develop an app to integrate their various services a little closer to election day.

Once the campaign starts, the ABC website provides an Australia Votes section, with a Guide to all aspects of the election, including policy differences between the three major parties, lists of all candidates in all electorates, and Vote Compass, a tool developed by political scientists that calculates how your views compare with those of the political parties. As the votes are counted on election day, Antony Green’s pendulum predictor provides the likely outcome in each seat, and the key seats which may change hands are identified.

Polling The Australia Votes website also provides a historical overview of polling since the last election – Primary Votes, Two-Party Preferred, and Preferred PM – conducted

by Newspoll, Essential Media, Roy Morgan Research, and Ipsos.

Newspoll is published exclusively in The Australian. The archive of polling on policy issues considered most important in influencing votes, broken down by voting intention, appears to have ended in 2015 – at least for the public, if not for their customers.

Essential Media’s public polling on social issues and voting intentions began in 2007 with the first Essential Report and continues weekly to the present day. Each week federal voting intentions are polled, and a few social issues relevant at the time. This has accumulated to a vast machine-searchable store-house of changing public opinion, usually broken down by party allegiance – and it is freely available to the public.

Roy Morgan Research pride themselves particularly on the accuracy of their methodology and are trenchantly critical of cheap robo-polling, such as that done

by Reach Tel for Greenpeace in the recent Wentworth by-election.

Ipsos is the world’s third-largest research agency. In Australia, it conducts regular

page 46 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

opinion polling for Nine, published in the Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. It publishes its own surveys on social and political issues, often related to the policies of the major political parties.

Analysis For analysis and commentary on election issues and trends, the above-mentioned newspapers, along with the Guardian Australia, the New Daily, the Monthly Today and The Briefing from The Saturday Paper – particularly in their online, email, or Twitter forms – are highly informative.

For even more in-depth analysis see Inside Story, particularly Peter Brent’s political blog, Mumble, and articles by Paul Rodan and others, or see The Poll Bludger.

Other sources of electoral information are the betting agencies, who offer odds on the winning party and on the winning candidate in each electorate. Most of them require that one opens an account with them, but SportsBet allows non-members to search for each state’s electorates, which can be bookmarked on one’s smartphone for real-time odds, rather than waiting for weekly of monthly polling.

Potentially, the most significant factor in the 2019 election is the GetUp! campaign by progressive activists, which aims to unseat the worst hard-right conservative Coalition MPs – not all of them ‘low-hanging fruit’. The top group on their hit-list consists of Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton, Kevin Andrews, Greg Hunt, and Nicolle Flint in Boothby (adjacent to Mayo, where GetUp! helped remove Jamie Briggs for Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie at the last general election).

For weeks now campaign action groups have been organising door-knocking and call parties, where members bring their mobile phones to form a coordinated call centre to canvass voters in their electorate.

Vote 1 for Information.

Pat Wright is an NTEU Life Member. patrite@me.com Antony Green’s Election Blog: www.abc.net.au/news/elections/blog Peter Bent (Mumble) on Inside Story: insidestory.org.au/authors/peter-brent Poll Bludger: pollbludger.net

From the Immediate Past President Jeannie Rea

Why free TAFE matters Thousands of Victorians started their free TAFE courses this year. This will change people’s lives for the better. It means, too, that public technical and further education is on the way to rebuilding as the focus of post school education, alongside public universities.

knowledge. Schools, like TAFE and universities, have responded to the funding crises by employing staff insecurely, so it is really hard to start and sustain a career.

Meanwhile, the public discourse is conveniently focused upon ‘blaming the teachers’, rather than the lack of adequate resourcing, and support for staff.

‘Free TAFE’ also matters because it has changed the discourse from arguing about the levels of fees, who should pay, and who should provide education and training. It has put the responsibility back in government hands in contrast to decades of governments preferring to subsidise private companies, charge students prohibitively expensive fees, and complain of the costs of paying staff and maintaining institutions.

The discourse has shifted.

With the devastation of TAFE along with a lack of government intervention in labour market planning, and the reality that more jobs require university degrees, many more school leavers have opted for university. Indeed, at the same time that TAFE fees were sky rocketing around the country and private competitors were skimming off the profitable courses, the then Education Minister Julia Gillard announced an open door to universities – all newcomers would get funded (about half from the students and half from government).

Her aim was to increase the proportion of university graduates. This was admirable at first glance, but not while no more funding was actually going into accompanying each of these new places.

There is now space to talk about public interest, about the public good purpose of public services, and about obligations of government in enabling civil and human rights. We can now talk about government spending priorities, rather than constantly trying to justify education spending in terms of productivity returns. All of TAFE is not yet free, but the gates are ajar. We now need to push the gate open across the country, and also change the ways we talk about funding early childhood and school education – and higher education.

We need a consistent public education system, but, we continue to have an early childhood sector where for and not-for profit companies vie for government funding, and where governments still pay for private primary and secondary schools.

Despite the excellence of so much of our public school systems, many children and young people at public schools do not reach their potential because of inadequate and unfair funding. The equality gap widens when some students cannot even get to school; or arrive hungry and poorly clothed and without the required learning materials; and where they cannot get enough teacher and support staff attention to gain confidence, skills and

Back when Gough Whitlam abolished tertiary tuition fees (including for international students), he spoke of merit being the decider of who got a place at university not family wealth or what school you went to. But while we have many more university places, what school you went to still matters, because inequality across the school system means all students are not similarly prepared for university.

Gillard’s own review of the higher education system had concluded that student funding needed to immediately increase at least ten per cent for each student place. Instead this ‘demand driven system’ brought in many more students at the same poor funding rate. Many wanted a university degree, others didn’t have another option. Universities coped by cutting and casualising the academic workforce, reducing professional staff and expecting more work out of everyone. Students often struggled. As we have said many times, education is too important to leave to the market. A properly planned and funded system would mean that as school leavers, (and throughout our lives) we would move in and out of tertiary education.

What we are doing in our schools, TAFEs and universities matters. It is not just about getting through in the expectation that we can get a better job and have a better life. When we include more people and a

greater diversity of people our educational institutions and systems improve. Back when those ‘bluestocking’ women demanded entry to universities, they did not just want university degrees. They wanted to change what was being taught. The accepted science of the day was that women did not have the brain capacity for study, their reproductive organs would perish if they studied, and if they demanded the vote they were hysterical and insane. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and students challenge the ‘university’ every day as they bring in different ways of being, seeing and knowing. Dealing with Islamophobia is real life, and also seen through the prism of class, in my classrooms.

The ‘stale, pale male’ professor has become caricature, but he has not been knocked off his pedestal, yet. The canons of western civilisation are still the dominant discourse in our universities. But this will change, which is why also there is so much resistance.

‘Free TAFE’ matters, because it opens up the conversation again on free public schools and free public universities. Everyone should have the opportunity, but it is about more than equity. Free education also means that everyone owns it – we elect governments on their commitments to free education.

We have to have big demands. Looking around the world, free university education is the norm in Europe, and in some countries, like Germany and Norway, free to even non-Europeans. Many fee free countries are also wealthy countries with high standards of living, but not all. Greece has maintained free universities as introducing fees is too unpopular: Germany tried to bring in fees, but quickly reneged.

As England wallows in high fees and declines in student enrolments, Scotland, maintains free universities and an enviable standard of education and research. In Argentina, private universities are proliferating, but public universities are better and free, as is now the case in The Philippines.

Free tertiary education is on the platforms of government and presidential contenders, including in the US and UK. And importantly, the case for fee free education is never about ‘marginal rates of return on investment’, it is about big aspirations for more peaceful, fair and civil societies.

Jeannie Rea was NTEU National President from 2010 to 2018.

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 47

The Thesis Whisperer Inger Mewburn

Epidemic of invisible work There’s an old saying that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. The epidemic of academic over work is, in part, a data problem. We have no idea how many hours academics work, but anecdotally it’s a lot.

Ignoring invisible work serves a political purpose. Consider the way we routinely ignore the work involved in keeping our offices clean. In fact, we only notice if the place is left dirty. We also imagine cleaning is so easy that anyone can do it. I don’t know about you, but I am pretty crap at keeping my bathroom shower screen clean. Recently it got so bad I was forced to research my options, go out and buy a special product. It took several goes to apply the product correctly and get all the calcification off. A fresh reminder that cleaning is skilful work. But devaluing work makes it easy to pay people less money.

It is easy to forget or devalue work that effectively disappears from managerial gaze. We desperately need a time and motion study of academic work to make the amount we work more visible. Data can make our work more visible can help us negotiate better working conditions.

I’ve been banging this drum since I heard the sad story of Dr Malcolm Andersen.

Dr Andersen’s story of over work leading to self-harm, and the grief of his family at losing him, really affected me. Any of us are vulnerable to developing mental illness if we are relentlessly overworked.

I say this with love, but academics tend to be optimistic time managers who just work over time to accommodate their unrealistic promises. Most academics I know work at least one day on the weekend and will answer emails at all hours. We love our work, which makes us very easy to exploit.

We need to stop seeing the lack of research around academic labour as a curious oversight and started seeing it as a matter of life and death. When I raised the issue at a Union meeting, I was challenged to come up with a solution.

I started by writing a few thought pieces here in the Advocate. I wrote a column about Malcolm Andersen here (vol. 25, no. 3, July 2018) and I wrote about my own struggles with time ‘management’ here, where I declared my intention of using the app Timing to measure my own work hour and compare it to the expectations stated in my annual performance review. Late last year I reported back in the Advocate on that self-experiment in an article called ‘Chewing on the FAT’ (vol. 25, no. 3, November 2018). This post consisted of an analysis of the data I had collected, which showed how much paid – and unpaid – time I was actually spending at work.

In an academic context, this makes the problem of invisible work even more crucial for our colleagues who are paid by the hour. An hourly rate of $42 for tutoring sounds okay, unless you factor in the three hours you might spend preparing and answering email. Making work visible is a political act.

The outcome of all this work is only ‘seen’ in the classroom.

The work that is done to produce one hour in the classroom is never measured or evaluated by line managers.

My analysis showed a significant amount of what labour studies scholars have labelled ‘invisible work’: work that is not in formal job descriptions, yet must be done in order to keep the academic show on the road. Think of tasks like booking rooms, contacting speakers, buying supplies, reading and thinking about what to teach.

This work is never measured, even just in terms of time spent.

The outcome of all this work is only ‘seen’ in the classroom. The work that is done to produce one hour in the classroom is never measured or evaluated by line managers. When you think about it, this invisible work is only really assessed by students; in institutional surveys of teaching quality where they might note how ‘organised’ their teacher seems to be.

If a teacher doesn’t have time to organise themselves in the first place, they should not be penalised for looking like a mess in front of their students.

page 48 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

At the end of the article on Chewing the FAT, I flippantly suggested that I had 11 per cent of my time to do a project studying academic overwork, if the NTEU wanted to fund it. I’m grateful that Dr Karine Dupre, an academic in the field of architecture at Griffith University, read the article and took me up on the dare. Karine negotiated a small research grant from the Griffith Branch of the NTEU, who kindly supported the work.

We are now recruiting! We only have a small amount of funding and time, so for the initial data collection we want to work with academics at level C (Senior Lecturer) or level D (Associate Professor). Only Mac users at this stage, as Timing is not available on the PC (sorry!).

Our hunch is that these people, as ‘middle managers’ are likely to be burdened with the most amount of invisible work. If you are interested, you can register for more information at the link below.

I’ll report back next time on how we are going!

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

M@thesiswhisperer See article on p. 5, or register your interest: www.nteu.org.au/invisiblework

Lowering the Boom Ian Lowe

Counting the Coalition’s failings There are so many reasons to vote out the Coalition Government at the May election: energy policy and climate change, higher education and research funding, public broadcasting, treatment of refugees, the appalling level of the Newstart allowance. It is just not possible to document their many failings in one small column!

I have been worried for over thirty years by the increasingly clear evidence that human activity is changing the global climate. As I was writing, the World Meteorological Organisation released its 2018 report on the state of the climate. The new report is truly alarming. It documents increasing average temperatures, more extreme weather-related events such as heatwaves, cyclones and fires, accelerating sea level rise, shrinking sea ice and retreat of glaciers. As the UN Secretary General says, the data in the report “give cause for great concern”.

Just one example leaped out at me.

Greenland has lost 3600 cubic kilometres of ice since 2002. That works out at about three-quarters of a cubic kilometre of ice melting every day, on average, contributing to the increasing rate of sea level rise.

“There is no longer any time for delay”, the Secretary General said, calling for urgent international action to slow down the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.

Our national government is still dithering, as if responding to climate change is an optional extra to be implemented only if it doesn’t slow economic growth. There is clear evidence that it is technically possible, as well as economically prudent, to move rapidly to de-carbonise our electricity supply.

Academic researchers at ANU and University of NSW have published detailed papers showing that we could power

Australia totally from a mix of renewable energy technologies, with storage to allow for the periods when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

In December 2018, CSIRO and the Australian Electricity Market operator published a joint report, GenCost 2018, evaluating the cost of new generating capacity. It estimated the average cost of new power production from solar and wind at about $40 per megawatt-hour. The report noted that no new storage would be needed to increase the share of electricity from renewables to 50 per cent, because the level of back-up now installed to provide for the unreliability of old coal-fired power stations is already adequate.

So there is no economic reason to continue delay or, even worse, try to appease the National Party MPs in Queensland, by flirting with the idea of using public money to build more costly and polluting coal-fired power.

As an example, South Australia last year got more than half of its power from solar and wind, exporting its surplus to Victoria. Adding enough storage to run the country completely on clean power would increase the average cost to about $60 per MegaWatt-hour. The report noted that the average wholesale price in NSW last year was $82! So there is no economic reason to continue delay or, even worse, try to appease the National Party MPs in Queensland, by flirting with the idea of using public money to build more costly and polluting coal-fired power.

The voters apparently understand that.

A recent opinion poll in South Australia showed almost 80 per cent support for moving to 100 per cent renewables by 2030. That is a much more rapid transition than either major party is proposing. We also need, as a matter of equal urgency, to tackle the problem of increasing greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

Governments are still investing billions of dollars of public funds in dinosaur road schemes which will worsen the problem.

No city in the world has ever solved its transport problems by building more

roads, but the Coalition is partnering with the SA State Government to pour squillions into ‘congestion-busting’ road-widening schemes. That money should be invested in providing world-class public transport systems for our cities and highspeed inter-urban rail.

Funding of public broadcasting should also be an election issue. The community still trusts the ABC despite budget cuts of over $250 million, massive job losses, increasing replacement of local content by tired repeats of BBC programs and greater intrusion of self-promotion advertising between TV programs.

As purchases of Murdoch papers continue their slide toward oblivion, the hostility of those mastheads’ attacks on the public broadcaster has intensified. The political agenda seems to have been to starve the ABC and SBS of funds to systematically reduce the quality of their programming, hoping the community will then be willing to allow a Coalition Government to end public broadcasting, just as they have wound back public provision of other essential services.

The hard evidence is that the strategy is not working. People understand that the systematic bias of the commercial media has worsened with the take-over of the Fairfax publications by the Nine network, whose board is chaired by Peter Costello. More people now rely on public broadcasting and social media to find out what is really happening in the world.

The value of an independent ABC has been reinforced by recent documentaries which have changed public awareness of important issues.

Research funding should also be discussed in the context of the election. I saw that the recent ERA exercise seems to have found that an increasing fraction of our higher education research is worldclass or, amazingly, even better than that – presumably attracting attention throughout the entire galaxy! But only a minority of our world-class researchers invest weeks of their time preparing grant applications to the Australian Research Council, and 80 per cent of them don’t get funded. The inevitable conclusion is that the ARC pie is inadequate to fund world-class research.

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

M@AusConservation

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 49

Letter from Aotearoa/NZ Michael Gilchrist

Together we grieve, together we respond to end racism On 15 March 2019 at 1.32pm New Zealand changed forever. The murder of fifty people at mosques in Christchurch stunned us all.

In the days that followed, the tragedy has brought New Zealanders together in our tens of thousands to mourn, to express our horror, and to try to make sense of the world.

It has mobilised our members to provide aroha and support to those affected by the racist attacks in Christchurch. We have sought to meet with our Muslim members and their families kanohi ki te kanohi, though respecting that this must happen when they are ready to share their time with us.

But for the TEU membership, like unions across New Zealand, there is work to be done when the grieving eases.

As Anne Holt said after the Norwegian mass shooting “after the dead are honored and buried, after the memorial services are over, and everyday life catches up with the country, it will be necessary to ask ourselves: How on earth did we allow this to happen?”

Many have said they are surprised by the racist attacks that have left fifty dead. They are surprised at the depth of racism that exists in Aotearoa.

The fact that white supremacy exists is something our members have experienced first-hand. It has never before reached the devastating depths suffered

by Muslims on 15 March.

But day-to-day racism illustrates the depth of hatred held by some. For example, a Māori member talked about being surrounded in a Christchurch store by young, white men while one lifted his sleeve to show the swastika tattooed on his arm.

There were racist social media comments made when the TEU objected publicly to the establishment of a ‘European students association’ with a white-supremacy manifesto. And more generally, we are, as a union, deeply concerned by institutional

Above: Christchurch students perform haka for New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. (Youtube) and systemic racism in our education system.

There are many more examples of underlying racism in Aotearoa – but together we can change it. Together we will work harder to end racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and any ideological positions which cause harm to others.

One way we can do this is by striving to improve relationships between all the members of our union, all those whose lives are transformed by tertiary education, and all those in the wider community.

We must ensure that everyone in Aotearoa has a place to stand and belong. That doesn’t involve making us all the same. It is about respecting difference, celebrating diversity, and building strong relationships based on connections to others.

For the TEU membership it means turning to our core values – in particular it means drawing on our Te Koeke Tiriti, principles.

These light a path for us out of the darkness that descended on 15 March. They illuminate our everyday actions and our longer term goals. As Martin Luther King said: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Our light is Te Koeke Tiriti, whose four whainga are set out below.

It reminds us to stand together and make sure no one is left behind – Tū kotahi, tū kaha. That we need to endure through

page 50 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

good and bad – Ngā piki, ngā heke – and ensure everyone a place where each has the right to stand and belong. That awhi – care and support – must be both given and received.

We must also reach out and work with NTEU, UCU, CAUT and all our international friends to spread this movement beyond Aotearoa. The shock of the murders on 15 March have resounded across the ditch and far beyond. Together we can lead global action to end racism.

Michael Gilchrist is the new National President/Te Tumu Whakarae, New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa. www.teu.ac.nz Michael Gilchrist took over as TEU National President/Te Tumu Whakarae in late 2018. Michael has spent his life campaigning for the interests of working people and has strong relationships throughout the broader union movement. While working as a postie between 1990 and 1997, he was the founding chairperson of the Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa. From 1997 to 2000 he was National Secretary of the NZ Trade Union Federation, before becoming an organiser for the Association of University Staff and then the TEU. In the last few years Michael has taught philosophy and worked in other roles at Victoria University of Wellington while writing his PhD thesis.

Delegates News Delegate Profile

Tracie Pollin

Librarian, Murdoch University Why did you become a delegate?

To be part of a ‘working union’, a union that works tirelessly for their workers.

The Union has helped and protected me immensely in the past, so I decided that in order to pay back the support I would become a Union delegate.

Working at Murdoch University, I witnessed the hard work and long hours our Bargaining Team endured, and I couldn’t be prouder of the outcome. This proved to me that Union membership gives strength in numbers, and more importantly ensures fair treatment in the workplace. I’m proud to be an NTEU member and delegate.

What do you enjoy most about being a delegate?

Foremost, I enjoy the networking. Getting to know fellow workers is a very important part of being a Delegate and it is an honour to be trusted to represent our members in the Library.

The solidarity is also the best. I have witnessed the NTEU and many workers’ unions helping each other in times of need and it makes me very proud to be a part of such genuine unity.

What are some of the challenges you face as a delegate?

Recruiting new members and activists can be challenging.

Signing up new members plays an important part in being a delegate and you need to remain confident and keep plugging away. In saying this, I have had the utmost support from all NTEU staff and other delegates.

What would you say to others looking at possibly nominating as a delegate?

Please do so! Delegates play a very important part of any Union, as they are often the first point of contact for members who have problems or need advice.

Delegates need to be known by face and be approachable so that fellow workers can come to them if they have concerns.

Be that face!

Attend the seminars and workshops that are available to you. This will keep you up to date and help with obtaining the necessary leadership, recruiting and mentoring skills.

Delegates also play an important role in distributing or disseminating information; whether it be by posters, notices, newsletters or messages sent by the Union.

Be the voice! delegates.nteu.org.au

AUR is published twice a year by the NTEU.

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

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 Did you know that all NTEU members are automatically covered for journey injury insurance?

Travel Work insurance Travel Toto Work Insurance

As an individual you could be paying hundreds of dollars a year to get this valuable cover, but as a financial member of your union, it’s absolutely free!

Just another great benefit of joining your union, the NTEU.

Find out more at www.nteu.org.au/traveltowork NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 51

Delegates News

NTEU NSW Delegates Conference

Organise-> Power -> Change Over 100 Delegates packed into Sydney’s Historic Trades Hall in February for the NSW Delegates Conference. Representatives came from campuses across NSW, as well as some interstate guests. Health and Safety Representatives and Branch Committee members also attended.

NTEU Delegates are activists who’ve put up their hands to be the contact point in their workplaces, to help build union power and share union news with their workmates. Delegates are essential to growing the Union and achieving better conditions, so the Conference was a great opportunity to allow Delegates to meet each other and gain new skills to take back to their workplaces.

The day featured workshops, panels and guest speakers. ACTU President Michele O’Neil shared her insights into how we must Change The Rules for secure jobs.

This year, participants were also joined by keynote speaker Hahrie Han, Anton Vonk Professor of Political Science and Environmental Politics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Han shared her insights into the differences between mobilising and organising and how they influence the success of activist groups.

She shared some of her findings from her research into civic groups in the US, from her influential book ‘How Organizations Develop Activists: Civic Associations and Leadership in the 21st Century’.

Another highlight of the day was a panel featuring leaders from the School Strike for Climate, the ANMF’s ratios in aged

page 52 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

care campaign, the CFMEU’s Wongawilli miners campaign (which achieved a big win for secure jobs), and the University of Sydney.

Images, from top: Delegate conference attendees; Ayse, a delegate from Macquarie University makes a point; Keynote speaker Hahrie Han. (N. Clark)

My Union BOOK REVIEW

main problems that the global/neoliberal world throws up for universities within the rich Global North and the developing Global South.

In the book, the author reviews several aspects of university culture, from the most important to some apparently banal ones.

One thing that Connell makes very clear is that universities are a place of knowledge, research, teaching and learning, but that this only happens when we work together, when we weave knowledge together.

For her, the generation of knowledge is a social process. In this sense, it is vital to consider the university as a whole, as a unit in the service of knowledge, created by humans for humans; all the workforce of the university is crucial to the development of knowledge, she says.

Collaboration between hemispheres

Towards a more collaborative university Globalisation and neoliberalism have dramatically changed the ways we view health and education services. In these two arenas, we see the most striking social inequalities and these extend throughout the Global North and South.

For example, universities have progressively multiplied in number, with many bogus and unaccredited universities operating in the market, trading online and in-person courses. However, despite the increase in numbers, not everyone has access to higher education.

The well-known sociologist Raewyn Connell, author of Masculinities (2005), Southern Theory (2007) and Gender: In World Perspective (2015), deals in her latest book, The Good University – What universities actually do and why it’s time for radical change, with the current turbulent issues through which universities have passed as a result of neoliberalism. This work is a fundamental contribution to the moment we are living in, which is still relatively rarely questioned by academics.

Connell, with her profound knowledge and sharp critical skills, has links with several generations of researchers from various parts of the globe. She has managed brilliantly to sum up in eight chapters the

In addition, Connell explores the questions raised by a global knowledge economy which remains predominantly centralised in the Global North. Composed primarily of Western Europe and North America, the global knowledge economy contains the wealthiest, most influential and dominant research centres in the world.

She has been working in depth on the relationship between the imperial Global North and the colonised Global South and she analyses the making of knowledge between these two hemispheres.

Connell gives an excellent example, among others, of how Latin America has been trying to manage the economy of knowledge through the creation of SciELO, a digital platform formed mainly by Latin American countries, Portugal, Spain and South Africa.

It shares scientific articles free of charge in contrast with the Global North where scholars’ articles are for sale, although the authors are not paid for them.

Connell’s book offers an excellent critique of how universities have broadened their educational marketing campaign. Desperate to sell courses as products and trading on universities’ name and institutional prestige, universities have nevertheless not been able to guarantee any future career for their students in the labour market.

It is interesting to note that those who run private universities are entrepreneurs who often do not come from the education sector and that most are not university educated. They are, however, in possession of large sums of money financed by private banks.

Universities are now run by managers who earn mammoth salaries, with their websites selling a perfect image of university training that does not deliver for the la-

Special Member Offer Save 20% + free postage (within Australia) when you purchase this title from Monash University Publishing at www.publishing.monash.edu

Use discount voucher code:

PUBGEN20

bour market. According to Connell, this is one of the consequences of neoliberalism – where anyone with money can compete on the open capital market – but where the winners are always investors seeking financial gain.

In the Global South things get more complicated because developing economies are not in any way liberal, but apply neoliberal policies to create competition.

Lack of quality is devastating university education and university professors and lecturers, who earn less and are more likely to work with huge numbers of students on online courses, are being exploited.

Collaboration not competition Finally, Connell proposes her ideal for the university. She does not by any means propose a return to some kind of medieval institution, but she believes in a university where there is a campus (not only a virtual one), where researchers interact, weaving knowledge together in collaboration with each other rather than in competition.

Indeed, she does not offer a blueprint, but sketches some headline ideas which help us to think what we might be able to change in today’s universities. She envisages a more democratic, engaged, truthful, creative and sustainable institution where the good university is cooperative rather than competitive; with more institutional and regional diversity, a place with a friendlier environment to work in where people share facilities rather than fearing they will lose status, privileges and money.

I believe that Connell’s views are not romantic, idealistic or impossible, even if the present moment is hostile, competitive and somewhat dispiriting.

This book is a must-read for those who have an interest in questioning what is really going on with the university these days; it is also highly suitable for students who are embarking on university studies and also for scholars already established in the academic world.

Dr José Loureiro, AVM Educacional – Cândido Mendes University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil This review was published in University World News, 23 March 2019. www.universityworldnews.com

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 53

4 Ways to save this EOFY With the EOFY fast approaching, Member Advantage has worked to save you time and money.

American Express® Professionals cards Access exclusive Member Advantage offers and welcome bonuses for NTEU members. Discover the range of cards available: ♦ The Professionals American Express® Essential ♦ The Professionals American Express® Platinum Edge ♦ The Professionals American Express® Platinum Charge Choose your credit card

Save on overseas money transfers With OFX, access competitive rates on 55 currencies with no transaction fees on transfers. You also receive: ♦ 24/7 telephone support ♦ Access to risk management tools like Limit Orders and Forward Exchange Contracts ♦ Easy payment of international invoices Open an account

Manage your money with MYOB MYOB in the cloud makes life easier, with any time, anywhere access to financial information, live reporting and straightforward bank entries plus, get three months access for free.

Find a MYOB Plan

Get 50% off financial planning A financial plan is your roadmap to knowing where you are, where you want to be and how you can achieve your financial goals.

Financial Planning will cover all these and more: ♦ Wealth accumulation and investment plans ♦ Retirement and superannuation planning ♦ Taxation assessment ♦ Debt management Book a consultation Terms and conditions apply

www.memberadvantage.com.au/nteu For more information, email info@memberadvantage.com.au or call 1300 853 352.

page 54 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

My Union Obituary: Lily Pereg

NTEU Scholarships 2019 – Call for applications

NTEU University of New England (UNE) Branch was shocked to hear about the tragic death of Professor Lily Pereg and her sister, Pyrhia Sarussi.

Lily was a highly recognised microbiologist and a true academic at the peak of her career. She remains a role model of a passionate, honest and modest scientist. Colleagues and students will gratefully remember her warm and caring personality.

Born in Israel, Lily Pereg studied science for her bachelor’s degree in Tel Aviv, and then completed a Master’s degree in Israel, specialising in the nitrogen fixation of seagrass.

She moved to Australia in the mid 1990s after being awarded a scholarship to complete a PhD at the University of

Sydney. She transferred to UNE in the early 2000s, where she was an Associate Professor before her recent promotion to full Professor.

She was a dear friend to many among the NTEU community at UNE. Members of the NTEU UNE Branch send heartfelt condolences to family, friends and colleagues.

Ms Sarussi’s son, Gil Pereg, has been arrested and charged with murder.

Sources: UNE Branch, SMH

NSW Summer interns

Here’s how Lilia and James (pictured, right) felt about their time with NTEU.

Lilia I’ve learnt a lot during this internship.

Firstly, I feel more competent to help my friends when they tell me about their employment concerns or ask where they can go for advice. I understand the structure of the Union better, I’ve gained an incredible insight into bargaining, workplace disputes, conciliation, and the role of the Fair Work Commission.

However, mostly I’ve gained an appreciation of the Union, how they assist members with their individual issues, and how there is so much more work going on

Carolyn Allport Scholarship The Carolyn Allport Scholarship for Postgraduate Feminist Studies by Research is available for a woman undertaking postgraduate feminist studies, by research, in any discipline, awarding $5000 per year for a maximum of 3 years to the successful applicant. Applicants must be currently enrolled in postgraduate studies, by research, in an academic award of an Australian public university.

This scholarship has been created in recognition of Dr Carolyn Allport’s contribution to the leadership and development of the Union in her 16 years as National President.

Joan Hardy Scholarship

James and Lilia were the NTEU NSW Division’s Union Summer interns for 2019.

Union Summer is a paid internship program through Unions NSW that places people with unions for two weeks to learn the ropes and gain valuable experience.

NTEU is again offering two scholarships in 2019. The application deadline for both scholarships is Friday 26 July 2019. A decision will be made in late August 2019.

behind the scenes negotiating Enterprise Agreements, and working on ways to improve work conditions more generally.

James I appreciated that members are the highest decision makers in the Union, and that this is placed at the forefront of all the NTEU’s work.

My internship with the NTEU has shown me more than ever that believing in equality is not enough, and we should all contribute our activism and skills to help create a better world. Seeing NTEU staff and Branch members work together to organise plans for the year was great to see.

Thanks to the staff and members for giving us their time, wisdom and encouragement during our stay at the NTEU.

The Joan Hardy Scholarship for Postgraduate Nursing Research is available for any student undertaking a postgraduate study of nurses, nursing culture or practices, or historical aspects of nursing as a lay or professional practice. The student need not therefore be or have been a nurse and can be undertaking the study in disciplines/schools other than nursing. A sum of $5000 will be paid in two instalments; half on the awarding of the Scholarship and the remainder on evidence of submission of the thesis. Applicants must be currently enrolled in an academic award of an Australian public university and expect to submit the thesis within one year of being awarded the Scholarship. This scholarship recognises the contribution the late Joan Hardy made to higher education and higher education unionism in over 30 years of activism.

For more information contact Helena Spyrou hspyrou@nteu.org.au nteu.org.au/myunion/scholarships

NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 55

My Union New NTEU staff Simona Grieco Industrial Officer WA Division Simona has degrees in Law and in Science.

She has previously worked as an industrial officer at the CPSU/CSA and was the associate to Deputy President Bull at the Fair Work Commission.

Inspired by the writing of James Baldwin, and a die-hard fan of Billy Bragg, Simona is dedicated to facing challenges and changing the rules.

Kate Brandreth Branch Organiser UNSW

tions and organising roles at the World Wildlife Fund, ACTU and the CPSU. Kate is looking forward to getting to know the activists and members at the UNSW Branch.

James Higgins Branch Organiser Murdoch James has recently joined NTEU as the Branch Organiser at Murdoch University.

He brings his experience as an academic into this role, and is currently still a member of the Branch Committee at the University of Notre Dame where he continues to teach part time.

James is dedicated to fighting for the rights of workers in the sector, and is keen to help members take ownership and feel empowered as unionists.

Kate has recently been appointed as the part time Branch Organiser at UNSW. Kate is originally from Wollongong, and has unionism in her blood.

Kate is excited about working with UNSW activists to grow the Union and improve rights for members on campus. Kate has over 10 years experience of working in unions. Her last role was the National Campaigns Director at the AWU – where she established a new union for hairdressers, Hair Stylists Australia. Prior to that, Kate has held various campaign, communica-

Melissa Webster Branch Organiser USC Melissa joins the NTEU as the new University of the Sunshine Coast Branch Organiser.

Melissa has extensive experience as a union organiser. Her most recent employment was MEAA, having the organising responsibility for the media, equity and

page 56 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 26 no. 1 • April 2019 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate

live theatre sections. Melissa also worked for Together Union and the ASU as an Organiser, Lead Organiser and Union Trainer.

As a member of Unions for Refugees and Union Aid Abroad–APHEDA, Melissa has strong social justice values. She is looking forward to working with the USC Branch members to build union power across all campuses.

Kelly Thomas National Senior Industrial Officer Kelly joined the NTEU in January, coming from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers where she worked as a solicitor for a number of years, working on many cases with a number of different unions, including NTEU. Kelly has always been driven to help workers through tough times and enjoys holding employers to account. Kelly also enjoys a glass of wine and a good book – feel free to send recommendations on either.

Staff movements At the University of Sydney Branch, Rhianna Keen is replacing Roberta Stewart, who will be going on maternity leave for 12 months, from 29 April 2019.

ACT Division Organiser, Jane Maze, is leaving the Union after 13 years of service.

Everyone at the ACT Division and nationally in the Union wishes Jane well in her new endeavours.

Helping home buyers enter the property market Despite the buzz about house prices decreasing, many people are unable to save a 20% deposit.

Parents are helping their kids more than ever and contributing to their deposit.

That’s why we created First Start - a formal agreement between a contributor (parent) and the homebuyer (child).

How First Start works: • It defines everyone’s rights and obligations • Provides the security of a registered mortgage • Enables proper disclosure to both parties.

Find out more: Visit bankfirst.com.au | Call 1300 654 822

Health insurance is our major UniHealth is health insurance for the education community and their families. We get you, your work and your needs. And as a not-for-profit, we’re focused on making sure our members get the best possible value – instead of payouts for shareholders.

Start getting the most out of your health insurance.

Visit unihealthinsurance.com.au or call 1300 367 906 Eligibility criteria and conditions apply. Teachers Federation Health Ltd ABN 86 097 030 414 trading as UniHealth. UNI-NTEU-04/19