Advocate, July 2020 by NTEU

Advocate VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020 ◆ ISSN 1329-7295

NDA 2020: Action in shutdown

VCs scuttle jobs framework

Cost cutting and your health

Murdoch backs down on Gerd

Tsunami of job losses

Open Government Partnership

EDUCATION FOR ALL

COVID-19 & AUSTRALIAN TERTIARY EDUCATION

Job-ready Graduates package is a pea & thimble trick

How has COVID-19 impacted higher education?

Package will hurt STEM, too

Less professional staff means less support for everyone

Coalition’s COVID-19 support all smoke & mirrors #FirstInFamily

Do we have an over-reliance on international students?

Cost of studying in Australia COVID-19 and the future of research Pandemic closes the door on more than just a job The role of unions in a crisis

Love UniSuper? Your family can too!

Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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, flexible insurance and a national financial advice team. See whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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. Chant West named UniSuper 2019 Fund of the Year. Visit unisuper.com.au/awards for more information.

In this edition

COLUMNISTS

12 If we don't fight, we lose

Fee hikes will hit hard

Ian Lowe, Environment writer

Dr Alison Barnes, National President

17 Government pays less & demands more

COVID-19 has changed higher ed, but many of us don’t realise it yet

Jeannie Rea, Immediate Past President

Matthew McGowan, General Secretary

Tsunami of job losses on the way

Melbourne staff deliver resounding ‘No’ to non-union variation

Members have their say as balloting taking place

Deakin's draconian acts spark staff fightback

Murdoch backs down in case against Gerd Schröder-Turk

Navitas JobKeeper underpayment

Pat Wright, ICT writer

30 An over-reliance on international students? Even before COVID-19, there was a great deal of discussion about the role international students play in Australia’s higher education sector.

32 Pandemic closes the door on more than just a job Dash Jayasuriya lost her job at Deakin University after more than six years employment. But her connection with Deakin goes deeper than that. Divvya Sivarajah's story of surviving the pandemic as both an international masters student and a casual university employee.

36 The role of unions in a workplace crisis Workers should have a say in how a crisis is dealt with. Why is this such a controversial idea?

11 Forums go online

Vale Dr Te Huirangi Waikerepuru

NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION 13 National Day of Action to #SaveHigherEd On 21 May, NTEU members demanded Dan Tehan does his job to save higher education.

16 Member selfie: Patrick Hutchings EDUCATION FOR ALL 18 Job-ready Graduates package: A pea & thimble trick This latest package makes real cuts to university funding and real increases to student fees.

20 It doesn't add up: Funding overhaul will also hurt STEM students The package punishes arts students, but also deprives uni's of the resources to teach STEM.

20 #EducationForAll #FirstInFamily COVID-19 22 Higher education: A sector on the ropes Without federal intervention there will be thousands more jobs lost due to COVID-19. Put simply, the entire sector is in crisis.

24 Coalition's 'rescue package' nothing but smoke & mirrors Closer analysis of the Government’s $18 billion Higher Education Package reveals its true value to be around $464 million across all universities.

26 Less professional staff means less support for everyone There is little regard for the cost funding cuts have on academic integrity, autonomy & freedom.

28 COVID-19 & the future of research The pandemic has already directly reduced the research capacity of universities, and this reduction could persist for several years.

34 The cost of studying in Australia

WERTE! 10 Across the world: Black Lives Matter

46 Logging into the Zoom boom

NEWS 4

Cover image: A selection of member selfies sent in for our National Day of Action on 21 May (see p. 13).

JOBS PROTECTION FRAMEWORK 37 VCs scuttle vital jobs framework The National Jobs Protection Framework was withdrawn in May following its rejection by VCs.

39 Letter to a fellow worker A casual member's remarks to a full time member regarding the Job Protection Framework.

WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY 40 Cost cutting: It doesn't just affect your job, it affects your health, too

42 HSR profile: Oliver Knox, UNE

Solidarity with university cleaners

43 HSR profile: Deanne Catmul, UoM GOVERNANCE 44 Open Government Partnership: Push for university accountability

dan tehan

NTEU supports a National Action Plan under Australia’s Open Government Partnership.

saving universities

DELEGATES 47 Dr Gemma Mann, CQU

playing politics

MY UNION 48 NTEU Scholarships 2020

NTEU launches new e-magazine

49 IDAHOBIT 2020: From a distance 50 SA Online Delegates Training

Queen's Birthday gongs

52 Poem: Now is the winter of our discontent

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ EDITORIAL

ADVOCATE

ISSN 1321-8476

All text & images ©NTEU 2020 unless otherwise stated

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

PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia Feedback & advertising advocate@nteu.org.au

Delivery of publications during pandemic shutdown For the duration of the shutdown of university campuses, NTEU will be delivering The Advocate to all members via home addresses. This excludes members who have opted for e-delivery, which will continue as normal. Any member who has not received this issue of The Advocate within a reasonable time frame should check that their home address is correct and up to date in our system. Go to www.nteu.org.au/members to check and update your details.

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

D @alisonbarnes25

Fees hikes will hit hard Inspiring the next generation of young people to challenge themselves is part of the promise Australia makes to itself. For decades, a university education has been the springboard that makes this possible, helping build a brighter and better society. That’s why our union has always sought to tear down any barriers to higher education. Access to a university education should be a right, not a privilege. But right now we have a fight on our hands. While the Federal Government claims it wants to increase university places by nearly 40,000 within three years, it intends to make students, researchers and teachers in the arts and humanities pay for this. A $900 million fund for investment in technology, maths, engineering and science education will apparently be achieved without the Government giving the sector an extra cent.

NTEU NATIONAL EXECUTIVE National President Alison Barnes General Secretary Matthew McGowan National Assistant Secretary Gabe Gooding Vice-President (Academic) Andrew Bonnell Vice-President (General Staff) Cathy Rojas Acting A&TSI Policy Committee Chair Sharlene Leroy-Dyer National Executive: Steve Adams, Nikola Balnave, Damien Cahill, Vince Caughley, Cathy Day, Jonathan Hallett, Andrea Lamont-Mills, Virginia Mansel Lees, Michael McNally, Kelvin Michael, Catherine Moore, Rajeev Sharma, Melissa Slee, Ron Slee, Michael Thomson, Nick Warner

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

Environment ISO 14001 2

The plastic bags used for postage of Advocate to home addresses are 100% biodegradable.

In fact, its targets will only be reached by making some students pay through the nose, massively hiking fees for humanities, law and commerce. Australia already has some of the highest tuition fees in the world and this decision will leave many students in debt for decades. It will deter many others – especially those from marginalised and lower socio-economic backgrounds – from studying altogether. This reallocation will apparently pay for courses the Government has deemed jobs-ready – more teaching jobs, more nurses and more IT professionals. Jobs the Government is betting will help Australia’s economy recover more quickly from COVID-19. Of course, we need graduates in the fields of caring, health, engineering and IT. But it is a false dichotomy to suggest humanities, business, communication and law degrees are not worthy. These disciplines, like others, equip graduates with problem solving, critical thinking and clear communication skills. These are all qualities that are currently in sharp demand and will only increase in the coming decades. The Federal Government is putting a price on learning, but doing so without a shred of economic evidence that its experiment will actually work. Our own analysis ac-

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

tually shows this new policy will not only create new barriers to a university education, it will only add to the financial burden of a sector in crisis. We’re already battling a $4.5 billion shortfall in funding across our universities because of COVID-19. The Government not only plans to ping humanities students with a huge hike in fees, it’s also planning to reduce government contributions to teaching in the key disciplines of science and engineering. The net result will mean that the amount of funding for each student (their own contribution and government funding) would fall by an astonishing six per cent across the sector. A shortfall of some $400 million that will only be met by cutting the costs of teaching and student support services even further. For a Government set on a jobs-led recovery, this will perversely also drive the growth of insecure employment within our universities. Universities across Australia are already cutting staff due to the impact of COVID-19, and there is a real fear that some campuses might close altogether. This plan does nothing to bolster our sector at this critical time of need. What we require from Education Minister Dan Tehan and the Morrison Government is a commitment to increase funding to our universities. We need a rescue package and a higher education policy that will guarantee jobs across the sector, that will allow world class research to continue to flourish not flounder and encourage students from every background to study. The proposed changes need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament – by many politicians who have reaped the benefits of a university education. They need to reject wedge politics and instead fully fund our universities so they can truly play a vital role in rebuilding Australia’s economy and help create a better future for all Australians. ◆ Alison Barnes, National President

FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY ◆

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

D @NTEUNational

COVID-19 has changed higher ed, it’s just that many of us don’t realise it yet As in many other areas of the community, COVID-19 has accelerated and heightened many issues that were either latent or unattended in our sector. Some issues, like the over-reliance of our institutions on international student income, are obvious. But COVID-19 has generated more than just a financial crisis for the sector. What is the future of our physical workplaces? Will COVID-19 spell the deathknell for open plan offices? How do you hold a lecture for 500 people in a lecture theatre if social distancing requirements are maintained. The future of casual work, and the insecurity of our research workforce have been brought into sharp relief. Does the reliance on insecure work meet emerging community expectations? Can we really keep some of the country’s best researchers on fixed term contracts? Or are we likely to see further casualisation of the sector as financial pressures deepen? Underpinning these questions are the more fundamental problems that the coronavirus has raised, which go to how the sector is funded, and by whom. We are left asking, how does research get funded without international students to subsidise the inadequate funding provided by government? How do we manage all these changes while we have a federal government that is hostile and has made it clear they see no political benefit in helping the sector in the most significant crisis in it’s history? The debates around the National Jobs Protection Framework (NJPF) have also raised other issues. The NJPF provided a mechanism to provide transparency about the losses faced, offered protections for many ongoing, casual and fixed term staff, and would have provided a temporary reduction in staff costs to help cushion universities from the worst of the crisis.

Immediately following the announcement of the outcome of the NJPF negotiations, half the sector said they would not buy in. It became clear that as a national framework, it was not going to be viable as Vice-Chancellors were not able to replace their competitive behaviour with a unified position. Some started savage staff cuts, others moved to implement changes without the protections and transparency built within the NJPF. The abandonment of their own negotiators was truly remarkable. There will be a number of reasons VCs will cite for backing away, but the run was started by an outgoing VC who we understand emailed all university Chancellors (yes, Chancellors, not Vice-Chancellors) and told them the framework would threaten the independence of the institutions and invited them to intervene. As reported, a questionable legal argument was presented that has not been backed up by either the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association's (AHEIA) legal advice, or the Union’s. This became a convenient excuse for those who did not want the scrutiny NTEU required. While the rejection of their own negotiated framework is indefensible, it is not surprising when you understand the growth of the corporate culture of universities and their executives. University governing bodies have shifted in their focus and composition over recent decades. With pressure from government to ensure job ready graduates, and an increased focus on universities as commercial entities (particularly because they were chasing the international student market), the governing bodies have become more corporate in their composition and approach. Staff, student and community members have given way to business, political and corporate membership. And despite the fact that, they often have no real life experience of the unique character and role of universities as civic institutions (other than as students), they have felt able to interfere in operational matters in a way

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

that would never have been acceptable in a corporate setting. We have seen this in a range of ways, but never more destructively than in the NJPF debates. A number of universities have rejected the neoliberal slash and burn approach in favour of financial transparency and cooperation. Where the Union has negotiated an outcome, the result has been positive for the university finances and for staff. Hundreds of jobs have been saved already. Where universities have tried to force through changes against Union approval, they have mostly failed. This is because 1) staff are willing to sacrifice to save jobs but they rightly expect transparency and protection, and 2) because even those who are not Union members responded to union campaigns against changes that offered no transparency and no commitments to protect jobs. Even at ANU, where the VC is widely respected, the vote on a non-union ballot was so close (2128 votes for, 2089 against) as to question the wisdom of proceeding. There are significant hurdles ahead of us. Some have been mentioned here, and others will present themselves over the coming months. Not all of these are problems that will be solved through the standard bargaining frame. There needs to be a mechanism for high level dialogue within the sector at this time like no other. At present, UA won’t discuss anything that might impinge on industrial matters. AHEIA won’t discuss policy and can’t speak for everyone as it does not have universal membership. This rigid architecture is preventing serious dialogue about critical matters affecting the future of the sector. Surely, we need a basis for genuine dialogue on the future of higher education. COVID has generated more than just a financial crisis for the sector. It has raised an identity crisis as well. It’s just that not everyone recognises this yet. ◆ Matthew McGowan, General Secretary

◆ NEWS

Tsunami of job losses on the way The first wave of the predicted tsunami of job losses in our sector has arrived with force. Two groups were hit early – those who work for private providers, and those in insecure work in universities; but many, many, more job losses are coming. Amongst the private providers we have seen redundancies and mass standdowns (eg 80 staff were stood-down without pay by Redhill Group). What has kept some members afloat however is that their employers, unlike universities, are eligible for the JobKeeper scheme, which is allowing those stood-down to maintain an employment relationship with their employer. Post-September when JobKeeper expires we may see further redundancies. While they have access to JobKeeper the vast majority of members working with private providers of higher education do not work under a collective agreement and as such are dependent on the minimum Award and National Employment Standards provisions. For most, this means a maximum redundancy payment of 16 weeks pay. By contrast casual and sessional university workers have had no access to JobKeeper and do not receive redundancy

payments. They are also on the frontline of job losses along with fixed term staff who have not had contracts renewed, and in some cases seen their contracts prematurely terminated. This of course demonstrates the fundamental problem with precarious work, and from the employers’ point of view, to some extent validates their fundamentally exploitative business model dependent on international students and casual labour. Of course that could only be the view if the pursuit of growth and a surplus has become the principle measure of success. At this stage it is not possible to estimate the number of casual staff who have lost work or who have had their work substantially reduced, which of course from NTEU’s point of view validates our contention that systematic reporting of casual employment in the sector is a vital first step to the elimination of exploitation of casual workers. As we know, casual and fixed term staff are the first to go (mostly because that does require employers to incur redundancy costs), but now we are seeing deep gouging of the ongoing staff, both academic and professional. The most obvious is Deakin, which has started a process described as equivalent to the hunger games, where over 400 jobs will be lost, many via a competitive spill and fill process. What this sort of

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

process does is give a clear indication that this is not about work that is no longer required, not based on strategic decision making, but is entirely focused on cost cutting. See elsewhere in Advocate for a discussion of the impact on the mental health of employees in this position. At CQU, campuses are closing, 271 jobs will go as a result of voluntary and forced redundancies and at Wollongong the Vice-Chancellor has said 200-300 jobs will need to go. At the time of writing, an additional 18 universities have cut casual and fixed term staff and/or indicated that job losses are inevitable: ACU, ANU, Adelaide, CSU, Griffith, JCU, La Trobe, Melbourne, Monash, Murdoch, RMIT, SCU, Swinburne, Sydney, UTAS, USC, WSU and VU. While this crisis has been a long time in the making, there are viable solutions. All we need is a government willing to commit to supporting higher education and the managerial class of the sector to unify behind the common goal of a sustainable vision for higher education. In the absence of these, NTEU will continue to fight for every job and to campaign hard for support. ◆ Gabe Gooding, National Assistant Secretary

NEWS ◆

Melbourne staff deliver resounding ‘No’ to non-union variation proposal In a non-union ballot of all staff at the University of Melbourne (UoM), 64% voted NO to reject management’s proposal to vary the Enterprise Agreement. The proposal would have seen a pay cut of 2.2% without any enforceable guarantees on job security. Management withdrew from national negotiations with the NTEU to pursue a variation that would avoid scrutiny and financial transparency. After announcing to all staff that they were going to ballot, they approached the NTEU seeking endorsement of their proposal, making a mockery of genuine negotiation. During an online meeting with the biggest turnout in a generation, NTEU members at UoM voted 97% to launch a Vote No campaign. In a huge mobilisation effort over the course of two weeks, members,

delegates and NTEU staff spoke to over 2,000 people in open meetings across all faculties to answer questions and make the case to Vote No to the University’s bad deal. Volunteers from the membership and NTEU staff, with support from staff in the ACTU, chipped in to make thousands of calls to bring out the vote.

highlight that UoM is one of the best placed universities to weather the crisis, even when using the most pessimistic income forecasts. Ian Marshman and Frank Larkins are former UoM Vice-Principal and former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, respectively.

Professor Joo-Cheong Tham, an expert in employment and public law from Melbourne Law School, provided a detailed written and video rebuttal to the University’s proposals.

The University of Melbourne is one of the wealthiest universities in Australia with liquid cash reserves of over $896 million, $6.856 billion in net equity, and its most recently announced profit was $402 million, according to the 2019 Annual Report.

Following an aggressive response to this analysis from management, a large number of Professor Tham’s friends and colleagues signed an open letter of support for his work and reputation.

Following their defeat in the non-union ballot, university management has yet to announce their next steps. However members are prepared to fight for jobs, pay and secure work. ◆

Research on the financial impacts of COVID-19 on the sector from Marshman and Larkins (Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne)

Simon Linskill, Branch Organiser, University of Melbourne

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

Below: Flyer for the Vote No campaign

◆ NEWS

Members have their say as balloting taking place across the country In this time of turmoil, members have been participating in the decision making at their campuses on the way forward out of the COVID-19 crisis. The results have shown that where proposals were developed cooperatively and involved financial transparency and guarantees on job security, union members are prepared to contribute to a collective effort.

University of Western Australia UWA negotiated with the NTEU for an outcome that included saving 235 jobs and required staff to participate in a purchased leave scheme for 19 days leave, agreeing to a six month deferral of the next wage rise and giving up this year’s annual leave loading. Full job protections were included and included ELICOS staff. NTEU members voted strongly in favour with a 79% Yes vote. Monash University

Where management seeks to impose significant change without Union involvement, they struggle to convince their employees, reflecting a significant trust deficit faced by university leaders and the power of Union support.

At Monash, 83.6% of members voted in favour of a proposal to allow direction to take leave, deferral of pay rises, increments, promotion and reclassification payments which included all job protection measures. It is estimated that this will result in the saving of 190 jobs.

Union-supported packages

Unendorsed variations

La Trobe University

Three universities balloted their staff for changes to their collective agreements which were not endorsed by NTEU.

At La Trobe members supported a package proposed by the Vice-Chancellor which contained extensive job protections and committed to saving 225 jobs while asking staff to agree to a 10% reduction in rates of pay with the first $30,000 exempt, deferral of wage rises and increments and some directions to take annual leave. A total of 74.3% of members who voted supported the deal. University of Tasmania At UTAS, management proposed that staff forgo the scheduled 2% pay rise which they estimate would result in the saving of 50 jobs. Strong job protections were included. Staff at UTAS voted overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal (92% for).

University of Melbourne Melbourne went to an all staff ballot without negotiation with or support from NTEU for a package of measures that included. They were comprehensively beaten (see report, p. 5). University of Wollongong At UOW, the VC gave the staff three options pay reductions over 12 months or 18 months or no reductions at all. Staff were told that the first two options would save 150 or 200 jobs while the third option would result in job losses.

Western Sydney University WSU members overwhelmingly voted for a proposal for a 6 month variation which would impose a limited purchased leave scheme negotiated by the Branch. The subsequent staff ballot was also strongly endorsed by academic and professional staff with 92% and 96% yes votes respectively.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

After a strong union campaign to vote for Option 3 to force the University to consider Option 4, this alternative was clearly dominant with a vote of 62%. Negotiations are now occurring at UOW. Australian National University Finally, the ANU Vice-Chancellor tested his personal popularity by heavily promoting a proposal that would ask staff to forego a pay rise for 12 months without extensive job security guarantees. The ballot was close, with the VC’s proposal supported by a margin of just 39 votes from a total ballot count of 4217. The outcome, which was less than a ringing endorsement, has divided staff and failed to result in a clear mandate for change.

Other negotiations Negotiations are underway at a number of universities, who appear to have got the message that the best way forward is to negotiate sensibly and to commit to job security protections and financial transparency. At all campuses members will be asked to consider the proposal and to collectively vote to endorse or reject the outcome. ◆ Image: Mohamed Hassan/ pixabay

NEWS ◆

Deakin's draconian acts spark staff fightback Deakin staff are fighting back against Vice-Chancellor Iain Martin’s draconian response to the COVID-19 crisis. On Friday 19 June, the NTEU held a Deakin Day of Action with a socially distanced protest at the Deakin Waterfront campus. Hundreds more showed their support with a selfie campaign and more than a thousand people signed the online petition on the day. Labor MP for Corangamite, Libby Coker sent a video statement of support.

Spill and fill Despite the fact that Deakin has $1 billion in reserve to cope with the current decline in student enrolments, Vice-Chancellor Iain Martin is attempting to sack more than 400 Deakin staff via targeted, forced redundancies. Deakin is a major employer in regional campuses like Geelong and Warrnambool. Job losses and a decline in student places will be a devastating blow to these communities. Kerrie Saville, Deakin Branch President said, 'for years Deakin staff have worked to provide surpluses to build a future fund for a rainy day, it doesn’t get much rainier than now. The University Council should use the billion-dollar future fund to save the jobs of Deakin staff.' Instead, the University Council and Vice-Chancellor made a cruel decision to axe people’s jobs using a ‘spill and fill’

forced redundancy approach, rather than signing up to the NTEU’s Jobs Protection Framework or in fact seeking to negotiate with NTEU in any way. Dubbed the 'Hunger Games', staff in several work units are being forced to apply for their own jobs in competition with their friends and colleagues for a reduced number of roles.

Sacked in isolation NTEU immediately notified a dispute about the University's obvious failure to consult and the very nature of the consultation. In the meetings, staff were informed there would be significant job losses in their area and they would be emailed the detail immediately after the meetings. When asked if the detail could be shared in the meeting so people would have a chance to ask questions with actual knowledge before them, they were again told to await an email after the meeting. People were then told there was a central email address to send their feedback. It would be collated, and they would not be responded to on an individual basis. So, as staff received their email alone at home with no colleagues for support, with their names missing from a new organisation chart or job roles changed –or in the case of casuals were just ‘let go’ – we waited for the final number: 419. Well, 419 this year. And that doesn’t include casual and sessional workers.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

Taking action to save jobs Members emailed the University Council asking for transparent decision making and a chance to have meaningful input into how Deakin University will manage this current crisis. Members have written to their local MPs asking for help to look at mitigating the hundreds of job losses and asked to meet with the Minister for Higher Education in Victoria to ask for support to save those jobs. Members took to Twitter and the streets of Warrnambool to demand that Dan Tehan and the Federal Government recognise University sector workers and allow Universities access to JobKeeper. NTEU Deakin members have conducted a survey where over 95% would consider significant voluntary measures to save jobs including a voluntary redundancy program. Members held a socially distanced rally at the Waterfront Campus on 19 June, placed a full-page ad in the Geelong Advertiser, launched a petition and will be continuing to send messages on social media under the hashtags: #SaveDeakinJobs #SaveHigherEdJobs (and remember to include @IainMartinVC if you are tweeting!). ◆ Chloé Gaul, Senior State Organiser Trevor Miller, Division Organiser Above: Kerrie Saville with Deakin staff. Alison Wynd

◆ NEWS Image:Gerd with his children

Murdoch backs down in case against Gerd As a year-long legal battle involving Associate Professor Gerd Schröder-Turk and Murdoch University draws to a close, it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the victory for academics and whistleblowers alike. In May 2019, Schröder-Turk revealed on national investigative journalism program 4 Corners his concerns about practices Murdoch University had adopted in relation to international students. The recent pandemic has underscored the unforgiving treatment of international students, who have propped up the university sector for so long. Schröder-Turk and his colleagues, Prof Graeme Hocking and Dr Duncan Farrow, were ahead of their time in calling out the recruitment practices and the lack of support that can leave international students so vulnerable.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

Murdoch University’s retaliation was swift. Within days, the then-Chancellor sought a motion to remove Schröder-Turk from his elected position on the Murdoch University Senate. Schröder-Turk was elected to the governing body by his academic peers, to give voice to the academic body. Immediately, Murdoch made this case about two critical features of universities: academic freedom and university governance. As Murdoch would come to know, two features which are held dear by university staff across the country and globally. Schröder-Turk initiated legal action to prevent the motion from being considered by the Senate and thereby protecting his right to academic freedom but also protecting the sanctity of the voice of those who elected him to represent them. In a gobsmacking move, Murdoch University lashed out with their own legal claim against Schröder-Turk: blaming him for its increased visa risk rating and suing him for millions of dollars.

NEWS ◆

JobKeeper underpayment at Navitas NTEU has resolved a dispute with Navitas over the calculation of JobKeeper payments at two of its workplaces, SAE and ACAP. This was the historic moment which was critical in solidifying the community around the whistleblower. Many whistleblowers are castoff, but the academic drew support from all around the world.

Outpouring of support Literally tens of thousands of people rallied together to tell Murdoch what they thought: that the university had gone too far. Journalists, academics, politicians, students, university staff and union members expressed their disappointment at Murdoch through a petition, articles, opinion pieces, letters to the Chancellor and Visitor (Governor) as well as social media, parliament and protests. It is this outpouring of support from so many people from different walks of life which has made the resolution of Schröder-Turk’s case so stunning. The outcome of the legal process is spectacular: not only are all legal claims withdrawn, so is the motion to remove him from the Senate. The academic has been fully vindicated by the resolution to allow him to continue his important work on the Senate, coupled with Murdoch’s comprehensive and independent review of its governance systems. The outcome is all the more sweeter because it is in part a product of the intense pressure the public placed on the university, pressure to do the right thing. Schröder-Turk’s gratitude is so generous and honest it is a testament to him. You can read the whole statement on his website, and we encourage you to: www. gerdschroeder-turk.org To NTEU members, Schröder-Turk says: I am grateful for public support by the NTEU, both by the Murdoch branch and the national office. I am also grateful for the support in the last 13 months that I have received in relation to the court case through membership of the NTEU. Without the NTEU’s support, I would not have been able to defend my right to speak or my reputation. The power of the collective membership!

All of the support I received was not just helpful, it was essential for coping with a very challenging and stressful, and at times hurtful, year. The knowledge of broad support for my position and the feeling of so much concern for me as a person buoyed me to stay positive (enough) and hopeful throughout the proceedings which, thankfully, have now come to an end. While his experience has no doubt been stressful, Gerd is looking to the future: …I am dreaming constructively towards an academia where happy academics and happy students thrive in a tertiary sector whose purpose is defined through open and informed debate, and which is guided by strategic priorities for the long-term benefit of our society. To this, all NTEU members would agree.

Where to from here? While this stunning victory for SchröderTurk needs to be savoured, we also must remain vigilant to protect our universities’ fundamental ideals. We need strong protections against any infringement on academic freedom, including the right to criticise one’s own institution. It seems counter-intuitive that Australian universities would ever act contrary to academic freedom, but the corporatisation of universities has brought this issue to ahead. Enterprise Agreements are currently the only way to enforce rights to academic freedom and we must make them as strong as possible. We also need strong, clear staff voices involved in university governance. NTEU encourages all members to seek more information about their senates or councils. Find out how you can attend a meeting, read the minutes – see where the critical decisions are being made. Better yet, stand for election and be a voice for staff involved in these decisions. ◆ Kelly Thomas, Senior Legal Officer nteu.org.au/istandwithgerd

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

The settlement will result in top-up payments for 111 staff – from small amounts up to $1,200 – at a total cost of around $100,000. Other staff who made last minute amendments to their leave arrangements will also be given an opportunity to be compensated. Due to the pandemic, the company decided to delay the start of Trimester 2 to improve the chances of better student enrolments. Staff were directed to take an unusually long mid-Trimester break of 3 weeks on paid or unpaid leave. Many staff booked unpaid leave on the understanding that the period would be fully covered by JobKeeper. At the last moment, based on published advice from the Australian Taxation Office, the company decided to offset two JobKeeper payments against the monthly pay cycle. Anyone who earned more than $3,000 in the month would receive no additional JobKeeper payment, even though they may have had no income over the period. Many staff were unable to sustain the drop in income and switched to paid leave, knowing that they would now not have enough leave left to cover the annual Christmas closedown. NTEU immediately notified a dispute to the Fair Work Commission (FWC). Meanwhile, a similar case was arbitrated by the FWC, in response to which the ATO modified its guidance for JobSeeker payments. The contradiction between the Fair Work Act provisions and the original ATO advice (and JobKeeper Rule 10) caused significant administrative difficulties for the employer. NTEU welcomes Navitas’ agreement to fix the top-up payments and also ensure that those staff who changed their leave arrangements are not disadvantaged. ◆ Serena O'Meley, Vic Division

◆ WERTE!

Across the world: Black Lives Matter The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has never gone away. It has always been with us in one form or another. However, when the issue explodes on your television, as it did in the US following the death of George Floyd, and with the public outcry that followed, it does make you reflect on what is happening in your own backyard. As with the tragic death of Floyd, and others from the African American community, the deaths of Aboriginal peoples in custody highlight the systemic issues Indigenous and minority peoples face around the world. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face many challenges and injustices. As is the case for Indigenous and minority peoples around the world, we are disproportionately incarcerated, with Indigenous adults in Australia 15 times more

likely to be incarcerated than non-indigenous Australians, and with Indigenous juveniles 26 times more likely. On the day of the first BLM protests in Australia last week, there were 432 reported deaths of Aboriginal people in custody since 1991. That figure increased to 437 within a week. That’s five Aboriginal lives lost. Five families and communities devastated in less than a week. Of course, the deaths of our people at the hands of the police and while in custody represent the ultimate form of violence. But violence, racism and discrimination is experienced much more broadly in society, and it manifests itself in how Indigenous peoples are treated in both our private and public lives. A recent report by the Australian National University found three in four people in Australia have an implicit negative bias against Indigenous Australians. These reports, outlining systemic, explicit and implicit racism, highlight and expose the issues Indigenous, minority and marginalised peoples experience the world over. Faced with these entrenched attitudes, and systemic racism, increasingly global movements such as Black Lives Matter give the marginalised, discriminated and disenfranchised some hope that with greater awareness there may finally be some positive change. In Brisbane, an estimated 10,000 people came out in support of Black and Indigenous Lives. In Newcastle, protestors came together, laid their bodies down, with hands on their heads as a sign of solidarity with the BLM movement in the US. These images are a powerful symbol of solidarity with Black Lives in the US, but also with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lives and the lives of other nonwhite communities. At least 20,000 people came together in Sydney for the BLM protest, and many more in Melbourne. There have been acts of protest, of raising awareness, but also of kindness and solidarity. Importantly, there is also a new momentum. There are those who tell us that ‘all lives matter’. We know, of course, that all

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

lives matter. But statements such as this only serve to obfuscate the cause, and take the focus away from the racism and the many injustices disproportionately experienced by non-white and minority people. It’s imperative that the BLM and anti-racist movements garner solidarity from a wide range of voices. The movement is not just for Black, Indigenous and minority peoples to stand up and be heard. It’s also for our allies and for people who want to see positive change that will improve the lives of everyone. It’s vital to have those allies, and to bring them with us. These people marched for justice and in solidarity with those impacted by racism in all its forms. They wanted to be seen and to be heard as saying ‘yes, black lives do matter’. NTEU released a Statement on Racism expressing solidarity with Australia’s First Nation Peoples and in support of the Black Lives Matters protests. NTEU believes that no Australian should look to the BLM movement as an imported or distant cause. As academics, educators and as union members, we are in a position to be an important part of this conversation. Unionists around the world, not only in tertiary education, but in all sectors, are standing up and saying ‘Black Lives Matter’, and acknowledging that the struggle against racism and injustice is in line with our shared values. We must continue to stand up and keep fighting for our shared principles: the principles of equity, justice and of the union movement. We need to stand together as Black peoples, as Indigenous Peoples, and as allies in solidarity, and continue to help each other and be there for one another, in union. ◆ Dr Sharlene Leroy-Dyer, Acting Chair, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee This is an edited version of a piece originally published in the NZTEU newsletter. Image: BLM march in Melbourne. Kon Karampelas/pexel

WERTE! ◆

Forums go online Due to COVID-19, the annual schedule of A&TSI Division Forums has been suspended. With the opportunity to hear locally-based issues being displaced this year, the National A&TSI Unit and the A&TSI Policy Committee have been holding online member meetings on a monthly basis. The need to find other ways to convey information and build the cohort became apparent very early in the pandemic environment. As the precariousness of the situation became more known, A&TSI membership grew dramatically. In particular, casual members took advantage of the fee remission period offered and signed up which has shown that as suspected, more A&TSI staff are being engaged in the sector on precarious contracts. This is despite the fact that most universities are a long way off achieving their negotiated employment targets. Initially, it was felt that the Government’s Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP) may provide a bit more certainty for A&TSI staff. This direct funding source is reliant on A&TSI student numbers and their retention rates and therefore dedicated A&TSI staff looking after these students is essential. In some institutions, however, this has not been the case, with reports of redundancies and separations. Conversely, there has been some positive news from the A&TSI caucus. The experience, for example, in distance education and online teaching modes a lot of A&TSI staff have due to block release and reverse block teaching has meant some have found their experience in demand and drawn upon during this tough time. There have also been some positive tales of cohort building with meetings and social events online being a way people have reached out during this time. Should you be interested in joining the Division A&TSI meetings, please keep an eye out for email notifications. ◆ Celeste Liddle, National A&TSI Organiser

Vale Dr Te Huirangi Waikerepuru It was with the greatest of sadness that I received news in April of the passing of Dr Te Huirangi Waikerepuru. Huirangi was born in 1929 and raised among his Elders and in 1985, led the claim that the Government was obliged to protect Maori language under the Treaty of Waitangi provisions. The NZ Tertiary Education Union (TEU) said that ‘The values on which our union rests and the paths that we choose now are ones that he has guided us to, gently and clearly.’ For over a decade, I attended the annual Hui of Maori members of the NZTEU in Aotearoa. Three esteemed Kaumatua, Huirangi, Mere and Ka, were inspirational advisors, guides and friends to all. They each brought different perspectives of politics, process and cultural understandings to the Kaumatua role in the Union. Much has been recorded of Huirangi’s achievements and awards and there are links below to view. I would like to recount some of the personal memories.

addressed the gathering about daily matters, he stated that he had a great sleep till Terry had pushed him out of bed. His humour was always present.

Adam Frogley and I were invited to Hui over a decade ago at the Marae in Auckland, at the beginning of a growing Maori caucus in TEU and the A&TSI caucus in NTEU. The two groups exchanged cultural understandings, language and social mores. Some ‘infringements’ that may have raised ire in other contexts were kindly and safely discussed over breakfast.

At the last hui Huarangi I attended, when the gathering heading off to an evening celebration, he asked me stay at the marae and talk. Four hours of discussion on matters of all kinds, cultural, ageing/ dying, politics, succession and more, will stay with me and be forever cherished.

We then moved to powhiri (welcoming ceremony) with Adam and I having language translated by Ka and Mere. At one point during introductions, Huirangi lifted his tokotoko waved it in the air during his speech and pointed toward us and there was a momentary pause in translation till the words were whispered; ‘he has introduced you two as people from the Illustrious Genealogy’, a phrase not accorded readily in Australia. We were finding it hard not to tear up at that point. The ‘older’ people were given double height mattresses rather than the thin foam most slept on in the marae and early the next morning I heard a thump as Huirangi rolled off his. I asked if he was ok and he said he was and anyway, it was time to sing as dawn was arriving. Later at breakfast as people stood and

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

I realised then what a privilege it had been to begin to grow old with some very special people who were not part of my daily life. There is a legacy that has been passed on to the TEU that will blossom as they continue to contribute to the Union and the wider communities under the guides they have been given. There has been a special relationship established between two understandings that can develop and grow from the gifts given by the kaumatua and I am so pleased to have been able to experience some of that. COVID-19 prevented many people in Aotearoa and from elsewhere attending these times of grieving and celebration but the strength will not dissipate. Love to the whanau of Koro Huirangi and all that knew him. ◆ Terry Mason, Chair, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee, 2012-2018

◆ COLUMNIST Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology & Society, Griffith University Adjunct Professor at Southgate Institute for Health, Society & Equity, Flinders University

If we don't fight, we lose More than 25 years ago, I wrote an angry little publication, more a pamphlet than a short book, about the problems I saw in our university system. I lamented the increasing tendency for student learning to be guided by casual employees or staff on short-term contracts, freeing senior academics to concentrate on research. I felt casuals were becoming a new class of academic peons who had no security of employment and few opportunities to move on to rewarding career posts. I also noted the rise of managerialism, which had transformed the role of Vice-Chancellor. 'Once a pleasant sinecure for an elderly academic, involving little more than looking suave and making anodyne speeches', I wrote, it had become 'a major managerial job justifying salary packages much larger than those of the Prime Minister and State Premiers'. I was unhappy about the gradual erosion of some of the traditional roles of universities: conserving knowledge through libraries and scholarly collections, refining knowledge through critical review and scholarship, acting as the conscience and critic of society. In 2020, any objective observer would say all those trends have continued or accelerated. Several Vice-Chancellors now enjoy salary packages over a million dollars a year, attracting the criticism of Coalition politicians who, of course, see no problem with managers of recently privatised companies being paid tens of millions of dollars to generate profits for their grateful shareholders. The majority of undergraduate teaching in many institutions is now done by casual staff. Critical review and scholarship is seen as an indulgence, of less value to the university than procuring large research grants or getting papers published in obscure overseas journals. Being a public intellectual, active in debates of important issues from an informed perspective, is unlikely to be applauded by the new hierarchy of managers. The whole system is in crisis because the steady rundown of public funding has driven an increasing reliance on fee-paying overseas students, with two obvious consequences. The need to keep those students in the system for their fee income has created obvious pressure to cut corners and lower standards. When whistle-blowers draw attention to that trend, the inevitable response by university managers has been to attack the whistle-blowers. Secondly, the dramatic drop in fee income caused by the pandemic has created a budget crisis in most universities. The problem has been exacerbated by the ideological dislike of higher education in the Coalition. Not only did the Morrison regime adjust the JobKeeper scheme to ensure that universities didn’t qualify, it then rubbed salt into the wound by making special disbursements of public money to the small group of private institutions. About fifteen years ago, I decide that rational argument was having no impact and resorted to satire. I invented a hypothetical entrepreneur, Cal D’Aria, and told the tale of his transforming the imaginary Tamworth Hairdressing College into the feisty little Tamworth University. I had fun inventing senior colleagues for Cal: Dr Ongo, Prof. Ateer, Dr Sabe de Todo, Dr S.M. Artarse. Each year, I thought of more outrageous things for Cal to do: outlets in suburban shopping centres, honorary degrees for local politicians, all teaching to be done by casuals, getting

rid of staff offices and libraries, extending the title of doctor to more graduates, lavish advertising brochures and cinema advertising to attract the gullible, targeting of desperate overseas students, a governing board dominated by local corporate heavies, dispensing with lectures in favour of recorded learning resources, inflating grades to persuade students they were getting a valuable qualification. The enduring problem was, as I had Cal lamenting a few years ago, that every time he came up with one of his radical ideas, one of the established universities stole his thunder by adopting the same approach. And the deafening silence from most of my academic colleagues strongly suggested that satire was not working either. So what can be done now, in the context of the existential crisis facing the university system? The Union has decided that columns like this will no longer be published, so this is my last contribution before I fold my tent and stroll off into the sunset of well-earned obscurity. The obvious parting message is to recognise the critical importance of a strong union in these troubled times. My mythical Cal d’Aria was able to treat all staff, academics and non-academic workers alike, with contempt because his university did not have a union. There is a political saying that you should never waste a good crisis. I remember being told that the Chinese translation of our word 'crisis' consisted of two of their characters, one meaning 'danger' and the second meaning 'opportunity'. I thought that was a perceptive translation. A crisis is an opportunity because doing nothing is not an option. Business-as-usual is not a possibility for universities. We have allowed Coalition governments to systematically erode funding, to give the impression that higher education is a personal investment in future earning potential, rather than a public investment in our collective future. We all need to improve public understanding of the critical importance of educating our young people to the limits of their ability, not to the limits of their bank accounts. We have now passed the winter solstice, after which the days get longer. So better times are coming, or at least more daylight! Thanks for reading my thoughts over the years. Always remember, 'If we don’t fight, we lose'. ◆ Ian Lowe is an emeritus professor, prominent environmental scientist, and past president of the Australian Conservation Foundation. He has written for Advocate since 1994, and this is his final column. NTEU thanks him graciously for his decades of informative, entertaining and rousing contributions.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION ◆ Image: Outside Dan Tehan's office in Warrnambool. Standard News/ Mark Witte

National Day of Action to #SaveHigherEd On 21 May, NTEU members around Australia demanded Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan does his job to save higher education. It was an unusual Day of Action, given the social distancing restrictions during COVID-19. There were no mass meetings or rallies; still, activists were really creative and came up with a range of ways to get our message across.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION

Selfies for Dan Hundreds of people – higher education staff, students, retired members and politicians – sent in selfies with our poster of Dan Tehan, either printed out or displayed on their screen. These were sent at regular intervals throughout the day to Dan Tehan’s Twitter and Instagram accounts. By that afternoon, our hashtag SaveHigherEdJobs was trending at number one on Twitter across Australia.

Corona convoys NSW activists organised 70 cars, 30 bikes and 50 people on foot in a convoy to a demonstration outside Liberal Party HQ in central Sydney. In Victoria, members travelled to Josh Frydenberg's office in suburban Camberwell to stage a socially distanced action. Activists from Deakin University similarly demonstrated outside Dan Tehan’s elec-

torate office in regional Warrnambool, making local newspaper headlines the next day.

Spelling it out Activists at four different campuses in WA organised large signs which spelt out each of the words in 'Save Higher Ed Jobs'. In an example of extreme distancing, the signs were displayed by members at each of the campuses. National President Alison Barnes spoke to an online webinar 'Campus in Crisis', part of the Australia At Home series, on the future of higher education in a post COVID-19 world. Over 500 people joined the webinar. #SaveHigherEdJobs, Mr Tehan!◆ Watch the NDA video at www.nteu.org.au/covid-19/nda Below: Spelling it out at UWA, UNDA, Murdoch & Curtin; Damien Cahill and kids on the Sydney car convoy; Members at Josh Frydenberg's office in Melbourne.

Political support, from top, L–R: Tanya Plibersek (ALP Education Spokesperson), Adam Bandt (Greens Leader), Sen. Mehreen Faruqi (Greens Education Spokesperson), Michele O'Neil (ACTU President), Sen. Tony Sheldon (ALP), Sen. Janet Rice (Greens), Peter Khalil (ALP MP), Sen. Tony Ayres (ALP), Samantha Ratnam (Greens Vic MLC), David Smith (ALP MP), Dustin Halse (ALP Vic MLA), Alicia Payne (ALP MP), Simon Millman (ALP WA MLC), Natalie Lang (ASU), Yaz Mubarakai (ALP WA MLA), Judith Wright (ASU)

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION ◆

#SaveHigherEd: Member selfies for Dan

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION

Of all the selfies sent in by members for our National Day of Action, this one by Patrick Hutchings was a favourite. Patrick is a retired academic whose last teaching position was in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. Throughout his long career, from the 1960s to the 2000s, he taught at Deakin University, University of WA, University of California, University of Edinburgh, and University of London. Patrick still publishes and is presently editor of SOPHIA: International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions, an academic journal devoted to professional pursuits in philosophy, metaphysics, religion and moral thinking. According to Patrick's wife, Heng, Patrick is pictured standing in front of a portrait of himself painted by Judy Cassab (1920-2015). The portrait was commissioned in 1972 when Patrick was Power Lecturer at University of Sydney. Judy Cassab, a Hungarian émigré, was the first woman to win the Archibald Prize twice (1960 and 1967) and was renown for her ability to capture people's character in their portraits. A big thank you is extended to Patrick and all the retired members who sent in selfies to continue the fight for a better tertiary education sector. ◆

Image: Heng Kitty Hutchings

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

COLUMNIST ◆ Jeannie Rea, Immediate Past President k jrea@vu.edu.au

Government pays less & demands more Education Minister Dan Tehan claims that the motive for wanting humanities students to pay more than it actually costs to teach them is to encourage more ‘job ready’ graduates. Yet humanities graduates get jobs, across the public and private sectors and in fields as varied as criminal justice and marketing. Let’s also dispel the popular media and politician obsession that a humanities degree is about majors in philosophy and history. Sadly in my opinion, not so. Philosophy and history departments have been run down at most of our universities, and most highly qualified academics are casually employed. Few are paid to research, at a time when we desperately need more education and research in history and in philosophy. Witness the headlines over the past few weeks that vacillate between how we need science researchers to find a vaccine for COVID-19, and interrogating humanities and social science researchers to predict how we will live now. Our First Nations peoples implore the rest of us to learn history, and learn from it. History and philosophy graduates often go onto graduate teaching degrees. The shift towards postgraduate teacher education is a broadly supported trend. At least would be science teachers won’t be paying higher fees for their first degree under the Coalition’s latest plan, but funding to universities for science degrees will not increase either. Graduate jobs in science though are scarce. Even science PhD graduates cannot get career jobs, usually existing in the twilight world of short term contracts. This is because while it is agreed that we need STEMM knowledge and skills, governments are not prepared to put in the infrastructure and ongoing support for science careers. There is little labour market planning. People are encouraged into in-demand fields, but find themselves on the scrap heap, as has happened to many early and mid-career engineers. Current school leavers opt for sport and exercise science as there is an expanding job market, just like communications degrees were a good bet a decade ago, but no more. There is demand for graduates in the increasingly complex community and health services areas which need science and humanities knowledges and skills, and canny students are choosing degrees explicitly focussed upon growing areas, noting though that jobs are often underpaid and insecure. And what will the short and medium term job market look like post COVID-19? Let’s stop even bothering with arguing the rationality of the ‘job ready’ pitch. It is just rubbish. Nor is it worth arguing about the efficacy of manipulating fee levels to change course choice behaviour, when there is a deferred loan scheme. Usually when the Government wants to increase fees, we are told that potential students are not overly influenced by the price of their degree. This is despite the contradictory reports that potential students, especially from less privileged backgrounds, feel they are barred from expensive courses as they are so wary of the debt upon graduation. If successive governments did not think that fee manipulation influences choice, then governments would not have continually messed with HECS/HELP fee bands. At the beginning of the HECS scheme the idea was that all students would pay the same so there was no disincentive in course choices. However, prices have since been put up and down to encourage enrolments; to reflect expected remuneration levels upon gradua-

tion; and then also to account for costs of delivery. Fee levels have little rationality, and students pay now or later. So instead of these circular debates, can we focus instead on the key issue? Many in the Coalition don’t like universities and they don’t like the capacity of an educated populace to speak truth to power. That could be described as ideological prejudice, but the more important prejudice is the slavish devotion to the neoliberal privatisation creed. The latest Morrison Government policy announcement is about cutting government investment in public higher education. Australia rates perilously low compared to most comparable countries on spending on public higher education. Australian students pay higher fees. Across many countries students do not pay tuitions fees at public universities. Successive Australian governments have instead used visa policy levers to encourage universities to become more and more reliant on international student fee income, because they will not invest in public higher education. Instead international students subsidise their domestic class mates and pay for their lecturers' research time. Universities were captured and then boasted that they are Australia’s third highest export income earner – young global citizens rank after iron ore and coal. Universities capitulated and moved to obsessive reliance upon research rankings, arguing that determines international students' choice. Research indicates undergraduate international students are driven in making their choices by what their friends report back and the agents tout. Governments continue to withdraw funding, leading universities to accumulate surpluses so they can borrow money in the commercial market place, instead of paying for secure staffing to teach and support current students. Students and staff pay for the privatisation of our public universities – staff pay with majority being employed insecurely, and across the board staff working startling levels of unpaid hours. Students pay more and get less. And the Government pays less and demands more. Do not be blinded by the often cited increases in the higher education budget. There are many more students. Proportionally the Government pays less per student. That is what the latest announcements are about. The Government wants to increase student places, but they want humanities students to fund these new student places. So let’s stop being conned into circular neoliberal framed diversionary debates. The question is whether we agree that government (taxpayers funds) should pay for education and research in our public universities. If so, then let’s focus on how we can change the debate. Our public universities are far too critical to the public good to be sold out in a stoush about price levers. ◆ Jeannie Rea was NTEU National President 2010– 2018, and is an Associate Professor at VU.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ EDUCATION FOR ALL Image: 123rf

Jobs-ready package: A pea & thimble trick By now members will be fully aware of the Coalition's surprise remix of monies going to universities. Disciplines have been cherry picked for favour under the Government plan, yet the 'Jobs-ready Graduate' package, with its headline grabbing assortment of student fee hikes and student fee discounts, has cunningly hidden the Government’s most important decision – to make real cuts to university funding and real increases to the average fees paid by Australian students.

Fig. 1: CGS funding clusters CGS funding for Commonwealth supported places to be allocated in four clusters, replacing the existing eight.

Position of units under new funding

based on 2018 distribution of students

Cluster

36%

BETTER OFF

55%

WORSE OFF Cluster

Government reduction=

15%

Cluster

Law, Arts, Business, Social Sci, Humanities

Govt will pay

Education, IT, Maths, Architecture, Allied Health

Nursing, Science, Engineering, Languages Medicine, Dentistry, Agriculture, Vet Science

Down

per student

$5526

for Humanities

$1137

Govt will pay

Down

$1,100

for Law & Business

$13,500

$11,462 for Education

for Allied Health

Govt will pay

Down

per student

$16,500 per student

Govt will pay

$27,000 per student

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

$2953

for Languages, Clin Psych, Health, Allied Health, Creative Arts Up

$2555

$43

$2759

for Science, Engineeering

EDUCATION FOR ALL ◆

Under the new plan, HECS-HELPS bands have been dramatically altered with the student contribution in some courses being reduced by around 60% (see Fig. 2) and others increased by varying amounts, including 113% for Humanities, Social Sciences and Communications.

And the cherry picking of favoured disciplines? This has been justified based on the Government’s own custom 'return on field of education' index, which combines and ranks the public and private value of degrees in each discipline area to give a total return figure.

very good employment outcomes, graduate salaries, and labour force participation rates, on par or even slightly above favoured courses in the sciences. This flimsy policy rationale points to a rushed process and an ex post facto attempt to justify the initially settled position.

What is not obvious in this big mix up is the overall 15% reduction the Government has made to their contribution per public place and the subsequent increase in total student fees by 7%. This has left universities with a net loss of 6% of overall domestic student revenue, according to analysis from the Innovative Research Universities.

Perversely, this index includes graduate income as a key measure of discipline worth, implying that graduates in areas of lower income contribute less to society, and therefore should pay the highest fees.

The political manoeuvring around these reforms, on the other hand, has been more carefully contrived. The proposed mix of targeted cuts and increases in course fees is designed to wedge staff and students in different disciplines, while the diversion of newly extracted funds towards special side projects is designed to appease key veto players in the Coalition (e.g. the regional funding increases are targeted towards the demands made by National Party MPs). These side payments can later be whittled down quietly or, for all we know, will automatically expire.

This, naturally, reduces the ratio of public to private funding from 58:42 presently, to 51:49 for domestic student places overall, and to a paltry 7:93 for Arts degrees – barely maintaining the idea that these are 'public' places in public universities. 'New monies' for special initiatives announced under the package are simply a re-allocation of this lost CGS funding. Importantly, these boutique initiatives could easily disappear in a couple of years – we know that small targeted programs in higher education with imprecise constituencies are always politically vulnerable. Looking closely at the detail in the Government white paper, it justifies the decrease in Commonwealth funding as more closely reflecting the true cost of teaching, the implication being that universities are currently over-funded. But this seems to miss the hidden cross-subsidisation and scaling benefits domestic teaching has enjoyed from the (now flailing) international student boom.

This is a complete reversal for the recent run of conservative Governments which have generally claimed that courses with higher graduate salaries should have higher student contributions – as the public should not pay for 'private' benefit. This framework for allocating funding was never completely convincing, yet the reverse seems even less so. Perhaps this is why the Government has not actually applied its own index to the allocation of funding and fees? For example, English is at the bottom of their value index yet leap-frogs top ranking Law and Economics to receive 10 times more funding. At the same time, Law and Economics will have their public funding reduced by 50% despite their high public benefit indexation. It doesn’t stop there, Foreign languages are ranked very poorly on the index, yet somehow receive a 20% boost. Regarding Tehan’s rhetorical claims that the policy is about discouraging students from studying programs with poor graduate employment outcomes, data from QILT’s 2019 surveys show that the (virtually) defunded courses like Humanities have

Although universities are facing the greatest funding crisis ever seen, the Government’s response is to both decrease public funding of the sector, and to shift more of the financial burden onto domestic students, who already pay some of the highest tuition fees in the OECD. The Government thinks it can get away with this policy trick by pitting staff and students in a tired revisitation of the ‘culture wars.’ However, NTEU members are not going to fall for this tactic, and the Union will be pushing for both transparency and accountability from a Government that appears determined to hide its real agenda. ◆ Kieran McCarron, Policy & Research Officer

Fig. 2: HECS-HELP bands HECS-HELP bands that students contribute to their Band studies per year, going from 3 bands (based on private returns) to 4 bands (based on cost/govt priority areas). The new fees are by unit, not at a degree level. Teaching, Maths, Nursing, Clinical Psych, Languages, English, Agriculture

42%

PAY MORE

55% PAY LESS

University income per student

Cost to students Band

39%

60%

Band

Drop by

$3100 to $6000

Allied Health, Architecture, IT, Science, Engineering

LESS

Creative Arts

$1998 Rise by

$896

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

Drop by

Medical, Dental, Vet Science

Band

Drop by

3 $55

Law, Business, Economics, Management & Commerce, Humanities, Communications, Behavioural Science, Society & Culture etc. Rise by

$3145–$7696 19

◆ EDUCATION FOR ALL Image: Dan Meyers/unsplash

It doesn't add up Funding overhaul will also hurt STEM students The Federal Government framed its sweeping changes to university funding as a reprioritisation from arts to sciences to support the 'jobs of the future'. But the details tell a very different story. While the package punishes arts students, it also deprives universities of the resources they need to teach STEM – science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The Government has been rightly criticised for undervaluing the contribution of humanities and social sciences (HASS) to the modern workforce. This HASS v STEM debate played into the Coalition Government’s hands because it meant the wider impact of the changes was missed.

Gareth Bryant, University of Sydney Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Economy NTEU USyd Branch Committee member

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

It is not about HASS v STEM. There are in fact few winners in the Government’s package. The plan only makes sense as an attempt to shift the overall cost of university education from governments to students.

EDUCATION FOR ALL ◆

Most university students will either pay more, or the universities they study at will receive less money for teaching them. The biggest fee hikes will be felt by HASS students. However, despite the rhetoric from federal Education Minister Dan Tehan, per-student revenue for universities in key STEM disciplines will actually decrease. In science and engineering, student fees will decline by $2000 per year to $7700, but the Commonwealth contribution will fall by even more, at $2760 per student. This represents a combined reduction of per-student revenue received by universities of 16 per cent in these disciplines. Universities also face the same level of per-student revenue decline in maths, where the increase in the Commonwealth contribution makes up less than half of the reduction in fees. Universities will even receive less income for any given nursing or teaching student. The Government may be hoping that lower fees will incentivise students to enrol in STEM courses. But reducing the revenue received by universities for science, engineering and maths students will stretch teaching resources, especially in expensive-to-run subjects. It may have a perverse effect: universities may actually be forced to limit enrolments in STEM due to constrained per-student revenue, and over-enrol where student fees are highest.

#EducationForAll #FirstInFamily

The Coalition’s plan will significantly reduce the proportion of government funding in the university system as a whole. This proportion is already low by OECD standards and has left universities highly exposed to the drop in international student revenue from COVID-19. The shift in the funding mix towards student fees is most acute in the humanities and social sciences. Students studying subjects such as history, philosophy, and politics, as well as those enrolled in social work, law, economics and business degrees, will pay $14,500 per year in fees. These students will contribute 93 per cent of the cost of their university education, while the Commonwealth's decline to 7 per cent will account for only $1100 a year. Fee increases will raise the proportion of the university funding mix that is paid by students. Overall, the proportion of university teaching revenue covered the Federal Government will decline by at least 6 per cent to 52 per cent. This hastens the long-term decline in per-student base funding in the sector and is close to the 50-50 funding mix the Government hoped to achieve with its failed fee deregulation agenda. Greater reliance on student fees at this time will create deep intergenerational inequities. Domestic demand for university is poised to increase as a result of a

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

poor jobs market and former treasurer Peter Costello’s baby boomers reaching university age. Demographics and the COVID-19 crisis were about to collide with the Government’s prior decision to cap Commonwealth contributions to teaching. The Government’s solution is for young people to pay more for their university education while they also face the brunt of the job losses from the pandemic fallout. Bigger university debts will mean longer repayments that act as an effective tax increase for graduates. Student loan repayments now start at incomes of only $45,000 per annum – about half the average full time wage. Repayments on university debt tend to hit when graduates are trying to save for a home deposit or pay childcare costs, disproportionately impacting women who are the majority of arts graduates. The Education Minister has claimed he will deliver more domestic student places in a budget-neutral way. The details reveal it is not possible to increase access to quality higher education without increasing per-student Commonwealth funding. There are good reasons for senators from the cross bench, along with Labor and the Greens, to demand just that. ◆ A version of this article was originally published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 June 2020.

◆ COVID-19

Higher education: A sector on the ropes All staff working in higher education have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 crisis. The Union estimates that over a thousand university workers have already lost their jobs. Without federal intervention that delivers a significant funding boost for higher education, the Union believes there will be thousands more. Put simply, the entire sector is in crisis. Universities alone are projected to lose between $3.1–$4.8 billion in revenue for 2020, and up to $16 billion by 2023 should the international education sector remain depressed. University commercial and investment income has also been negatively impacted and there are uncertainties around the domestic student market in 2021, with small and regional institutions particularly vulnerable as larger and metropolitan institutions seek to sure up their own domestic student numbers by drawing from outer metropolitan, regional and rural catchments.

Dr Terri MacDonald, NTEU Acting Director (Policy & Research)

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

Calls for Government assistance in the crisis have been largely ignored. The Federal Government amended provisions around JobKeeper three times to specifically exclude public universities, although it has allowed private higher education providers to apply for the program. The so-called Higher Education rescue package announced mid-April does not deal with the projected loss of income in as much as it flags the Government’s future plans for a more privatised, contested sector, where competency focused short courses (‘micro-credentials’) are given preference over traditional degree structures that are informed by world leading research.

COVID-19 ◆ Image: pxhere

The NTEU has continued to actively lobby for federal funding, despite Government recalcitrance. However, the longer the Government refuses to act, the more jobs are being lost, resulting in the loss of thousands of talented academics, researchers and professional staff from the sector.

NTEU acts to protect jobs With the Government refusing to act and university managements looking to use COVID-19 as an excuse to implement extreme measures, it was left to the NTEU to act. The Union negotiated in good faith with Vice-Chancellor representatives, resulting in provisions known as the National Jobs Protection Framework (NJPF). The Framework was a mechanism to moderate cost saving measures universities would employ, and was projected to save some 12,000 higher education jobs if it had been implemented nationally. It ensured cost saving measures were proportional, transparent, equitable, and protect the most at-risk workers. Importantly, measures would also have been temporary, constrained to the period of worst impacts of COVID-19. However, disappointingly, a number of individual university Vice-Chancellors chose not to enter into the framework, including the lead Vice-Chancellor with whom the Union negotiated. These Vice-Chancellors did not want to give up managerial prerogative or be transparent with their financial circumstances. Instead, they saw COVID-19 as an opportunity to implement sweeping changes to institutional structures, staffing and course offerings – and even close campuses.

Their plans will result in cuts to permanent jobs on unprecedented levels, to be eventually replaced by positions that are ‘flexible’ (precarious). The Union is of no doubt that many institutions are also using COVID-19 as an opportunity to roll back existing conditions and entitlements through non-union variations to Enterprise Agreements. These managements do not want the changes they are pushing to be temporary, but permanent. The NTEU is fighting the non-union ballot variations to our Agreements where they are rolled out, institution by institution, campus by campus. University managements that seek to use COVID-19 as a trojan horse for their managerial opportunism will be fought long and hard by NTEU members over every single regressive cost-saving measure they attempt. However, given our broken industrial laws and the multi-billion-dollar hole in the sector’s finances, we know that we are facing an uphill battle. We also know that the financial crisis for the sector as a whole will compound further, should there be a slow recovery for international education, and we will see mass job losses in higher education. This will impact on the capacity for universities to deliver what is needed post-COVID-19 – in teaching and learning, skills development, research and innovation and in supporting our communities.

A call for reform The COVID-19 crisis, compounded by the Government’s failure to act, will have long term effects. Prior to COVID-19,

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

there was broad recognition that over a decade of funding reductions, reallocations, cuts and freezes had left the sector severely underfunded. Indeed, by 2018, the sector was financed more by student fees than Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) funding. In 2015, NTEU proposed a new funding allocation framework which included substantial public funding increases. This framework is designed to be sustainable, transparent and could be targeted at areas of need, and would effectively depoliticise the funding process. NTEU maintains that our funding proposal is now even more relevant in the post-COVID-19 environment, particularly given that universities will be expected to play an integral role in rebuilding Australia’s economic infrastructure, contributing to our research and development capabilities and in helping to reskill our workforce. The Union has recently made a submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Government’s Response to COVID-19 outlining the impact of COVID-19 on universities and calling on the Government to act now in order to avert the broadscale job losses in higher education. We have also made a number of recommendations outlining NTEU’s vision for a higher education sector that is appropriately and sustainably funded and meets Australia’s future needs. ◆ Read the NTEU's submission to the Senate Inquiry at www.nteu.org.au/covid-19/policy

â&#x2014;&#x2020; COVID-19

dan tehan saving universities

playing politics

Coalition's 'rescue package' nothing but smoke & mirrors To cushion the economic impact of COVID-19 in Australia, the Federal Government has responded with numerous targeted measures, including three separate stimulus packages, which included targeted funding for some industries that had been adversely affected (e.g. airlines) and more general programs, such as JobKeeper (from which universities have been effectively blocked) and JobSeeker.

Kieran McCarron, NTEU Policy & Research Officer

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 â&#x2014;&#x2020; JULY 2020

COVID-19 ◆

However, the higher education sector – which was one the of the first sectors to be affected by the COVID-19 measures – has been largely excluded from Government support measures. Indeed, the general view of the Government has been that higher education, and in particular universities, can ride out the COVID-19 crisis with minimal assistance.

The Devil is in the (microcredential) detail

The only measure that has been extended to universities was the Higher Education Rescue Package, announced on Easter Sunday by Education Minister Dan Tehan. The main components of the package are guaranteed domestic student funding, the deferral of HELP recoveries, funding for 20,000 (university discounted) short online courses, and regulatory fee relief.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there had been anticipation of a Government led review of Higher Education funding. Since 2011/2012 cuts to Government funding had seen around $10 billion lost in the forward estimates in the sector, including the Government funding freeze in 2017, leading to a situation where universities have begun collecting more in international student fee income than in CGS funding.

In looking closely at the detail of this package we have discovered that the Government has used its chance to protect jobs and research at universities as an opportunity to experiment around what it sees as ideal modes of education delivery.

Is it really worth $18 billion? The Government has claimed their Higher Education Rescue Package is providing $18 billion in assistance to universities. This claim is extremely dubious. What it does do is guarantee the previously budgeted $18 billion in government funding for Commonwealth supported enrolments in 2020 – this does nothing to address the impact of lost international student income, which accounts for over a quarter of all university income in the sector. Closer analysis of the Government’s Higher Education Package reveals its true value to be around $464 million across all universities. This consists of around $222 million in guaranteed Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) funding (assuming 3 per cent of domestic students withdraw), and $170 million in loans via HECS-HELP advances, and $72 million in regulatory fee relief that is shared with private providers. This pales in comparison to losses that are expected to reach between $10 and $19 billion over the next three years according to the Mitchell Institute. NTEU’s own analysis has found that universities have already reported $4 billion of expected losses for 2020. Guaranteeing domestic student funding does not solve the problem of lost international fees – so what then is the point of this package?

Apart from allowing the Government to claim that they have done something, the package also provides a blueprint, or a testing ground, for regulatory and legislative changes that could be coming to the sector.

The Government has previously conducted an Inquiry into the Australian Qualifications Framework, led by Professor Peter Noonan, which included the recommendation that micro-credentialing be adopted as part of a structural revision of the Higher Education Framework. Clearly, the Government was already moving towards both structural and funding change. These changes are flagged throughout the package. To take the most obvious example, in the introduction of discounted short courses (micro-credentials) in 'National Priority' areas, to be offered by universities and non-university higher education providers from May 1 (and completed by Dec 1, 2020). The Government has said that providers will have the flexibility to design and deliver these courses (with a focus on local industry and employment opportunities), but they have capped the tuition prices at discounts of between 50–74 per cent. Universities will be required to wear the gap that results from these discounted fees, and if they are under-enrolled under the CGS guarantee, they will also not receive any additional CGS funds for these short courses (if they are over enrolled they can apply for additional CGS funding as per the usual process). It is worth noting that at least one institution (Central Queensland University) has acknowledged that it is actually costing the university money to offer the discounted courses under the 'relief package' – this same institution has shed around 300 jobs due to COVID-19 related losses.

Also of note, the Government has flagged that it '…will work with universities to give them flexibility to adjust between bachelor places and sub-bachelor and postgraduate places, pending legislative reform to lock in a more flexible model.' This indicates substantial structural change for the sector, as currently universities cannot re-allocate CGS funds in this way. Study for the micro-credentials can take place at Australian Qualification Level (AQF) level 5 (Diploma) to 9 (Masters Degree) which means that students can take subjects at any higher education coursework level – diploma, bachelor, graduate diploma, graduate certificate, masters by coursework – but must only be offered online. The Government has also specified that study undertaken as part of a Higher Education Certificate must contribute to a qualification recognised under the AQF, meaning students are already part of the way through completing a higher education qualification when they receive their Higher Education Certificate. This goes directly to the concept of micro-credentials, which essentially break apart the traditional degree structures into component parts – although the certificates will be part of a qualification in the higher education sector at the Diploma, Advanced Diploma, Bachelor Degree or Masters Degree level, they do not have independent recognition as awards within the AQF. This raises an interesting issue, as clearly this provision is a fairly superficial ‘work around’ to the thorny legal problems that the micro-credentials present, as under section 36-5 of HESA 2003, it’s a legal requirement for Commonwealth supported places to only be given to students enrolled in a legally-recognised qualification, with funded subjects in relation to that course of study. In short, a higher education certificate is not a legally-recognised qualification, so the Department has had to be creative in dealing with this issue in the short term. It is likely, however, that we will see legislative change on this issue too. The Government support package largely failed our sector, and we are seeing the fallout of this now in job losses and drastic cost-cutting programs. The NTEU has submitted a detailed analysis of the Government’s package, and our claims for a better deal for universities to the Senate in our recent submission. ◆ Read the full Senate Submission at www.nteu.org.au/covid-19/policy

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ COVID-19 Image: Matt Hoffman/unsplash

Less professional staff means less support for everyone

Catherine Rojas, Monash University NTEU Vice-President (General/Professional Staff)

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

COVID-19 ◆

The current financial crisis in the tertiary education sector has only exacerbated a growing devaluation of quality public education and research in our community. The ever shrinking slice of public funding has led to an obsessive race by university managements for alternative funding sources with little regard for the cost this might have on academic integrity, autonomy and freedom. Exposure to insecurity This environment has made professional staff the most vulnerable to insecure work and job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Along with our academic colleagues, we have witnessed the massive growth in high level management positions over recent years. These positions have been created through endless restructures and often at the expense of roles that directly support staff and students, community and research partners. It certainly feels like the more relevant your role is to actively facilitate the development and dissemination of knowledge, the more likely your job is to be insecure. My respect to those professional staff on the front lines: those in student support services, laboratory technicians, research assistants, learning designers, librarians and IT support staff. Many staff working across these essential service areas have already lost their jobs or have been stood down, and many more live in fear that they will. They’ve had no access to JobKeeper payments and no chance of finding further work in the education sector where providers have frozen recruitment. The impact on their personal lives and careers is devastating.

Increased workloads The reductions in professional staff jobs we are now facing across the country will not only mean higher workloads for the professional staff who remain, it will undoubtedly increase the already ridiculous workloads of academics. It will push already stretched tertiary education staff to the brink. There will not be any token well-being initiatives or resilience workshops that can fix it. Some professional staff whose goodwill has run dry will simply work to rule, and there will be those so fearful of losing their income they will donate hours and days of their personal lives just to be able to pay

the next bill. Too bad for their colleagues with caring or community commitments who are unable to work extra hours. Over the past decade professional staff have endured constant organisational change, new software and systems, new policies and process, and new strategies full of corporate buzzwords. All with pitiful consultation lest we harm the fragile egos of the proponents. These costly restructures are rarely, if ever, reviewed. They inevitably do not allow for staff absences through leave, part time or flexible work, and finding replacement staff after yet another colleague has burnt out. I fear professional staff roles and requirements have evolved so fast we have become an enigma. We are expected to take on whatever is thrown at us and yet are readily disregarded and dispensed of to save some dollars or hit the arbitrary performance metric, all to earn that bonus for our supposed leaders.

More restructures, more farewells Professional staff are now preparing for another round of restructures, wondering who is next, hoping that it’s not them. Their jobs and lives are about to change regardless. Some familiar faces will end up in different places but at least the connections remain. There will be another round of farewells, likely to be via Zoom which is not at all the same. The card and gift, a speech or two, and maybe a few tears. We will miss that laugh, or the way they whistled in the corridor; the lame dad jokes, or how you could always rely on them whenever you got stuck. In my experience it takes professional staff at least six months of grieving after every major restructure. Six months of feeling the absence of old colleagues; six months of trying to learn the new parts of your role or even a whole new role; six months to discover who you feel comfort-

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

able to ask for help, or just to have a quiet chat. There is no price on this impact. It is the difference between an ordinary workplace and a learning community made up of an intricate web of relationships and a common employer.

Power in union As union members we contribute to negotiating and ensuring we have working conditions that are safe and fair. To be truly fair, we must insist that our Agreements, and any proposed variation, empower staff with the dignity of choice. This requires healthy workplace relationships based on trust, respect and good communication. Ideally, as highly educated and/or experienced professionals we are able to choose where we work and whom we work with, to determine what the desired outcomes are and how they will be achieved, to have flexible options for when to work, and when there is no more work; to have a choice to consider a new role or decide how we would like to end our employment relationship. The power and dignity of choice allows us to challenge what can be changed, to accept what can’t be changed, and a better chance of getting through this crisis healthier and more content. As a professional staff member, I’m so grateful to be part of a union with academic and teaching colleagues. Professional staff who come to work in tertiary education inevitably end up staying in the sector due to the personally fulfilling but challenging work that facilitating education and research provides. It is times like these that it is vital that academic and professional staff unite to fight for the power and dignity that comes with choice when voting on our working conditions. May we never give up on our pursuit of free tertiary education and greater public investment in quality education and research for the benefit of Australian society. It is more important now than ever. ◆

◆ COVID-19 Image: Drew Hayes/unsplash

COVID-19 and the future of research Universities are the biggest centres of research in Australia, and this research has been highly vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19. A little over half (by headcount) of the research workforce in universities is comprised of postgraduate research students, and over half of research funding in universities comes from internal university funds – funds which have been heavily impacted by the pandemic. The combination of these factors means that COVID-19 has already directly reduced the research capacity of universities, and this reduction could persist for several years.

Kieran McCarron, NTEU Policy & Research Officer

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

COVID-19 ◆

Table 1: Sources of research funding in Australian Universities 2000 and 2018

Thousands of job losses A recent Rapid Research Information Forum (RRIF) report, Impact of the Pandemic of Australia’s Research Workforce, has found that at least 7,000 research jobs are at risk in the university sector due to COVID-19. It has also shown that 9,000 international research students may not have been able to resume their research in Australian universities due to travel restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 and existing visa restrictions.

Source of funds

Universities have so far been permitted to extend scholarships by six months for affected students. However, these extensions have not been funded by increases to research block grants, leaving the decision up to each university. The report, alarmingly, highlights the fact that several research projects have completely halted in the absence of these research students.

2000 $

2000 %

2018 $

2018 %

483,416

17.3%

1,700,454

14.0%

Australian competitive grants Commonwealth schemes Other schemes

12,065

0.4%

73,656

0.6%

495,481

17.8%

1,774,110

14.6%

1,760,882

63.1%

6,822,562

56.1%

166,504

6.0%

1,891,230

15.6%

87,859

3.1%

457,013

3.8%

Business

136,221

4.9%

521,889

4.3%

Donations, bequests and foundations

58,864

2.1%

300,531

2.5%

Other Australian

23,290

0.8%

0.0%

60,652

2.2%

390,396

3.2%

Total General university funds Other Commonwealth Government State and local government

Overseas

2,789,753

12,157,827

Source: Compiled from ABS 8111.0 – Research and Experimental Development, Higher Education Organisations, Australia, 2018 https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/8111.02018?OpenDocument

Affect on research funding While facility closures and the absence of students have been felt first, it is research funding that will be the long-term issue emerging from COVID-19. In universities, revenue from international students is used to partially cover the costs of research. International student fees contributed an average 26 per cent of universities’ operating revenue in 2018. These funds have been the main source of general university funds available for research. As shown in the table, 56 per cent of all university research spending, or $6.8 billion in 2018, came from general university funds. The RRIF report estimated that research funding from general university revenue will decrease to $1.8 billion in 2020, with ongoing lost research spending in subsequent years. To make matters worse, this will directly impact on the ability of affected universities to win grants. This is because a large portion of federal university research funding comes in the form of competitive grant programs via the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. These programs require universities to heavily co-contribute to projects to receive grant funding – including through direct cash contributions, and in-kind contributions of paid staff time and physical infrastructure. This dynamic around co-contributions has also contributed to

universities' need to secure international student fee income to stay research active.

Pressure on the teachingresearch model Research has also been supported by the traditional teaching-research model of academia, whereby most academic staff perform some teaching and some research, with each supporting the other. This model has come under considerable pressure in recent years, as universities have sought to rapidly upscale the volume of students taught. The RRIF report noted that budgetary pressures due to COVID-19 led to a rapid reduction in casual teaching staff, and subsequently increased teaching workloads for traditional mixed teaching-research academic staff, thereby reducing research capacity. NTEU has observed that when teaching workloads are increased it is very difficult to decrease them again and academic staff performing extra teaching often permanently lose valuable research skills and momentum in an industry that sees rapid and consistent publication output as the marker of relevance.

Long term effects Research funding has long been overdue for review and in the NTEU’s recent submission to the Senate we highlighted this fact. Should we lose our best and brightest researchers in the fall out from COVID-19, it will take years, even decades, to recover that intellectual capital. In a post-COVID-19 recovery it is vital that Australia’s research and innovation sector – of which the largest component is within higher education – plays an integral part, yet in all the stimulus measures offered by the Government to date, there has been almost no targeted funding for research. NTEU believes that there must be a targeted recovery program by the Commonwealth Government to support our research sectors, which could also encourage industry support and investment. However, it should not be limited to commercial research only, as some of Australia’s most innovative discoveries have come from the blue-sky research that universities do best. ◆

On a more practical level research has also been impacted by the ability of staff to access laboratory spaces or to work safely in these spaces – for example, James Cook University closed remote island research stations early in the crisis.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ COVID-19

An over-reliance on international students? Even before the arrival of COVID-19, there was a great deal of discussion about the role international students play in Australia’s higher education sector. The sector has seen rapid growth in the last decade. International students make up over 20% of enrolments in most Australian universities with enrolments in some universities being around 50%. In one 2019 paper, The China Student Boom and the Risks It Poses to Australian Universities published by the Centre for Independent Studies, Associate Professor Salvatore Babones calculated the massive revenue reaped by top-tier Australian universities from international students. He warned that Australian universities risk catastrophe due to their over-reliance on income from international student enrolments and more specifically from Chinese student enrolments.

Not all universities are equally dependent on international students, or on China. In fact, some are much more dependent on international students in general (and Chinese students in particular) than are others. Moreover, given the fact that in 2018, 26.3% of all university income was from international students, it’s not surprising that many have been questioning the wisdom of the sector’s increasing reliance on educating international students.

Helena Spyrou, NTEU

Dr Terri MacDonald, NTEU

Education & Training Organiser

Acting Director (Policy & Research)

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

COVID-19 ◆ Image: hxdbzxy/123RF

The higher education sector is highly dependent on the revenue generated by international student fees. According to a recent article in The Conversation in April, the university sector could lose up to $19 billion over the next three years as a result of lost international student revenue. Fast forward to June 2020 and Babones’ warning seems very real because today we are looking at scenarios in the higher education sector focused on the failure of the international student market. NTEU highlighted many times the risk universities exposed themselves to by relying (at varying levels) on the income from international student enrolments, which forms a large part of the discretionary funding pool that institutions use for both domestic teaching and research. For example, in March 2020, media reports stated that the University of Sydney had halted spending and warned of potential job losses as it grappled with a $200 million financial hit due to coronavirus. The university said it would cease expenditure on non-essential projects, ban unnecessary travel and also freeze recruitment. To compound matters, in early June China’s Ministry of Education issued a warning to students not to return to study in Australia, when campuses are set to resume classes in July, due to 'racist incidents' during the coronavirus pandemic. As there are more Chinese students enrolled at Australian universities than from any other overseas country, this warning from China could exacerbate the crisis the higher education sector is facing. The

Group of Eight universities, has dismissed claims that Australia is unsafe for Chinese students. A few days after the warning from China, Chinese international students also defended Australia as a 'safe' destination for study. But it is the students who are suffering the most at this time. The story of Divvya Sivarajah in this edition of Advocate (see p. 34) highlights the plight of international students like herself who have been balancing work and study and many are struggling with having lost work during the COVID-19 pandemic period. It is worth noting that international students are primarily employed in the cleaning, hospitality and retail sectors and that these sectors have been particularly hard hit by the enforced shut downs. The reliance of student visa holders on wages for income, since their first arrival in Australia is high. ABS 2016 data shows while the portion of students relying upon wage income as a source is always slightly higher, the percentage of students who rely upon it as their main source starts at around 44% and grows to 75% by the time they are near the end of their studies. Moreover, while universities are still delivering courses online, many international students are questioning why they are studying an online course onshore when they could be saving considerable costs by studying the same course at home (and education providers are aware of this problem). This is particularly

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

galling for those students that responded to the financial inducements offered by many universities earlier in the year, who told their students they could still come as long as they did two weeks quarantine in a third country (and offered ‘financial relief’ to those that did). Yet only a few weeks later, Australian universities were forced to essentially physically close their classrooms and move courses online where possible. Despite the obvious vulnerability of international student workers, who have been shown to be exploited in both their pay and conditions, the Government has consistently rejected any requests to extend any support or benefits to most foreign workers, including international student workers. In this time of crisis, the Federal Government has not provided support to the university sector through the JobKeeper program and international students have been specifically excluded from income support and the social welfare safety net. The question must be asked, what responsibility must the Government have for the international education sector? Currently, the Government’s assumption that providers will simply be able to ‘restart’ once the crisis is over ignores the long term damage being done to Australia’s reputation and status as an international education provider. ◆ Read the detailed Policy & Research discussion papers on this topic at www.nteu.org.au/covid-19/policy

◆ COVID-19 Image: Deakin University Wikipedia

Pandemic closes the door on more than just a job For six and a half years I was an English Language Teacher at the Deakin University English Language Institute (DUELI). But my connection with Deakin actually goes deeper than that. I started going there in my teens – my mum worked there, and I would trudge over after school to sit at an empty desk and annoy her until it was time to go home.

Dash Jayasuriya, Deakin University D @gameonmoll

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

COVID-19 ◆

At eighteen I started taking on casual, weekend and holiday work for lecturers in my mum’s faculty, entering marks and mailing out surveys. Over time, this transitioned to administrative work. I began working all over the university in casual, temporary roles. When I decided to study a Masters of Teaching it was natural to study it there, at the campus that I knew so well, and it was soon after completing my studies that I started teaching at DUELI. At thirty-three years old, I have spent most of my adult life connected with Deakin in one way or another. And for most of that time, I have felt immensely lucky. Two years ago, I lost both of my parents, my mother to lung cancer and my father to Motor Neuron Disease. I looked after them both while working full time at DUELI. I was fortunate that my managers were accommodating, that my co-workers offered support and advice with such kindness, and that teaching my vibrant, hard-working students energised me. My parents died two months apart, and each time I returned to work in less than two weeks, finding respite there from the shifting sands of a home that no longer made sense to me. In the two years since losing my parents I found strength in work, coordinating units, writing curriculum, teaching offshore and, of course, teaching my classes. Throughout everything, I had a sense that the work I was doing was important and valuable, and this helped me cope.

A global movement International education is Australia’s third largest export industry, bringing $32 billion into the economy each year. People come from all over the world because they believe that an Australian education is worth having. As a migrant whose parents did something very similar, I have always felt proud to be a part of that journey for so many students (well over a thousand at last count). There are, without a doubt, a number of issues in this industry, but at its core it allows for a global movement of people that helps society progress. As ELICOS teachers, our role in this movement is crucial. We are often the first adult contacts that students make in this country (and who hasn’t had the experience of a student turning up on the first day, straight from the airport, pulling luggage behind them?). We teach them essay writing, and referencing, of course. But we also help them navigate in an unfamiliar terrain.

We offer guidance beyond the classroom and, as such, we become central to their initial success in adapting. Students who haven’t been in our classes for months will come up at graduation to thank us, because if that initial contact is successful, it forms a foundation for settling in Australia that they know is invaluable. For six and a half years I was part of something greater than myself. A community of students and teachers who were, all of us, the embodiment of the erstwhile Deakin tagline: worldly.

Death by a thousand cuts The thing about losing your job is that it doesn’t happen all at once. Not to me, anyway. It started in February, when the borders closed to China and almost overnight a group of experienced, dedicated casual teachers disappeared. Instantly, the mood in the offices shifted, a vibrant workplace transformed by fear. In March, I started to worry for myself. My contract was up in May and, when asked about renewal, all management would say was that they were ‘seeking advice’, which seemed ominous at best. In late April I received the Zoom call that put me out of my misery. What followed was a death by a thousand cuts.

I believe that we are witnessing a failure of leadership, vision and innovation on the part of both the Government and the University administration. People who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year seem to have, collectively, shrugged their shoulders and given up.

A high cost I am scared that, as time goes on, the tidal wave of consequences that started with casual ELICOS staff will roll forward, devastating the most vulnerable members of our community. More and more insecure staff will turn their faces to a meagre pool of already competitive jobs. Regional communities will lose out as regional campuses close. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds will have less chances to get a tertiary education as the smaller universities close, leaving them to compete with private school students for entry into more elite institutions. Women will find tertiary study or employment far more difficult as universities close their subsidised childcare. And students and teachers of the humanities will find their areas shrunk further and further as course cuts hit them the hardest.

Skimming through my emails to find my mum’s name and forward all of our correspondence to my personal account. Attending union meetings and trying to support the 11 others in the same position. Working so incredibly hard, as all of us were, to get our courses online and support teachers with the transition, all the while feeling that nothing I did really mattered.

On top of all of this will be the emotional cost. For me, it was the feeling of erasure, of non-existence in a community that had shaped me, that kicked me in the guts. There is real grief in losing your job and having one of your most important identity markers taken away. In short sightedness, universities are taking action that will change their organisations and the industry as a whole forever.

Approaching the University, again and again, to try and negotiate, only to be knocked back. No, we could not convert to casual to remain available for emergency teaching. No, we could not look at fraction reductions or voluntary redundancies across DUELI. No, we could not be ‘stood down’ in order to keep a foot in the door. The University was brutally, ruthlessly efficient. Your number has come up, sorry. Take care and we wish you well.

In the last few weeks I have spent time remembering the important moments I had as a teacher at DUELI. The one that stands out the most is a personal one. In the last week of an intake, I walked with my students across campus to a library tour. On the way we met my mum, out for her lunchtime stroll along the creek. I introduced her to my class, and they were thrilled to meet her. She asked them, laughing, if I was a good teacher, and my students talked excitedly on top of each other to sing my praises.

We wrote to the Government to ask for JobKeeper or some other funding package for universities. Their replies were sparse and pointless. Over the months, my anger grew. If international education is so vital to the Australian economy, which it is, and international students are also vital, which they are, then am I not vital too?

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

As we parted, I could see on her face that she had witnessed the connection I had with my students, and that she was proud of me. It is a memory of a part of my life that is now over, that is rooted in a place I cannot access. It is a symbol, now, of what I have lost. ◆

◆ COVID-19 Image: Qantas jet landing at Sydney Airport pxhere

The cost of studying in Australia I am an international student from Malaysia currently completing a master’s degree in international community development at Victoria University. I also work as a Connected Learning Officer, where I provide support to staff in using technologyenhanced learning tools, curriculum design and the Learning Management System (LMS). I engage with staff two to three days a week either face-toface, via emails, phone and online consultations, and sometimes even in professional development sessions.

Divvya Sivarajah, Victoria University Connected Learning Officer & Masters student

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

COVID-19 ◆

I take pride in what I do because not only do I work with a group of diverse, talented and innovative people, but also because I am able to assist academics (sometimes even my own lecturers) with their queries, and troubleshoot and provide solutions. With the very sudden transition to remote delivery, due to COVID-19, my team and I have been collaboratively working from our homes to support academics, with Zoom training sessions, one-on-one online consultations and by developing help guides. While our role may be behind the scenes during times like this, we have built rapport with many academics who have reached out to us in the past. This humanises the experience of online support, making sure academic colleagues are as comfortable and reassured as possible when they come to us for answers. During the first two to three weeks of this transition, I was also able to witness first-hand how much work academics put into making sure their content was deliverable remotely, as well as their unwavering efforts to learn about unfamiliar technological tools.

Go home! On the flip side, when I am not carrying out my staff duties, I am an international student who, like my peers, is doing everything within my capacity to balance work and study hours to meet deadlines, while staying indoors, and trying to make sense of each day as I go. Recent media discussions attest to the fact that international students have had to go through tremendous uncertainty and anxiety since the COVID-19 pandemic. My friends in hospitality jobs were laid off, and being casually employed myself, I began to worry about my job security. International students constitute a significant part of the multicultural space on which Australia prides itself. However, in early April, with no forethought of the various limitations in place, we were told by the Prime Minister to pack our bags and leave if we were not able to support ourselves financially. Like so many others I was both gutted and angry, but it came as no surprise. International students have been marginalised and made to feel as 'others' even before the COVID-19 crisis began. Coming from Malaysia, the idea of migration or international study is often romanticised. As a Malaysian Tamil woman, there are intersectional reasons as to why I chose to temporarily migrate for my education and career. However, this

migration is by default equated to having a better life. True, but not entirely. This pursuit of opportunity comes at a cost for international students regardless of where we come from. It transcends primary challenges of simply pursuing a higher education in a foreign place. Many of us leave jobs, families and a life back home, pay an exorbitant amount of money for agency and tuition fees as well as (often unwarranted) English tests. We get here where it takes six months to a year to finally cope with the fact that we are away from home, but that is not all. We are constantly being made to feel as clients of a service (education) despite being members of the community who pay taxes, contribute to the country’s economy and do meaningful jobs. To top it all off, during a global pandemic, international students have been cavalierly left out of the conversation. I do not need to detail the fact that the higher education sector is highly dependent on the revenue generated by international student fees1. But as soon as we turn around to demand some answers to the diminished quality of the premium education we paid for, our intentions are immediately attacked and questioned. There was gaslighting from power structures in mainstream media and the general public on social media. International students’ realities were denied when for instance, we requested some refund in tuition fees. Even though, a recent change.org petition received 46,370 signatures, it’s almost as if the COVID-19 pandemic has made everyone hypersensitive to injustices that stemmed from mainstream forms of inequality – ones that appealed to the colonial, capitalist gaze – somehow leaving out equally real, intersectional struggles from the grand narrative.

Dealing with remote learning In the early stages of online delivery, I was invited as a student, by the University to an online forum discussing the experiences in learning via the new digitally supported remote delivery. However, this forum immediately focused upon how successful remote learning has been, with some student representatives detailing what appeared to be only the tip of the iceberg, of the international (and domestic) students struggles. The forum had an extraordinary panel of educational leaders, however there was something rather unsettling about sitting in that Zoom meeting. I thought to myself whether I was the only one here who has

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

qualms about the fees I am paying for remote learning? However, the comments section of the forum’s Facebook live stream and a simple scroll through international students’ Facebook groups answered my question. I was definitely not the only one. Now don’t get me wrong, discussions surrounding what is currently working and celebrating little victories are absolutely necessary. However, the more difficult and uncomfortable conversations, such as fee refunds, always seemed to be conveniently left out. It is the lack of clear and direct communication about it that sets a very disingenuous tone. There is nothing worse than being an international student burdened with various uncertainties, attending a student-centred event, only to be spoken for or spoken over. It is also disempowering, having to be cautious about what I say, regardless of how unsatisfying my recent study experience has been, simply because I am also a casual staff member. In the midst of all this mental clutter and compassion fatigue I have experienced, my perspective as a community development worker is one that I find solace in and am (on most days) hopeful about. I cannot help but notice how the COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping the community sector – or rather it is giving rise to new needs and emerging ways to meet those needs. These highly uncertain times have seen a surge in joint community efforts, grassroots initiatives and social media platforms widely being used to connect with people all around the world in the most unique ways. Similarly, in my placement with the Peace-meal Peacebuilding Initiative, I saw an opportunity to initiate conversations and connections among the international students’ community virtually, by using food and storytelling as a tool. I am aware that it may not solve problems, but food is a great way to connect with someone and personal stories reveal the similarities and differences in people’s experiences. Identity and resilience are often constructed and communicated through these stories. Our privileges can sometimes give us blind spots, and that is precisely why we need to truly listen when someone is sharing their story. That is the only way a blind spot can be exposed, for us to learn from it. ◆ 1. https://theconversation.com/australian-universities-could-lose-19-billion-in-the-next-3-years-oureconomy-will-suffer-with-them-136251

◆ COVID-19

The role of unions in a workplace crisis When workers face a crisis, they should have a say in how that crisis is dealt with. Why is this such a controversial idea? The COVID-19 pandemic is the worst workplace crisis most workers in the higher education sector have experienced. University revenue has fallen off a cliff from the loss of international students. As news spread around campuses of the resulting hit to budgets, university workers experienced our own creeping plague of workplace uncertainty. At the same time as staff were dealing with the workload challenges of transferring curriculum and operations online, we had in the back of our minds the anxious question of whether our jobs would survive. As the semester wore on, we heard news reports of mass job losses at universities around the country, and rumours of jobs shed at our own institutions. University job bulletin boards shut up shop. Casual staff felt particularly insecure as we are a disposable workforce.

Universities in the firing line The anxiety about job losses was made even worse by the Morrison Government’s stubborn and vindictive neglect of the sector. The Government purposely changed the Job Keeper program three times to lock higher education workers out. Universities are not only a vital part of the economy due to their revenue contribution as Australia’s third largest export industry, they also deliver education and research to ensure Australia has a skilled and innovative workforce. The research and expertise used by Australia to flatten the COVID-19 curve came from universities. This point is so obvious it should not have to be made. The Government’s neglect of the sector is akin to an attack on aspiration, an attack on the country’s economic and social health. When the $60 billion JobKeeper underspend was discovered, there was no excuse for the Government not to come

to the aid of universities. Yet even then no support transpired. To rub salt into the wound, the news media showed no interest in holding the Government to account for their failure to address the higher education crisis. University workers were left out in the cold: overworked, anxious and enraged.

Union support is vital Throughout this troubling time, higher education workers have turned to the NTEU for support. Membership has grown to the highest level in our history. This trend has been evident across the labour movement. When workers feel insecure, when their jobs are at risk, when they recognise the power imbalance between them and their boss, it is natural they turn to the collective power of their union for support. I am the casual union delegate at my university. Casual staff have told me of their fears about losing work. Many have already lost work. Many fear they will have to leave the sector after years of work to gain a position in the first place. It is a horrible time to work in higher education. We have turned to each other for protection, for support, to pool our power, and to have a collective voice. It has never been more important for workers to act in solidarity with each other. It has never been more important for us to unite and to ensure we save as many jobs as possible in the face of the funding crisis. There is nothing strange or untoward about workers acting collectively to have some say in what happens in their workplace. The collegiate way university workers act together to deliver higher education and research is no different from them working together in union to solve workplace problems.

Whither the VCs? Whether it be through Enterprise Bargaining Agreements or addressing funding shortfalls during a pandemic, workers have a legitimate role to play in how their work is organised. This valid

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

role was devastatingly undermined by the rejection of the NTEU’s Job Protection Framework by the vast majority of Vice-Chancellors. By rejecting the NTEU’s proposal, VCs locked workers out of the conversation about how to respond to the funding crisis. Where perhaps once VCs were the academic leaders of institutions which had a collective culture of mutual respect, the creep of neoliberalism in the sector over the last 30 years has turned VCs from colleagues into CEOs. Workers in the sector are now treated no differently from the shearers in the 1890s strike over the right to join a union. No differently from the wharfies who were locked out by Patrick Stevedores in 1998, replaced with non-union, cheaper labour. No differently from the workers whose rights were threatened when corporations lobbied the Howard Government to enact their WorkChoices agenda. Higher education workers have been through the wringer in this crisis. There is no end in sight. A crisis reveals a sector’s true character. It is disappointing that most university leaders have shown their true character by being unwilling to bring workers to the table to give us a say in our fate. There is nothing untoward about workers consulting about their working lives. Rather than treat workers as the enemy, Vice-Chancellors would do well to value the contribution of all workers, through the bad times, as well as the good. ◆ Victoria Fielding, UniSA

JOBS PROTECTION FRAMEWORK ◆

VCs scuttle vital jobs framework NTEU's proposed National Jobs Protection Framework (NJPF) was withdrawn in late May following its rejection by up to half of all ViceChancellors. Since then, NTEU members have continued to campaign to protect as many jobs as possible at universities seriously affected by the COVID-19 crisis.

Michael Evans, NTEU National Organiser (Media & Engagement)

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ JOBS PROTECTION FRAMEWORK

Members at five universities – La Trobe, Monash, WSU, UTAS and UWA – have overwhelmingly supported local variations of the NJPF, with over 700 jobs likely to be saved if the variations to Enterprise Agreements proceed. This is in an environment where there is a combined revenue shortfall across the sector of over $4.5 billion this year, rising to $16 billion next year, and threatening up to 30,000 actual jobs. And not only is there no rescue package or access to JobKeeper from the Federal Government, it now seeks to impose a funding cut to the higher education sector (see article, p. 18).

When NTEU members were asked directly whether they support local versions of the Jobs Protection Framework, they have voted strongly in favour: La Trobe UWA Monash UTAS WSU

73% 78.6% 83.6% 92% 92%+

NJPF rejected by VCs The NJPF was withdrawn following its rejection by up to twenty Vice-Chancellors, and it became no longer viable as a national agreement. Instead, the Union has committed to supporting local proposals that retain the NJPF’s original transparency and job security proposals, where applicable, and campaigning strongly at universities seeking to impose unilateral cuts. Several Vice-Chancellors didn’t support the external scrutiny of their non-staff cost cutting measures by an independent expert panel that the NJPF would have imposed, a hoop that universities were required to get through before any cuts to staff salaries or conditions could be implemented. Several universities decided that the temporary measures proposed in the NJPF didn’t go far enough or for long enough, and that they require more severe solutions – permanent and potentially deep

job cuts, especially for casual and fixedterm staff, as well as forced redundancies, a measure that the NJPF sought to prohibit as a cost saving measure.

Insecurely employed are most vulnerable The big disappointment about the NJPF’s demise is the loss of the protections it would have provided for fixed-term and casual staff, who, under the existing industrial relations framework, have virtually no protections at all. Already many casual staff around the country have lost work or will not have contracts renewed for the second half of 2020. Under the NJPF, work done by casual and fixed-term staff that was still required to be done and the staff had a reasonable expectation of work, would remain with those staff. It would have stopped new

external appointments, with existing staff given preference for work.

VCs responsible for any job losses Vice-Chancellors regularly make the point that staff are a university’s most valuable asset, but this appears to be irrelevant when a financial crisis comes along. The main principle behind the NJPF was to temporarily spread the ‘pain’ amongst the majority to protect as many jobs as possible. It is to the ongoing discredit of many Vice-Chancellors that when offered a framework that would have protected many more jobs than are likely, that they chose to reject it. ◆ nteu.org.au/covid-19/framework

Image: Lukas Juhas/unsplash

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

JOBS PROTECTION FRAMEWORK ◆

Letter to a fellow worker This letter was sent from a casual to a full time member following their Branch voting down the NTEU's National Job Protection Framework. It is published here anonymously.

I hope you don’t mind me emailing you. I’m writing to you as a fellow worker. I know there are many power boundaries between us – you a respected Professor, me a lowly casual tutor and PhD student. But I do believe despite these power differences, we are both at our core interested in the plight of workers. With this frame in mind, I wanted to share my personal perspective of the conflict in the Union over the jobs framework. This is not to try to change your and your fellow ‘no’ campaigners’ minds, but I do think you have a right to hear the perspective of the casual staff representative. I was disappointed by your motion endorsing a no vote against the Jobs Protection Framework. I understand that you and your group feel any concession made by the Union is a concession too much. What casuals like me, however, hear when your group support a no vote is that our jobs aren’t worth saving – that secure staff shouldn’t make temporary concessions to save the livelihoods of insecure workers. What I heard was that your group would prefer to accept casual job losses as collateral damage in order to maintain the purity of the conditions you have fought for which you don’t want hurt, even temporarily. This position, I feel is not only unjust, but belays the privileged position of being able to decide if you support or oppose concessions. What choice does an unemployed casual worker have? Casual workers are already in vulnerable financial positions. When we lose our livelihoods, we don’t get a redundancy

package. We lose everything. This is also the worst possible economic situation to be unemployed in. Supporting the jobs framework is not an ideological campaign for us. It is a campaign to do whatever we can to protect our jobs. I’m sure you know how hard casuals work and how much unpaid work we do. Once casuals are out of the system – once we miss out on a contract, it’s incredibly hard to get back in. The job protection framework you are opposing requires that the university justify every job loss. That means if I taught a course previously and that course is still running, the Union can take it up with management if I am not given a contract for that work. This might not be a perfect system, but it is better than having zero job protection, which is what casuals face now. The framework also requires that current casuals be first in line for any new jobs that arise, ahead of external candidates. This is also a protection I don’t have at the moment, and one I am unlikely to ever have again. It is also noteworthy that if the university accepts the framework, these protections are in place regardless of the University’s financial position. This means that if the University does not meet the revenue-loss to justify salary reductions, they still need to justify job reductions. Job losses of course have been happening all over the University before the COVID-19 crisis as part of rolling restructures, just as they will keep happening after. You are asking that these job losses are born silently, rather than giving us a mechanism to fight back. I agree with you when you say the University should not rely on casualisation. The Union should, and does, fight against insecure conditions. However, this fight for casualisation needs to be with university management, not with other workers. Your ‘no’ position at the moment means casuals are the ones who are most impacted by the neoliberalism of the university sector. Our jobs are the first to go.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

Casuals didn’t ask to be in this position, so why should we be the only ones to suffer its consequences? Let me tell you, being active on the Union is not a great career move for a casual, but I do it because it is the right thing to do. By opposing the jobs framework, you are asking casuals to bear the disproportional load of the COVID-19 crisis. You are asking the most vulnerable to feel the most pain rather than agreeing all staff should feel the pain together, in solidarity. A small, temporary reduction in salary is of course going to hurt, but it’s going to hurt much less than losing an income entirely. In terms of what you suggest the Union do instead of a jobs protection strategy, it is not realistic nor practical to demand the Union direct staff to take industrial action. For one thing, unemployed staff can’t take industrial action. For those still employed, we are all hanging by a thread to get through this crisis, to get our work done, to keep paying our mortgages and rent, to keep our children cared for at home. The chances of university staff walking off the job are as good as me winning the lottery. So, outside of industrial action, what do we do without a job protection framework? What is next after your ‘no’ campaign ends? Will you be the ones to face casuals to explain why the Union cannot do anything to protect their jobs? Fighting for the Jobs Protection Framework is a personal fight for me, as well as my responsibility as the representative for casuals. I expected to be having to fight against university management to protect jobs. What I didn’t expect was to have to fight against my fellow unionists. As I said, I don’t expect I will persuade you to change your mind. I just wanted you to hear my side of the story, and what casuals hear when your group say ‘no concessions’. In solidarity. ◆

◆ WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY Image: aldiozz/123RF

Cost cutting: It doesn't just affect your job, it affects your health, too

Gabe Gooding, NTEU National Assistant Secretary

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY ◆

Cost cutting through job losses doesn’t just end careers and cause immense personal dislocation, the process itself is a health hazard to all who go through it, regardless of whether you keep your job. We often look at workplace changes and restructuring that result in job losses from an industrial perspective – have they consulted properly, have they followed the change management process, what will be the impact on workloads? What we also need to do is to look at management of the mental health and well-being of employees subjected to this process – has there been a risk assessment on the process and measures taken to reduce distress, has there been a risk assessment on the post-restructure workplace, have they accounted for increased risk of mental health injury post-restructure? The answer to the first set of questions is often Yes, most competent managements can run a change process that fits within the rules of the Enterprise Agreement. The answer to the second set is nearly always No. That is because it is not widely known that workplace change, particularly a change that results in job losses, is a recognised work health and safety hazard. That’s something we have to change. We need to start having the conversation about the real personal costs of change processes in terms of health and well-being. And we need to talk about the fact that there is almost never a genuine reduction in work, it is simply redistributed leading to increased stress and psychological injury to those who manage to survive the hunger games.

It’s a fairly simple concept Firstly, there are psychosocial work health and safety hazards that have been recognised by Safe Work Australia (more about those later). Secondly, Safe Work Australia has published Guidance materials to employers putting them on notice about the need to eliminate or ameliorate risks to the psychological well-being of their employees. Thirdly, the Occupational Health and Safety Laws in each state or territory contain provisions that hold employers to account for the safety of their employees.

Finally, the Occupational Health and Safety Laws require consultation with workers or health and safety representatives on the safety risks of change. That’s the framework within which we can work to start to change the culture of ruthless change and job losses with little or no thought given to the impact on employees.

What are psychosocial hazards and which ones apply to job losses? Psychosocial hazards and risks are those aspects of work design, and the organisation and management of work, and their social and environmental context which may have the potential to psychological or physical harm. It’s important to remember that psychosocial hazards can also elevate the risk of physical harm (e.g. cardiovascular disease, stroke, musculoskeletal injuries etc.). There is a long risk of recognised psychosocial hazards in the Safe Work Australia advice, almost all of which are present for some NTEU members at any one time. First up as a recognised risk is ‘Poor Organisational Change Management’. Safe Work Australia describes some of the elements of this risk, which most of us will have seen many times before; 'insufficient consideration of the potential WHS and performance impacts during downsizing, inadequate consultation and communication with key stakeholders and workers about major changes, or not enough practical support for workers during transition times.' The other significant hazard that comes into play during change is ‘Poor Organisational Justice’ where there is inconsistent application of policies and procedures and unfairness or bias in decisions about allocation or resources and work. Many of us are left perplexed at the decisions that are made during changes and restructures, the seeming randomness of which work stays and who goes is a major stressor.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

Post restructure, the obvious psychosocial risk is ‘High Job Demands’ long work hours, high workloads, work intensification. However other hazards can impact on members as well including ‘Low recognition and reward’, and ‘Low Role Clarity’ when jobs have been abolished and no-one seems to know who is responsible for the work that has been left behind. The bottom line of all this is that you have a legal and moral right to return home at the end of the day as healthy as when you started it. If management is making decisions that inflict excessive stress, if you are experiencing anxiety, depression, insomnia, or high blood pressure, you may already have sustained a workplace psychological injury. Employers are, and should be, accountable for that injury.

What can we do about it? Health and Safety Representatives have key roles in addressing workplace change and job losses as a health and safety risk. Talk to you HSR about it. We have recently started regular sessions for HSRs including briefings on these matters and have a new website page devoted to WHS (see link below). Organise around the change as a threat to your health. Talk to others. Discuss the impact on your mental health, both now as you go through it, and what you predict it will be after the change. If there is not a HSR in your work area, consider becoming one. There is great training available and it gives you a positive role in protecting the people you work with. ◆ For more information contact whs@nteu.org.au NTEU WHS website: www.nteu.org.au/whs

◆ WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY

Oliver Knox

University of New England My name is Oliver Knox and I am a lecturer at the University of New England in NSW in the School of Environmental and Rural Science. I started here in 2014 as the co-ordinator of the Cotton Hub at UNE, which seeks to deliver cross disciplinary work on the issues affecting production of sustainable cotton. Not long after I was asked to represent our discipline on the local work group. I had undertaken Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) and other Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) training in my previous work in Scotland, so I said yes. In March 2015, I found myself applying to do Health and Safety Representative (HSR) training and was elected as the HSR for our Designated Work Group (DWG) in mid-2015. I was re-elected in 2017 and we are about to go through the process of elections again. My work group currently want me to continue, so I must be doing something right. In 2018 my WHS work was apparently what prompted our local branch president to ask me to stand for committee, so I did. Being an HSR is rewarding when you’re finding safe solutions to various problems, sharing insights and seeing a noticeable change in the cultural approach to WHS, but it isn’t without its challenges. Safety showers, gas monitoring and now COVID-19 has been amongst those challenges, often having to remind management of their WHS responsibilities. This may not be everyone’s idea

of fun but getting outcomes that meet the needs of the workers you represent is satisfying and is so often achieved with a simple conversation. Of course, another factor here is that as an NTEU HSR, you are never alone and the resources and support available really help in building your confidence to have those conversations when needed and, sadly, they still are. One thing about being a HSR is you may quickly realise that you know more about WHS than the people you work for, so having that NTEU support is a great way to make a difference and improve WHS in your workplace. At the end of the day it is up to you, but if you have ever had concerns about WHS in your workplace, want to enable work to progress safely and develop the confidence to take a stand when needed on WHS issues, then being a HSR is the solution. Having the support from fellow NTEU HSRs and NTEU resources simply makes it all easier, after all, work shouldn’t hurt. ◆

Solidarity with university cleaners

curred at the University of Melbourne. 'For me it means that I am facing a very hard time as I do not have any income', said Raj. 'What makes things worse is that we do not have an expected time to return to work. This indicates a dark future and I worry about how I will survive.'

Raj Patel is a cleaner at the University of Melbourne and a member of the United Workers Union. Like many other cleaning staff he is also on a temporary migrant visa. The COVID-19 lockdown means that most places of work are closed down. This has led to many cleaners like Raj losing their jobs or being stood down without pay. This has oc-

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

'As the lockdown ends we expect to see some people return but others might have to wait. It is a hard time for all of us migrant workers. The worst for me is the uncertain time frames.' 'With mixed emotions I say good luck to all those without work, everyone is eager to go back to work and boost the economy but unfortunately we are not being allowed to, so we must continue to endure our hard time paying for our rent and groceries.' ◆

WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY ◆

Deanne Catmul

University of Melbourne I have been working at the Melbourne Dental School at the University of Melbourne for over 16 years. I started working as a Research Assistant, but accepted a continuing role as a Technical Officer, supporting the research of all staff and students across the School last year. My journey as a HSR began in 2005, accepting the role of Deputy HSR before becoming the HSR one year later. I didn’t really know a lot about Health and Safety then, but it has since become my passion. I not only sit on the University OHS Committee now, but I also convene the University HSR committee as well. My main goal is to improve the working relationships between management and employee health and safety representatives, so we can all generate positive outcomes in the workplace and work to best practice. I do this through educating, mentoring and supporting HSRs in their role and how to apply the legislation and University policies and procedures when dealing with OHS issues. I am very fortunate to interact with HSRs from diverse areas and disciplines, each with their own set of unique OHS requirements and issues. I learn so much from their experiences and in helping them achieve better safety outcomes in their areas. Probably the biggest recent challenge for HSRs has been COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in Consultation. The rapid rate at which workplaces have had to move in response to the pandemic has meant that consultation timeframes have been significantly reduced, or almost non-existent. This has left me wondering about the term 'reasonably practicable' in our legislation many times. Prior to COVID-19, I had created the University’s first HSR mentoring program. This program is designed for both new HSRs and

HSRs who needed more guidance and support in their role. This program has definitely been the highlight of my time as a HSR. The pilot trial was so successful that we received funding for a sixmonth program from the Health and Safety Services Team. I am looking forward to commencing the program as restrictions allow. HSRs are an asset in any workplace as they provide both the eyes and ears of what occurs at the ground level within a workplace. I cannot stress the importance of Incident reporting in addressing OHS issues, especially near misses and hazards. Local Issue resolution procedures should always be followed to achieve best outcomes and every situation be approached with opened eyes, understanding and a calm demeanor. In my experience this results in more positive outcomes for all parties involved. Being a HSR provides you with incredible opportunities to expand your qualifications and upskill, increase your networking opportunities and contacts and learn more about your workplace and how it functions. Whilst a HSR is a voluntary position, it usually does not require massive amounts of extra work and you are provided with paid leave to attend approved training and conferences under the OHS Act. As a member of the NTEU you also have access to all the resources and expertise at state and national levels to assist you whenever you need. ◆

NTEU 2019–2020

Tax Guide

Download your free member copy

nteu.org.au/tax

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

AUR is published twice a year by the NTEU. 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 ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ GOVERNANCE

Open Government Partnership:

Push for university accountability NTEU has recently made a submission to the Open Government Forum, in support of the development of the third National Action Plan 2020-22 (NAP3) under Australia’s Open Government Partnership (OGP). OGP is a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, oppose corruption and strengthen governance. It is overseen by a Steering Committee that includes representatives of governments and civil society organisations.

Kieran McCarron, NTEU Policy & Research Officer

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

GOVERNANCE ◆

Since becoming a member of the international Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2015, Australia has released two National Action Plans, comprising a total of 23 commitments. National Action Plans are jointly developed by Government and Civil Society and are the primary mechanism for OGP members to help make their Governments more transparent, accountable and publicly engaged. Work is currently underway on the development of Australia's third National Action Plan 2020-22 which is due by 31 August 2020.

Improving transparency NTEU’s submission focuses on the need for improved transparency in reporting by our public universities. Our universities operate as civic institutions that provide a ‘public good’. They help to prepare thousands of graduates for employment, conduct ground-breaking and innovative research, engage with their communities, provide vital on-demand expertise and knowledge, supply valuable infrastructure, and are one of Australia’s major international export industries and economic powerhouses. They are also major employers. Yet with the increased emphasis on education as a means of personal, not public gain, there has been a subsequent shifting of the cost of education towards the individual student. The shift towards the commodification of education has also seen the increase in a corporate, managerial culture, where Vice-Chancellors see themselves as CEOs of large, even multinational, corporations. There are now significant questions over how we can ensure our universities are accessible, equitable, and able to meet our current and future needs. NTEU’s view is that as universities are created by and operate in accordance with acts of parliament then they should be considered as being subject to the relevant Right To Information (also known as Right to Know and Freedom of Information, or FOI) principles. The NTEU notes, for example, that Principle 4 of the Key Features of the NSW Right to Information Legislation (see Optimal Features of FOI/RTI Framework – Final Draft as at 15 April 2019) specifically includes universities as one of the entities that RTI/FOI legal framework should extend to. That framework also noted that: ...factors favouring disclosure in the public interest could include that disclosure could promote, contribute to or inform: open discussion and scrutiny of public affairs and government accountability; public debate on matters of serious interest; oversight

of expenditure of public funds; the administration of justice; or innovation and the facilitation of research.' NTEU believes that all these elements apply to university affairs and interests. While universities may claim commercial interests should limit their disclosure, they are not for-profit, private companies, but instead are public bodies that rely overwhelming upon public funding and a publicly supported student tuition loans system for their core functions of teaching and research. NTEU also notes that as public entities, data regarding public universities should come under Australia's OGP Commitment to Increase the availability of information about governmental activities.; specifically in relation to the provision of '… high-value information, including raw data, in a timely manner, in formats that the public can easily locate, understand and use, and in formats that facilitate reuse.' The Union’s experience is that often, institutional and sector-based data fails to meet these basic provisions. This is despite the expectation that, as institutions of ‘public good’ enacted through parliaments, Australian universities should ensure their operations and reporting of these operations are both transparent and accountable to the public.

Providing the right data The core issue is that while there is a plethora of regulatory and reporting frameworks that public universities must adhere to, what is reported by, and about, institutions does not always reflect the principles of public accountability and transparency. Departmental data is usually released several years after the period it reports, and institutional reporting can be inconsistently applied and in a format that is often incomprehensible to most people – in particular, institutional finances can have gaps or important information can be hidden. Even more problematic is the reporting of staffing data, which is at best opaque. Indeed, when it comes to understanding the level of insecure employment in higher education (which can have an impact on education and research quality), the actual levels of casual, sessional, short term contract and contractor staff are in fact concealed by many institutions, and Departmental reporting reinforces this concealment. Our submission calls for universities and state and federal governments to adopt guidelines for clear, consistent, and timely annual reports, allowing for cross ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

institutional comparisons which highlight several areas of university finances that need improved transparency. We have also called for universities to publish forward budgets for the current and the following year and to issue brief mid-year fiscal reviews reporting performance versus their budget. Finally, we have outlined the need for universities to report a clear comparable figure indicating their access to discretionary investment funds. In terms of transparency in staff data, the NTEU is pushing for information to be publicly reported by headcount (currently, information is reported as full time equivalent, which hides casual and sessional staff numbers), to be annualised and reported for the 12 months previous (sometimes data is up to 3 more years late), and include all staff working at the institution. Universities should also report on all categories of employment, including mode of employment (e.g. casual, sessional, contract, external, fixed term, and ongoing), by work designation (e.g. research, teaching only, research and teaching, general/professional/technical staff) and by gender and level. Our universities are the drivers of Australia’s research and innovation sectors. They teach the next generation of professionals and skilled workers, helping to shape our best and brightest students. They contribute to their local communities, providing invaluable knowledge and infrastructure, and are a central component of Australia’s economic, cultural and social wealth. The accurate, transparent and timely reporting by our universities of their activities, interests and resources – both human and financial – are essential if universities are to take their obligations around public accountability seriously. There is a strong argument in favour of better disclosure of universities – noting that Vice-Chancellors collectively earnt over $40 million in total remuneration last year (which is an average of around $1 million each VC) – being in the public interest. Indeed, while university managements may consider themselves akin to the corporate sector (and there is certainly a culture of managerial entitlement and executive largess that seems to be growing within this culture) the reality is that public universities are public institutions, whose core responsibilities are for quality teaching, research and innovation, that are publicly supported through government funding. ◆ 45

◆ COLUMNIST Pat Wright, Life Member k patrite@me.com

Logging into the Zoom boom The COVID-19 lockdowns have boosted video conferencing, particularly with the free app called Zoom. The lockdowns by governments aim to 'flatten the curve' so as to not overwhelm their health systems and destroy their capacity to treat those infected, which would lead ultimately to widespread deaths. Of course, the measures taken by governments around the world have been imposed with varying degrees of urgency, compulsion, duration and scope, in line with their capacity to exercise social control. Perhaps surprisingly, Australia has experienced a great degree of compliance while governments have been imposing restrictions, but it is proving rather more difficult to maintain compliance while removing restrictions. Nevertheless, the degree of compliance – assisted, no doubt, by the blanket coverage of the pandemic by the mass media – has been remarkable. In Australia, State & Territory governments have imposed various lockdowns to reduce human contact – and thus deny the virus the opportunity to exercise its voracious appetite for new hosts. The State Premiers have declared a state of emergency, deployed their police forces, used their health systems to detect and treat those infected, and have enforced physical distancing, business closures, and travel bans. They have also joined the 'National Cabinet', chaired by PM Morrison to meet regularly, often by video-conference, to exchange ideas and report progress in dealing with the pandemic. This allows the PM to make Announcements, while the States do the health work. Such announcements from 'National Cabinet' meetings complement the Announcements of JobKeeper then JobSeeker then JobMaker to hog the headlines and sideline opposition voices, which are crowded out of airtime and column inches of newsprint – a marketing tactic that Clive Palmer used to make Morrison PM. The Federal Government also commissioned the development and distribution of a variant of the Singaporean smart phone app to help the states trace contacts, but this COVIDSafe app has had dubious efficacy. The Lockdown injunction to #StayHome and the many businesses operating on a #WorkingFromHome basis have driven a boom in the widespread use of video-conferencing software. Tech-savvy businesses have been using various tele-conferencing software for meetings for many years, and the number of tech-savvy geeks using Voice (and Video) Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) telephone calls, such as the audio and video versions of FaceTime and Skype has grown exponentially. However, the number of people participating in videoconferencing, and the number of organisations using it for meetings, seminars and webinars has exploded during the pandemic. This growth has occurred largely because of the availability of new, free software apps, such as Zoom, and Google’s update of its HangOuts app, now called Meet. A basic, no-cost subscription to Zoom allows one to Join meetings hosted by any other subscriber or organisation, and to personally Host a small meeting with a 40 minute time-limit. Upgraded subscriptions are available at reasonable costs for much larger meetings with time-limits up to 24 hours.

Zoom can be downloaded, subscribed to, and used on smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktops, with an increasing number of features and enhancements. The Host of a Zoom meeting sends invitations by email to all subscribers who have Registered an interest, and a single click on the link in the email invitation takes one to the Zoom room for the meeting. Various adjustments can be made to the Zoom screen: switching between Speaker View and Gallery View, switching your microphone between Mute and Unmute, switching your video image ON/OFF, enhancing your video image, pasting a photo as your virtual background, and, most importantly, adding the Chat text box alongside the Gallery grid of videos of all participants in the meeting. The Chat box is used for introductions, questions, comments and links to background documents, websites and presentation slides on the topic of the Zoom meeting. If you are quick at the end of the meeting, you can save the Chat text of the entire meeting for later use. Most civil society organisations who run Zoom meetings record a Speaker View video of the meetings and post it on their website, so one can later run the video and scroll down the Chat text simultaneously to see how participants other than the presenter are reacting to the content. This does not give you the full feel of the Zoom experience, because you cannot choose to roam around Speaker View, Gallery View and Chat box at will, but it does give an impression of how Zoom can be used. The integration of speaker, audience and chat text lends credence to the claim that this is not just new software, but is a new medium – though claims that it might (re-)constitute genuine participatory democracy may be a little utopian. See Australia at Home (australiaathome.com.au), especially the Guardian Australia/Essential Media 'Geekfest' with Katharine Murphy and Peter Lewis; the Per Capita conference, 'Jobs for Australia' with Wayne Swan, Andrew Leigh, Ged Kearney, Michele O’Neil and John Falzon; and 'State of the Nation' with Jay Weatherill and Mike Baird. Also recommended is The Australia Institute (tai.org.au) webinar series, 'Economics of a Pandemic' with Sally McManus and Jim Stanford. A growing number of unions, community groups, political parties, book clubs, tutorial groups and families are convening Zoom meetings. Familiarity with their operation could be useful. ◆ Pat Wright is a Foundation Life Member of NTEU, a former President of the Adelaide Branch, former President of UACA and Head of Labour Studies at Adelaide. With a lifetime interest in the labour movement's use of ICTs, Pat has been penning a column for Advocate since its inception in 1994. Hovever, this is Pat's final column. We thank him profusely for sharing his ICT knowledge and insight with readers over the last 26 years.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

DELEGATES ◆

Dr Gemma Mann Lecturer, CQUniversity

I work at a university that is a combination of very regional campuses, and very international campuses, and as such, the support for LGBTQI+ initiatives is fairly low on the list of priorities. I have tried so hard for 10 years, and have done so much, but there is a lack of systemic support and I have no official role in the space as a full-time maths academic. When I heard about Queer Unionists in Tertiary Education (QUTE) at the end of 2017, however, it was just the boost I needed – thanks Dave Willis! Our NTEU Branch Organiser, Angela Sheers, has done so much to support me and the push for LGBTQI+ rights and equality and that has been wonderful. That really helped to draw me into activism in the NTEU and become a proactive part of QUTE. The need for this is extra-ordinary. Through my work over the years, I have heard so many stories of discrimination, bullying, and problematic behaviour, and yet people are still afraid to speak up to authority. I hope that QUTE can provide that bi-partisan support across the Union and the university and change this for the better through education and advocacy. There have been good times and not so good times during the past couple of years. One of the highlights was attending the QUTE conference in Melbourne and meeting with such enthusiastic and like minded people. Out of that has come some definitive actions and outcomes that I can use locally, including for the much needed Marriage Equality campaign. QUTE has also developed a fantastic guide to transitioning, that I hope to incorporate into our university literature, and that is most exciting. COVID-19, however, threw us all for a bit of a loop! With the disconnect of working from home, and all the challenges of changing normal work arrangements, my ‘on the side’ roles of Ally Program Coordinator, and ‘all things LGBTQI+’ has taken a massive hit. As there is no one else working in this area at the university, the whole lot has been put on hold. That is, apart from QUTE activities, which I have become even more connected with via the

Zoom technology and the wonderful Erin Campbell! If it was not for QUTE, I think I would have completely lost my mojo, and the LGBTQI+ staff and students would have continued to experience issues. I encourage anyone to become active in the NTEU, as there are so many initiatives and campaigns that you can pick and choose to suit yourself. For me, being active has actually made it easier to do my role, and reduced, rather than added to my workload, and that is why I love being ‘QUTE’. ◆ Find out more at nteu.org.au/qute

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION

Become an NTEU

Delegates

Delegate!

D E L E G AT E S . N T E U. O R G . AU

Delegates are a vital part of the NTEU, maintaining visibility, supporting recruitment & building the strength of the Union. If you’re interested in becoming a Delegate in your work area, contact your Branch today.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ MY UNION

NTEU Scholarships 2020: Call for applications The NTEU is again offering two scholarships in 2020. The application deadline for both scholarships is Friday 31 July 2020. A decision will be made in late August-early September 2020. 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 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. ◆ Helena Spyrou, Education & Training Officer For more information and how to apply go to www.nteu.org.au/myunion/scholarships or contact Helena Spyrou hspyrou@nteu.org.au.

NTEU launches regular e-magazine during pandemic shutdown In May, NTEU launched Sentry, a free online news magazine for NTEU members and Australian higher education staff. Sentry will be published during the COVID-19 shutdown in between editions of Advocate. It will be published on the first working day of the month in May, June, August, September, October and December (if required). Sentry will deliver short articles focussing on what the Union is doing to protect jobs and conditions, useful information about coping with the myriad effects that COVID-19 is having on our work and lives, plus stories from fellow members on how they are surviving through the pandemic. Thus far in Sentry we have covered the National Day of Action; how to improve your online teaching; what’s happening with international students; how Australia dealt with the Spanish Flu pandemic a century ago; how one university is maintaining its support for Aboriginal students during the shutdown; what it's like working as a researcher employed on contract, and a fine arts tutor during a pandemic, and much more. Being an e-magazine, Sentry allows simple links to videos and articles for further reading. We look forward to bringing you more Sentry content in the coming months. ◆ www.nteu.org.au/sentry

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

MY UNION ◆

IDAHOBIT 2020: From a distance This year NTEU members recognised International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, Biphobia and Intersexism (IDAHOBIT) virtually, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. IDAHOBIT Day on May 17 raises awareness of the violence and discrimination against sexual and gender diverse communities worldwide. It’s the anniversary of the day in 1990 when the World Health Organisation removed the classification of homosexuality as a disease. It’s celebrated in over one hundred and thirty countries including thirty-seven where same sex acts are illegal. IDAHOBIT Day was included in the Union calendar as an outcome of the National Queer Unionist in Tertiary Education (QUTE) Conference in 2017 and a subsequent National Council decision. The 2020 QUTE Conference considered the impact on Intersex people of the World Health Organisation’s pathologising of intersex variations as ‘disorders of sex development.’ and recommended campaigning around this. QUTE activists distributed and discussed the Intersex Darlington Statement as one virtual IDAHOBIT action. Others took selfies and posted these on social media while a National QUTE Zoom meeting of QUTE members was held to recognise IDAHOBIT. QUTE has resolved to meet monthly by video conference. Contact Organiser Dave, dwillis@nteu.org.au for more information about QUTE, to join the monthly meetings or for more information about the Darlington Statement. ◆ David Willis, Victorian Division Organiser www.nteu.org.au/qute

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

◆ MY UNION

SA Online Delegates Training The SA Online Delegate Training Series began as a response to COVID-19. Jess Jacobson, University of Adelaide delegate, and Cheryl Baldwin, SA Division Industrial Organiser, shaped the first series based on delegate feedback. The aim of the series is to encourage delegates to become more skilled and active in their workplaces and to work collectively to learn from and educate each other. Each one hour session is run as an interactive workshop encouraging participants to engage in discussion, undertake an activity during the session and a follow up activity after the session. The organisers will ensure that future delegate workshops and activities can include both face-to-face and online interaction. The success of Series 1 has prompted them to put together a second series. See opposite page for a session feedback from our delegates. For more information contact Jess Jacobson jjacobson@nteu.org.au or Cheryl Baldwin cbaldwin@nteu.org.au. ◆ Helena Spyrou, National Education & Training Organiser

Series 1 – May 2020

Series 2 – July 2020

1. Introduction to being an NTEU Delegate

1. Neoliberalism: how it infiltrated universities, how it affects us & how can we resist it

Helena Spyrou, Jess Jacobson (NTEU SA Delegate) This session will introduce the role, rights and responsibilities of a delegate. It is focussed towards our new SA delegates but all are welcome and encouraged to join.

2. COVID-19 and the Workplace Terri MacDonald & Kieran McCarron (NTEU Policy & Research Unit) This session will help all delegates to talk to their colleagues about the changes to the workplace COVID-19 has had and will continue to have. We will learn about the National Campaign and the rights of workers specifically during this time.

3. Mental Health at Work

Victoria Fielding & Kent Getsinger (NTEU SA Delegates) This session will focus on the power dynamics of this ideology in our working lives, how it affects us daily, how we internalise it and that it can produce feelings of fear, shame, guilt, illegitimacy and powerlessness. This session will include break-out sessions in small groups to delve into what this feels like and see how we can resist it at the coal face.

2. How to Have a Recruitment Conversation Helena Spyrou, Victoria Fielding (NTEU SA Delegate) This session will focus outlining the skills to have a recruitment conversation with colleagues. You will get to practice a couple of conversations. It is focussed towards our new SA delegates but all are welcome and encouraged to join.

Terri Mylett (WSU), Gabe Gooding (NTEU National Assistant Secretary) & Campbell Smith (National Industrial Officer)

3. Campaigning collectively

This session will delve into the importance of psychological safety at work and how delegates can seek to ensure their workplaces are healthy. We will look at the role of a Delegate vs the role of a Health and Safety Representative (HSR).

This session will look at elements of a good campaign, workshop how we can campaign collectively and how we make sure we build in National and Division strategies into our local campaigns. It will also focus on collective disputes with a view to how to organise and campaign around them and look at one example action (ITDS at Adelaide).

4. A Closer Look at the Fair Work Act + Policy Interpretation

4. How to organise ourselves and our members

Cheryl Baldwin (SA Division Industrial Organiser) This session will help to train us on the Fair Work Act 2009 and how to interpret clauses in our Enterprise Agreements to be able to better help our colleagues.

Cheryl Baldwin (Industrial Organiser), Linda Gale (Senior Industrial Officer)

Cheryl Baldwin (Industrial Organiser), Jess Jacobson (NTEU SA Delegate) This session will look at organising skills and tips, examples from the NTEU and a delegates skills matrix to identify further skills development. In this session we will also workshop: What is missing right now at our Branches? How can we better organise ourselves?

Queen's Birthday gongs

research, in the field of neurophysiology, and to professional scientific bodies.

Congratulations to the members who were honoured in the 2020 Queen's Birthday list.

Professor Esther Charlesworth, RMIT

Professor Kaye Basford, UQ For significant service to tertiary education, to the biomedical sciences, and to scientific academies.

For significant service to architecture, to education, and to the community of the Asia-Pacific region.

Professor Neil Drew, ECU

Professor Marcello Costa, Flinders University

For significant service to tertiary education, to behavioural science, and to Indigenous health. ◆

For distinguished service to higher education, and to medical

Please let us know if we've missed your name off this list.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

MY UNION ◆

SA Online Delegates Training vox pops Ashleigh Folland, University of Adelaide I loved all the sessions – as a new delegate the topics were a great introduction to our work as delegates. It was really great to meet delegates from other universities and also to meet key people from the National Office. I now have more clarity about the role of a delegate which makes me less nervous to take action and take forward member questions/ concerns! I understand that we are all in it together and the Branch is always available to support. I'm more prepared to be 'visible' and I'm developing the confidence to talk openly about delegate work with colleagues. I look forward to the next series.

Nathaneal Scherer, UniSA It was really good to see other delegates from other universities – even from other parts of UniSA. The content covered in the series gives me a better understanding of some of the issues, and that gives me a bit more confidence that I know what I’m doing and can represent the Union a bit better going forward. And yes, if more of these are planned, I’d definitely be interested in them. I’d also be really interested in a face-to-face meeting of delegates across the SA universities further down the track as it’d be really good to get to know others and get a collegial feel going across the whole union, rather than just our own institution.

Dr Alex Vickery-Howe, Flinders University I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Great to make contact with good people during COVID-19. It was terrific to meet other like-minded people from other institutions and a get a sense of how big and passionate the movement is. I’m looking forward to encouraging involvement from peers, demystifying the organisation, and being more vocal in staff meetings.

John Murphy, University of Adelaide For me, it was having the opportunity to meet and hear from NTEU delegates from other Universities and gain insights into common challenges and approaches across the sector. Knowledge is power. Solidarity is power. As a delegate it helps me engage with members in my area or those thinking about joining.

Bev Rogers, Flinders University In the current times, it was useful to be part of a group session that was set up to respond to questions as well as provided useful content.

Lei Xu, UniSA It is a rare opportunity for the SA delegates to communicate directly with NTEU National Office staff. The workshops also offered an opportunity for delegates to know and communicate with each other. Each delegate could share the experience and understanding from real workplace environment. I learned about the historical changes experienced by the tertiary sector in the past decades and the training on interpreting an Agreement was most useful. I plan to have more communication with the NTEU office and other delegates. The challenges ahead require the Union and delegates to play active roles. In a fast-changing and challenging environment, frequent communication may be a key for the delegates to play active roles in workplaces.

Cécile Dutreix, UniSA The policy session I attended gave me a better understanding of: how COVID-19 has impacted universities because of an overreliance on international students; how universities might use the crisis to further their neoliberal agenda; possible future plans by universities to cut costs by creating more teaching only positions especially for women; and how I can better discuss the pros and cons of the Jobs Protection Framework, especially the points not being addressed by the NO faction.

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 ◆ JULY 2020

â&#x2014;&#x2020; MY UNION

Now is the winter of our discontent The summer solstice was fire and smoke: great conflagrations raged for weeks eating all in their path.

Staff appointments Trevor Miller has been appointed to the ongoing Division Organiser position in the Victorian Division. Rebecca (Becc) Galdies has been appointed to the ongoing Division Organiser position in the SA Division. â&#x2014;&#x2020;

It went downhill from there. From Wuhan, the grim reaperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s scythe swept wide harvesting lives, shattering economies. And those we elected to lead to navigate chaos on our behalf instead have seized their chance while our eye is on death and disaster to wreak further destruction: Massive coal mines approved. The arts decimated. Secret trials of whistleblowers. Public broadcasters slashed. Refugees denied social distancing or even soap. The gas industry given the reins of 'reconstruction'.

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF

And now â&#x20AC;Ś the universities. Thinking is overrated, it seems. Or at least underpriced.

Executive Manager Peter Summers National Membership Officer Melinda Valsorda ICT Network Engineer Tam Vuong Database Programmer/Data Analyst Uffan Saeed Payroll Administrator/HR Assistant Jo Riley Manager, Office of Gen Sec & President Anastasia Kotaidis Executive Officer (Meeting & Events) Tracey Coster Admin Officer (Membership & Campaigns) Julie Ann Veal Receptionist & Admin Support Leanne Foote

Director (Industrial & Legal) Wayne Cupido Senior Legal Officer Kelly Thomas National Industrial Officer (Research & Projects) Ken McAlpine National Industrial Officer Campbell Smith Industrial Support Officer Renee Veal Paul Kniest Terri MacDonald Kieran McCarron

Director (Policy & Research) Acting Director (Policy & Research) Policy & Research Officer

Will anyone weep for our universities those pale, hollowed-out, semi-corporatised shells of their former selves as they suffer the final coup-de-grace? Will anyone brave the icy winds at winterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s solstice to save the liberal arts from these Liberal farts? â&#x2014;&#x2020;

National A&TSI Director National A&TSI Organiser

Adam Frogley Celeste Liddle

National Organiser (Media & Engagement) National Organiser (Publications) Communications Organiser (Digital) Education & Training Organiser

Michael Evans Paul Clifton Jake Wishart Helena Spyrou

Finance Manager Senior Finance Officer Finance Officers

Linda Gale

Glenn Osmand Gracia Ho Alex Ghvaladze, Lee Powell, Tamara Labadze, Daphne Zhang

Please update your NTEU membership details if:

Your work address details change.

Your Department or School changes its name or merges with another.

Office, building, campus etc.

You move house. Required if your home is your nominated contact address.

You change your name.

nteu.org.au/members

Update online at Please note that your Member Tools login is different to your Member Benefits login. For help call 03 9254 1910.

Please email the National Office if:

You move to another institution.

Your employment details change.

Transfer of membership between institutions is not automatic.

Please notify us to ensure you are paying the correct fees.

Your credit card or direct debit account details change.

You are leaving university employment.

Send an email to

Deductions will not stop automatically.

national@nteu.org.au

If your payroll deductions stop without your authority, please urgently contact your institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Payroll Department

ADVOCATE VOL. 27 NO. 2 â&#x2014;&#x2020; JULY 2020

TICKETS ONLY

RAFFLE 2020

1ST PRIZE

$8000 TRAVEL VOUCHER

YOU COULD WIN A SHARE OF MORE THAN

$12,000

WORTH OF PRIZES! 2ND PRIZE

$1799 BIKE

3RD PRIZE

$500 BOOK VOUCHER

TRAVEL VOUCHER VALIDITY: 24 MONTHS FROM DATE OF DRAW

BUY TICKETS HERE:

APHEDA.ORG.AU/RAFFLE

For more than thirty-five years, Union Aid Abroad - APHEDA has worked with unions and social movements abroad to support their efforts to defend their rights. In a globalised world, your contribution gives power to workers everywhere. Help continue the fight for global justice by buying and selling raffle tickets today!

BOOK SELLERS' PRIZE

Sell three or more books and enter the bonus draw!

Raffle closes 4 May 2020 - Winner drawn 4 June 2020

CLOSE DATE: OCT 2 DRAW DATE: OCT 29 DRAW LIVE STREAM: UNION AID ABROAD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; APHEDA SOCIAL MEDIA

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, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re focused on making sure our members get the best possible value â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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-06/20