Advocate vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au • ISSN 1329-7295
25 years
1993-2018
Join the movement ɓɓTime to Change the Rules! ɓɓAgreements at Murdoch, UTAS & Florey ɓɓTax cuts = less investment in education ɓɓWestern Civilisation & Ramsay Centre ɓɓIntegrity undermined by funding cuts ɓɓThe Ridd sacking & academic freedom ɓɓBluestocking women changed the rules
ɓɓFuture of the Sector conference ɓɓStrikes at Melbourne & UNSW ɓɓCelebrating IDAHOBIT Day 2018 ɓɓMembers on Councils & Boards ɓɓStaff rights under sustained attack ɓɓImprisoned for ‘dabbling in feminism’ ɓɓAbuse of student evaluation surveys
ɓɓFlight of the Humanities ɓɓStudent retention ɓɓ20 years of A&TSI Forum ɓɓStatement from the Heart ɓɓCultural & ceremonial leave ɓɓSelling off the ABC ɓɓ...and much more.
GREAT VALUE IS MORE THAN JUST LOW FEES
It’s also the strong, long-term returns* and range of investment options including sustainable and environmental opportunities. It’s the award-winning insurance offering and the peace of mind it brings to members in their greatest time of need. And it’s the care we take in engaging with our members; by providing opportunities to learn more about their super at every stage of life, meet us on-campus where they work, or benefit from personalised financial advice from one of our qualified financial advisers. All this, plus low fees, is what makes UniSuper exceptional value.
Find out how UniSuper can help you: unisuper.com.au/exceptional Dr Edgar Gomez | Member Digital Ethnography Research Centre, RMIT
Prepared by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799, AFSL 235 907) 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. The SuperRatings Fundamentals reports from 31 January 2018 show UniSuper’s “Balanced (MySuper) option has outperformed the SuperRatings SR50 Balanced Index over the 5 years to 30 June 2017 and over the long term”. UniSuper is a SuperRatings’ ‘Infinity Recognised’ fund for our strong commitment to environmental and social principles. UniSuper was named Best Insurance Offering in the 2017 Conexus Financial Superannuation Awards. The March 2018 Chant West Super Fee Survey report showed UniSuper’s Balanced (MySuper) investment option has the lowest overall fees in Australia for multi-manager growth options (61-80% growth assets) for a $250,000 balance, and second and fourth lowest for $50,000 and $25,000 balances respectively. Visit unisuper.com.au/awards for more information. *Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Contents 2
NTEU at 25 – One era ends & another begins
Advocate ISSN 1321-8476 Published by National Tertiary Education Union ABN 38 579 396 344 Publisher Grahame McCulloch Editor Jeannie Rea Production Paul Clifton Editorial Assistance Anastasia Kotaidis Feedback, advertising and other enquiries: advocate@nteu.org.au All text and images © NTEU 2018 unless otherwise stated.
NTEU National Office, PO Box 1323, Sth Melbourne VIC 3205 1st floor, 120 Clarendon St, Sth Melbourne VIC phone (03) 9254 1910 fax (03) 9254 1915 email national@nteu.org.au Division Offices www.nteu.org.au/divisions Branch Offices www.nteu.org.au/Branches
p. 16
p. 18
From the General Secretary Cover image: UTAS members Nathaniel Lau, Jenny Smith and Rob Anders at the Hobart Change the Rules rally. Credit: Emma Gill
3
Unfinished business for Australia – and NTEU Editorial, Jeannie Rea, National President
UPDATE 4
Hundreds of staff strike at Melbourne
5
Bargaining update
6
We can win a nuclear weapons ban treaty
Retirement of Lee Rhiannon
7
Agreement at Murdoch after 2 years of drama
8
UNSW members strike
9 Impressive outcomes for members in UTAS Agreement
NTEU reaches Agreement at Florey
10 NTEU welcomes inquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace
Discrimination of workers employed in faith based organisations
11 Statement from the Heart, 1 year on SECURE JOB NEWS 12 Unlocking democratic activism of university casuals A&TSI NEWS 13 A&TSI higher education funding 14 NTEU A&TSI Forum marks 20 years 15 Cultural & ceremonial leave entitlements FEATURES 16 Time to Change the Rules! Several hundred thousand people attended Change the Rules rallies across Australia. Environment ISO 14001
In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, Advocate is printed using vegetable based inks with alcohol free printing initiatives on FSC certified paper under ISO 14001 Environmental Certification. Advocate is available online as a PDF at nteu.org.au/advocate and an e-book at www.issuu.com/nteu NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email notification of online copy rather than mailed printed version). Details at nteu.org.au/ soft_delivery
18 Bluestocking women changed the rules, and so will we The current rules are not helping women achieve pay equity, secure jobs or equality.
20 Tax cuts will not help those with HELP debts
28 What’s wrong with Western Civilisation anyway? The story of the VC, the donor, academic integrity and the Union.
30 University integrity undermined by declining public investment Why are wealthy universities even looking for donations to bolster humanities courses?
32 Accountability on Councils & Boards A three day NTEU workshop addressed issues affecting members’ roles on Councils & Boards.
33 Future of the Sector conference NTEU is holding a conference on the future of the higher education sector in September.
34 Flight of the Humanities Democracy needs the Humanities, now more than ever.
36 Ridd sacking a blow to academic freedom JCU’s sacking of Professor Peter Ridd is a sorry indictment of the modern corporate university.
38 Liberals & IPA lock step in selling off the ABC The IPA and the Liberal Party are engaged in an unending culture war against the ABC.
COLUMNS 44 Digital deployment for by-elections News from the Net, by Pat Wright
45 The slow death of the Great Barrier Reef Lowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe
46 Vale Malcolm Anderson
Thesis Whisperer, Inger Mewburn
47 Silencing debate at the University of Auckland Letter from NZ, Sandra Grey, TEU
YOUR UNION 48 Elections underway for NTEU office holders
State of the Union art exhibition
49 EI recognising Professional & General staff 50 Well worth the effort: Joan Hardy Scholarship four years on 51 Prof Frances Separovic knows a thing or two about firsts 52 VTHC Women’s Conference
40 IDAHOBIT 2018: A queer celebration
INTERNATIONAL
53 Women’s Action Network at ANU
41 Higher education staff rights under sustained attack
42 Imprisoned for ‘Dabbling in feminism’
54 NTEU Seminar Series: ‘Matters of Concern’
The imprisonment of Iranian sociocultural anthropologist, Professor Homa Hoodfar.
WGEA Report 2018 NTEU supporting Asylum Seeker Pathways Project
55 New NTEU staff
The Coalition’s tax cuts will reduce government revenue by $140 billion over a ten year period.
22 Funding freeze a Catch 22
p. 28
p. 42
Universities will be more than $2 billion worse off over the next three years.
23 ALP announces inquiry into postsecondary education 24 Demand driven funding, innovation & student retention HESP’s final report on improving retention, completion & success in higher education
26 Case to answer for in the use & abuse of student evaluation surveys Well under one-in-five university staff believe that student evaluations give accurate measure of their performance. NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 1
From the General Secretary Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary
NTEU at 25 – One era ends & another begins October 1st this year marks 25 years since the formation of NTEU. It also marks a quarter of a century since I was given the privilege of being NTEU General Secretary, having spent the previous 10 years as General Secretary of the Union of Australia College Academics (UACA). After more than 40 years continuous political involvement in our sector I have decided to stand down as General Secretary in order to encourage leadership renewal of the Union at all levels. The Union needs new leaders who have direct experience in, and have been formed by, the contemporary rhythms and dynamics of the 21st century Australian university system. I will finish as your General Secretary on 16 October this year, and as this will be my last Advocate column, I have chosen to reflect on the changes, problems and achievements of the Union and the university sector over the last 25 years. The contemporary university system was formed in the crucible of the John Dawkins’ revolution of the late 1980s. Nineteen universities and nearly fifty colleges became thirty-seven old and new universities in a new Unified National System. In the thirty years since this revolution the sector has nearly quadrupled in size with student enrolments rising from around 400,000 to just under 1,600,000 today. The move to a mass based system has produced many outcomes of which university staff and the country as a whole can be proud. Australian universities are world class in both teaching and research, are of internationally recognised high quality, are one of the country’s principal sources of innovation and technology transfer, have enriched cultural and social life, have produced highly skilled graduates with access to well-paid jobs and have dramatically increased opportunities for working class people, women, recent migrants, and very importantly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. And universities are now Australia’s second largest export earner.
At the same time, there are serious problems within and between the individual universities that make up the sector, and increasing financial burdens on the students who enrol. Declining public investment has forced universities to become excessively dependent on private income (particularly from international students) and has seen successive Coalition and Labor Governments increase the fee burden on domestic students to one of the highest in the OECD (notwithstanding that fees are levied through the uniquely Australian model of HECS repayments after graduation). In turn, this funding model increasingly drives a widening divide between richer and poorer universities with particularly adverse consequences for students and economic and social life in rural and regional Australia. The internal culture of universities has been transformed for the worse. We have seen an exponential growth of an out of touch (and sometimes parasitic) senior executive elite. Their inflated salaries reflect neither the contribution nor, in many instances, the capability of this new bureaucratic management caste. Academic and professional staff are increasing surveilled and assessed against sterile metric-driven performance indicators that bear little relationship to the core teaching, research and community service obligations of universities. This is incrementally eroding professional autonomy and has been accompanied by rising workloads and insecure employment. The system is approaching, but has not yet reached, a crisis point. There is still scope for university staff to assert their professional rights and to have their voice heard within most university decision-making processes. But this could all but disappear if there is not an urgent change in the management culture of universities. The evolution of NTEU has been shaped by, and has sometimes shaped, these developments. Through seven rounds of Enterprise Bargaining the Union has proved itself to be a formidable industrial and professional rights advocate. In a number of key areas our Collective Agreements have set ground-breaking standards for the economy as a whole and in the international university labour market. Australian university staff salaries are amongst the highest in the world, and we have achieved 26–36 weeks paid parental leave, a 17 per cent employer superannuation contribution, strict limits on fixed-term
page 2 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
contracts (accompanied by generous severance payments), very strong protections for intellectual freedom, a comprehensive system of independent and/or peer review protections against allegations of poor performance or misconduct (with no right of summary dismissal), strong managing change consultation obligations and binding Aboriginal employment targets for every university. While university managements have gradually acquired greater discretion, Collective Agreements have nonetheless sharply circumscribed managerial prerogative. But we have failed to halt rising workloads and a rapid increase in casual employment. These are the two biggest challenges of the next decade. The Union has been at the centre of the drive to create gender equity and big strides have been made in equalising pay, promotion and representation of women within the academic labour force, but professional staff women have made less progress. There is more to be done for both groups. In the public policy arena the Union has become a highly influential player. We have consistently defeated proposals for deregulation and upfront fees. These achievements have been possible because of the Union’s highly democratic structure, the active participation of our members and the incremental but continued growth in the Union’s membership. We are nearly 30 per cent bigger than when NTEU was established, with an annual growth rate of 1.2 per cent p.a. (an outcome very few unions can match), and we retain high density amongst permanent staff. Above all else we have been successful because we are an industry union combining the discrete and complementary interests of all university staff. I have had an incredible personal journey as your General Secretary at national and international levels and no words can properly capture my gratitude for the trust and support I have been given by the Union’s members, its elected Council and Executive and my fellow full-time State and National Elected Officers (particularly Presidents Carolyn Allport and Jeannie Rea). Above all I give my thanks to the Union’s staff. It is time for new leadership – so vote in the upcoming elections. Goodbye and thank you. Grahame McCulloch, General Secretary gmcculloch@nteu.org.au
Editorial Jeannie Rea, National President
Unfinished business for Australia – & NTEU For my final Advocate editorial*, I could have written on the need to change the industrial laws in favour of workers and our unions; to organise more effectively to increase job security; to counter the persistence of sexism and inequality for women; to again make the case for free tertiary tuition and adequate public funding; to plea for members to get involved in university governance and demand democracy and accountability; and I certainly could have written on academic freedom and our rights and responsibilities to challenge the status quo through our teaching, research and engagement. But I have chosen to write again on the continuing injustices towards Australia’s first peoples, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. In his recent Quarterly Essay, Moment of Truth, Mark McKenna writes of the culture of entrenched ‘indifference’ towards Aboriginal Australians, perceptively described in 1977 by anthropologist W E H Stanner as “a sightlessness towards Aboriginal life… and the moral foundation of Australian development.” (McKenna, 2018:13) Whilst not fully agreeing with McKenna’s conclusions on the way forward, I do share his frustration with the lack of persistence by mainstream Australia (I mean white people) to even recognise the wrongs of the past, and acknowledge how the past explains the present. When historian and friend of Eddie Mabo, Henry Reynolds wrote Why Weren’t We Told? back in 1999, he told a personal story of how he found out, but the book was also a call to white people to look and learn, to ask questions and stop denying the truth. Nearly twenty years later, the theme of Reconciliation Week earlier this year was: ‘Don’t keep history a mystery – Learn. Share. Grow’. Too many still choose ignorance, as though that excuses them from acting now in support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) people and communities. But ignorance is not neutral. We are still in the ‘history wars’, where not only is the
teaching of and about A&TSI peoples challenged by some, but the history of race relations in this country is denied. In 2018, A&TSI peoples still face a harder life because of who they are. Despite all efforts just to survive on their own terms, and even for many to thrive walking the gubbas’ paths and achieving on mainstream terms, each families worries for their children because they are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Australia’s First Nation peoples still have to explain themselves, over and over again. They still have to apologise for not fitting in, for having different ways of seeing and experiencing the world around them. And too many are cast further adrift in not knowing of their own history because of having been ripped away from family and community. The policy of assimilation into the mainstream was supposedly discarded decades ago, but still persists as the more palatable solution to coming to terms with the denial of sovereignty. (Maori call it ‘whitestreaming.’) It is easy enough to applaud success stories on the sporting field or in the university. It is conveniently assumed that with each ‘first’, it becomes easier to follow. However, it does not, and discrimination remains an everyday experience. NTEU is currently repeating our 2012 survey of our members, the report of which we titled I’m not a racist, but…. The findings then were that two-thirds of our A&TSI members experienced racism every day at work. Will the results be different this time? Assimilation remains a denial and a white wash. And we are part of this as unionists. Indigenous Australians have a long history of seeking to be part of the trade union movement, and of seeking equality and justice in the workplace. However, this has always been upon the terms of the white man’s way of organising paid work and organising for workers’ rights. The new First Nations Workers Alliance (FNWA), supported by the ACTU, is hopefully a new way, as the dimensions of A&TSI employment are recognised in confronting reprehensible programs like the CDP. It was cheering too to see that one of the recent nineteen Change the Rules rallies across Australia was on Tiwi Islands (p. 16).
who will not respect our bargaining claims for cultural and ceremonial leave (p. 15). These don’t cost much, frankly because they do not employ many eligible staff. But the refusal speaks volumes for distrust and disrespect. We have to face up to it; they do not believe that these claims for entitlements are for real. Assimilation is still also the easier way in our universities. We work hard for more access and inclusion of A&TSI staff and students, but much of what is taught and researched has little or no acknowledgement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of seeing and experiencing the world. Persistent work has led to pockets of acknowledgement, but most students go through university without learning anything of, or with, Australia’s First Nations peoples. Valiant efforts are made to in some places for more inclusive curriculum, but it is hard to sustain and also vulnerable to funding cuts. A&TSI academics often find themselves giving the isolated lecture on Indigenous experiences to largely unresponsive or resentful non-Indigenous students; while courses taking Indigenous perspectives as the starting point, that have shifted ‘western civilisation’ from the centre, are still rare. The NTEU is about to hold our 20th National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Forum (p. 14). NTEU takes making Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business core union business seriously and we work at it. The NTEU, therefore, continues to prioritise the recognition of sovereignty, and the need for truth telling and treaties (see p. 11). Jeannie Rea, National President Contact me with your ideas and feedback: jrea@nteu.org.au *After eight years, this is my last editorial as NTEU National President. I thank everyone for their commitment to making our union one in which I have been proud to play a leadership role. I support Dr Alison Barnes, a mid-career academic, who has been elected unopposed as National President and will take office in mid-October. The National President must understand and represent the interests of all NTEU members, while speaking with the authority derived from current experience of working in a university.
In our own tertiary education sector, NTEU is currently battling with some managements of multimillion dollar enterprises NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 3
Update Hundreds of staff strike at Melbourne As thousands of unionists marched to Change the Rules this May, staff at the University of Melbourne walked off the job in one of the most successful strikes at the University in recent memory. Enterprise bargaining negotiations are currently in their sixteenth month at the University of Melbourne, with an aggressive management agenda that includes a claim for a split Agreement in an ill-judged attempt to divide academic and professional staff. Hundreds of staff stood together in a 4-hour strike, making the difficult decision to cancel lectures, tutorials, studios and labs. The archives, libraries and other student services were disrupted as well. Since the so-called Business Improvement Process (BIP) in 2014, which saw 500 professional staff sacked, both academic and professional staff have been subject to much harsher working conditions. For many members, the strike was the first real turning-point in the fight against management and a sign that we can and will win. The Secretary of Victorian Trades Hall, Luke Hilakari spoke about it in his speech to the wider union movement at Melbourne’s Change the Rules rally, attended by some 100,000 workers, and The Age newspaper cited our strike in their article of ‘War on workers is on’. The Conversation also published an article supporting our position, “As Melbourne University staff strike over academic freedom, it’s time to take the issue seriously” .
Branch President Steve Adams says the strike gave people an opportunity to have a voice. “Members took the chance to send a strong message to the leaders of this institution that they’d had enough and expected much better. “Joining the wider Change the Rules rally was an empowering experience for our members. For many this was their first strike action and to be surrounded by so many like-minded souls was extremely positive. They no longer felt alone, isolated and unheard.” The effect of the strike action here at Melbourne has led to more positive negotiations with management. Members have seen their actions bring about change - significant moves from management immediately following the strike will lead to new rights around academic workloads and protections around academic freedom. Branch Vice-President (Academic) Professor Christian Haesemeyer says, “If you work in tertiary education you probably feel like saying ‘enough already’ at least once a week. When we walked out on strike, even for just half a day, we collectively actually
did say it: Enough already. You won’t divide us, you won’t take our academic and intellectual freedom, you won’t continue to pile on higher and higher workloads. Enough. That our strike allowed us to join in with a hundred thousand other unionists saying ‘enough already’ in the streets of Melbourne, that made the experience even more powerful.” Still on the table are management claims that would see incremental progression for professional staff tied to performance, or removed altogether. We still do not have a pay offer, nor any response to our important claim to extend the 17% employer superannuation contribution to all fixed term and casual staff. Following the 9 May strike, Melbourne members voted to implement indefinite bans, currently in place: • F or professional staff, a ban on working overtime. • For academic staff, a ban on work related to student experience surveys. • For all staff, a ban on performing any work for the University by smartphone before 8.45am and after 5.00pm, and on the weekends. • For staff working in University libraries, a ban on collection of money for student fines. Members also voted to empower the Branch Committee to call a 24-hour strike and further stoppages of work if significant progress is not made in negotiations. Sara Brocklesby, Branch Secretary, University of Melbourne
Images: NTEU members marching from University of Melbourne to Trades Hall to join the Change the Rules rally. Credit: Toby Cotton
page 4 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Update Bargaining update At the time of writing, NTEU is close to settlement with several universities, which will take us to the half way mark of Round 7 bargaining. Agreements at the University of Queensland (UQ), University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), and Charles Darwin University (CDU) are close to settlement and NTEU recently reached agreement with the Australian Catholic University (ACU) and University of Tasmania (UTAS). Outside of Western Australia, pay increases are tracking at around 2.1 per cent per annum, and at their highest at 2.4 per cent and 2.5 per cent on a pay rise to pay rise basis, at Swinburne and Deakin universities respectively. We have achieved solid outcomes on our key job security claims, with the inclusion of retrenchment as a last resort and improved conversion rights for fixed term staff achieved in all Agreements made so far, bar one. NTEU has also achieved payment of the full 17 per cent employer superannuation contribution to all fixed term staff in each settled Agreement. Other trends this Round include: • Improved targets for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander employment. • Extended paid parental leave. • Extended paid partner leave. • Paid leave provided to surrogate and long-term foster parents, and permanent carers. • Extended leave for staff affected by domestic violence, including leave for casual staff. • Maintenance of key committees, particularly for misconduct matters. • Paid cultural and ceremonial leave.
• Payment for all casual work. • Improved conversion rights for casuals through extension of the scholarly teaching fellow or equivalent category. • Improved consultation provisions, including over changes to policy and managing change. By and large, we have withstood attempts to ‘simplify’ Agreement provisions and have staved off attacks on Review Committees, Academic Freedom, Workload protections and attempts to increase the Span of Hours for professional staff. NTEU continues to push for comprehensive coverage in Agreements. The University of Melbourne recently backed down from their determination to split Agreements between professional and academic staff which was one of their key claims for the round. A strong campaign by members and a series of industrial bans no doubt led to management’s retreat.
Member support & industrial action Round 7 has seen strong and encouraging support by members across the country. This support has no doubt been enhanced by the negative agenda of university managements in Western Australia at the start of the round, and the mobilisation of support for members at Murdoch University.
NTEU members have recently taken industrial action at UQ, Charles Sturt University, University of New England, University of New South Wales, University of Melbourne, and UTAS. Members at CDU have achieved a period of protected industrial action but in issuing the relevant Order, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) imposed an extended notice period for industrial action to take place, from the minimum of 3 days to 5 days. Five days’ notice will be required for industrial action which will ‘impact upon the student population sitting exams, having exams marked, receiving exam results or graduating’. Given the implications of this decision for future industrial action in higher education, NTEU is appealing the matter.
FWC delaying approval A handful of Agreements have had their final approval delayed by the FWC. Delays of 3-4 months are not uncommon since the introduction of the Commission’s Member Assist Team triage system last year. NTEU is hopeful this will not delay pay increases which are commonly available upon approval of Agreements. Susan Kenna, Industrial Officer
Above: NTEU members at the Change the Rules rally in Perth.
NTEU’s public conference on the future of the higher education sector
10-11 September 2018
Melbourne
See p.33 for details
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 5
Update We can win a nuclear weapons ban treaty Dave Sweeney and Margaret Beavis from ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) visited the NTEU National Office in June to update us on the campaign for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – and show us the Nobel Peace Prize medal recently awarded to ICAN. Following a decade of advocacy by Melbourne-founded ICAN and its partners, on 7 July 2017, 122 nations voted to adopt the historic global agreement to ban nuclear weapons. The Australian Government did not attend the conference and is not a signatory, and the Coalition will not consider signing it. The Coalition maintains that they cannot afford to alienate the United States, which refuses to even countenance the Treaty. One hundred parliamentarians have signed a pledge to support Australia signing on, including a majority of ALP members and senators (see the list on the ICAN website.) A current campaign focus of ICAN is to get more signatories to the parliamentary pledge. NTEU Executive has
committed making this an issue in our negotiations with politicians and amongst candidates in the next federal election. We should be congratulating those that have signed and advocating others to do so – especially in our own electorates. Nations armed with nuclear weapons must, upon signing the Treaty , commit to destroying their stockpiles in accordance with a legal and time bound plan. Any nation that hosts an ally’s nuclear weapons must also remove them within a timeline. The treaty also obliges parties to assist those who have suffered as a result of the use and testing of nuclear weapons and take measures to remediate contaminated environments. This would include Aboriginal Australians on whose land nuclear tests were held and where soil remains contaminated, as well as amongst South Pacific peoples. Nuclear disarmament has been strongly supported in Australia and throughout the South Pacific for many decades, and for Australia as an exporter of uranium, this is an issue with which many people are familiar and committed. Some may think that this Treaty would mean little without the US signing on, but it is worth noting the impact of other weapon prohibition agreements (e.g.. on biological and chemical weapons) as a critical step on the path to elimination. As noted on the ICAN website, “Weapons that have been outlawed by international treaties are increasingly seen as illegitimate, losing their political status and, along with that, the resources for their production. Arms companies find it more difficult to acquire funds for work on illegal weapons, and such work carries a significant reputational risk. Banks and other financial intuitions divest from these producers.” There really is an opportunity to see the elimination of nuclear weapons through the ICAN treaty and campaign.
Retirement of Lee Rhiannon Lee Rhiannon announced her early retirement this August from representing the Australian Greens in the Senate. Senator Rhiannon held the Greens higher education portfolio during the very difficult period of the Coalition Government’s proposal to slash higher education funding and introduce the deregulation of undergraduate domestic fees. Her steadfast support and advocacy in opposition, both inside the parliament and in public, brought her well-deserved admiration and gratitude from student and staff campaigners. NTEU National Executive unanimously carried a resolution expressing NTEU’s deep appreciation of Senator Rhiannon’s consistent and positive support of our union in both our industrial and political campaigns, and for free, accessible and fully funded public education.
www.icanw.org/au
Senator Rhiannon stands out as a parliamentarian who is a consistent supporter of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, in opposition to the detention and off-shore processing of refugees, for trade unions, women’s and civil rights and in her steadfast support for peace and opposition to war. She has always been a determined advocate of progressive values and policies, and a committed environmental activist.
Left: Jeannie Rea (centre), displaying “Alfred”, with Margaret Beavis and Dave Sweeney from ICAN. Credit: Paul Clifton
In resigning from Parliament , Rhiannon was adamant that she is not resigning from politics. Her final message is, “See you on the streets.”
Jeannie Rea, National President Find out more about getting involved in the ICAN campaign:
Jeannie Rea, National President
Image source: Twitter / @leerhiannon
page 6 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Update Agreement at Murdoch after two years of drama Two Years. Literally millions spent on legal fees. Multiple strikes. A terminated Enterprise Agreement. Law suits targeting not just the Union but individuals. The reputation of an institution in tatters. A staff exodus. Employee morale at the lowest possible ebb. These are the costs for Murdoch University of this round of enterprise bargaining. NTEU has had a resounding and comprehensive victory against these hostile management tactics, successfully negotiating a new Enterprise Agreement that is consistent with what we have achieved elsewhere. It was a long, hard struggle for our members and our negotiating team in the face of unprecedented attacks on the Union by the Murdoch management. Their commitment and resolve to hold the line on behalf of the rest of the sector should not be underestimated. Without the protection of an Agreement (when it would have been easy to accept an offer) the NTEU team refused in order to send the message that NTEU members will not be intimidated by industrial tactics more at home in the construction and mining sectors. All the way through these negotiation it was clear that Murdoch was targeting what came to be known as “The Big 5” – change management, redundancy,
Table 1: Murdoch management wishlist vs outcome Item
What Murdoch management wanted
Outcome
Change Management
Consultation after they have made the decision.
Murdoch employees will continue to be consulted at the proposal stage.
Redundancy
Significantly reduced redundancy payments for all staff, forced transfer to lower level positions and reduced salary maintenance.
No existing staff have any reduction in their redundancy entitlements, transfer to lower level must be agreed by the employee and salary maintenance for 12 months has been retained.
Misconduct
Termination for simple misconduct, termination for conduct that threatens the reputation of the University (that’s ironic given the behaviour of the senior managers behind this), no internal appeal or review process in the Agreement. At one stage they wanted no misconduct clause at all!
Termination is still limited to serious misconduct, there are appeal processes in the Agreement, and threat to reputation can be completely defended if exercising academic freedom. Review and appeal rights are extended to professional staff.
Unsatisfactory Performance
No obligation to assist employees to improve, no appeal or review rights in the agreement, and no guarantee of process. They put to their employees that there should be no clause at all.
Obligation to assist, process and appeal and review are all in the Agreement, and review rights extended to Professional Staff.
Academic Workloads
Teaching loads of 100%.
Teaching loads are capped, employees are consulted on workloads and there is an internal review process in the Agreement.
misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, and academic workloads. It is no coincidence, given their claims of poor financial performance, that four of these were about getting rid of people quickly and cheaply, and the fifth was about making the remaining employees work harder. Table 1 assesses what management wanted and what they got. But then there are all the other things that they also failed to gain, such as elimination of fixed term conversion It is to be hoped that the wiser heads in the management and governance of Murdoch will be asking was it worth it? For those of us in NTEU we should be asking, how can we stop this happening again? The first and most obvious answer is the what we have already done – not let them get away with it and demonstrate for future managements considering this course, that the potential gain is not worth the pain.
The next is to fully back the ACTU’s Change The Rules Campaign. The industrial laws of this country let our Murdoch members down time and again over the past few years. It is time to change those rules, and it is time for NTEU to use our Murdoch experience to be in the forefront of the campaign. When Murdoch terminated the Enterprise Agreement of around 3,000 white collar workers, they changed the conversation around the security of working conditions. Suddenly it wasn’t “just” construction workers and miners, and people started saying “If they can take away the rights of a professor, how can my rights be safe?”. By doubling down and taking legal action against individuals for misrepresentation and coercion, using examples that seem to be so far from what most people would consider to be coercive behaviour, they also demonstrated how the current laws can be used to intimidate, to shut down debate, and to constrain our capacity to organise and campaign. We must be a part of changing those laws. In the last edition of The Advocate we observed that the biggest similarity between Griffin Coal and Murdoch was that neither would win. Thanks to the resolve of our Murdoch members we have been proven right. Gabe Gooding, WA Division Secretary
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 7
Update UNSW members strike in NSW & ACT After months of bargaining at UNSW, on 30 May NTEU members walked off the job for 24-hours, striking at campuses in Kensington, Darlinghurst and UNSW Canberra. Members are calling for UNSW management to address job security, as well as to improve redeployment and redundancy entitlements and staff consultation around major changes, such as the imminent introduction of trimesters. Staff, students and community supporters formed a lively peaceful assembly at Kensington campus, and members in Canberra braved a very frosty morning to get the message across. There was also a speak out at the Kensington campus. The support and solidarity offered by students and the broader union community added to a fantastic atmosphere. Job security has been a key claim in bargaining. In a 2018 NTEU report which reviewed figures in 2016 and 2017 by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the NTEU concluded over 73 per cent of staff at UNSW are in insecure roles. Jason Heffernan, a casual academic at UNSW and NTEU delegate, spoke to these
job security matters on the day of the strike. Jason says “It is outrageous that a supposedly ‘not-for-profit’ institution has a Vice-Chancellor on a salary of $1.22 million, while it resists demands for more casual staff to convert to secure employment.” “Casuals like me are not entitled to sick leave or annual leave and do hours upon hours of unpaid work as it is impossible for us to do our work within the time for which we are paid.” Branch union leaders have ensured that job security for casual staff has been a key NTEU claim. “It is unacceptable that most staff at UNSW have little or no job security. UNSW is a wealthy institution, with $60.2 million in surplus in 2017,” says Dr Sarah Gregson, UNSW Branch President.
page 8 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
“Our Vice-Chancellor Ian Jacobs describes casualisation as a major factor of inequality, and something the University has a duty to tackle. We need our Vice-Chancellor to practice what he preaches and provide UNSW staff with the right to secure work and fair conditions.” Union membership is growing well as enterprise bargaining continues, and the Union has received offers to increase jobs for existing casuals, and to improve redeployment provisions in negotiations following our strike action. Union members have demanded reaching in principle agreement by Wednesday 18 July, or further campaign action will follow. UNSW Branch
Above: A great turnout at the gates at UNSW Kensington campus. Credit: Nagida Clark Below: UNSW Canberra members form a peaceful assembly. Credit: Lachlan Clohesy
Update Impressive outcomes for members in UTAS Agreement It’s been a long process, but negotiations for a University of Tasmania (UTAS) Staff Agreement have finally concluded, resulting in some very impressive outcomes for members. A pay increase of 1.8% per year (8.5% flat over the life of the Agreement) was boosted by a restructuring of the classifications which will see the overwhelming majority of staff receive additional increases of between 1% and 2.4% salary through increment changes.
NTEU reaches Agreement with Florey Institute NTEU’s Enterprise Agreement with the Florey Institute of Neuroscience & Medical Health sets a new standard for pay and conditions in the NTEU Research Institutes Branch. The Agreement has been reorganised in a logical order and redrafted with an eye to making it more accessible for members and management. There are substantial improvements relating to workplace culture, job security, quality of life and remuneration. In addition to a 6.5% compounded salary increase over three years, phasedin payments will see most non-causal staff have access to a 17% employer superannuation contribution at the start of the final year of the Agreement. General staff reclassification processes have been streamlined while preserving an independent appeals process that has union representation.
Some staff will receive even more, with most casual academic staff getting an additional 5.2% for the standard tutor rate, making the full increase for these casual staff 13.7% over the life of the Agreement. All fixed term staff will receive access to 17% employer superannuation by the end of the Agreement. Those currently still on the 9.5% super will see their superannuation increase in June 2021. Importantly, fixed term staff now have a right to renewal if the work continues and there are no performance issues. Other key benefits include: • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Leave increased to 5 days per year. • A&TSI employment numerical target of 60 by the end of 2020. • Paid Family Violence Leave. • Introduction of Research Development Scheme for casuals on a trial basis with Union involvement in the processes and evaluation (12 positions).
Florey management has committed to establishing its first joint workplace Consultative Committee and development of its first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment strategy, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. There are strongly worded commitments relating to diversity and tolerance, intellectual freedom and gender equality. There is a raft of new or improved leave conditions including increased compassionate leave, the inclusion of trade union training leave, new paid Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leave provisions, leave for tribunal appearances, increased parental leave, and family support leave for antenatal appointments and fertility treatment. We also want to highlight Florey Institutes’s agreement to ten days’ paid domestic violence leave. A series of provisions contribute to better job security in a research institute which is dependent upon external funding for most of its operations. Breaks between fixed term contracts of up to three months will not break service and there are measures to retain the employment relationship while funding is pending. Fixed term contract staff will have a ‘right to further employment’ in their position for as long as the funding continues, making their employment less vulnera-
The Agreement also established the terms and conditions for staff working at the new UTAS College, and makes conditions and expectations for University College staff clearer. Management sought to exclude these staff from the main Agreement throughout negotiations, but a strong reaction from members, who made it clear they would not accept being hived off into a separate Agreement, eventually resulted in all staff being covered by the same Agreement. Throughout the almost two-year process, members showed persistence, continued interest and active engagement. The strong commitment of Union members helped to guide the negotiations and forced a reluctant UTAS management back to the negotiation table. Thank you to all members who supported the bargaining campaign in its various phases for your faith and patience. Achieving a quality Agreement would not have been possible without your support. Matthew McGowan, National Assistant Secretary www.nteu.org.au/tas
ble when the contract approaches its expiry date. Casual employment will be confined to people whose work is truly intermittent or short term. A temporary reduction in time fraction related to parental leave, illness or injury will not reduce redundancy payments for ongoing staff. There is also protection against termination for ill health or incapacity while a staff member is making application for a disability payment under their superannuation fund. This has been a long and complex negotiation which was seen through by dedicated union delegates David Trevaks and Greg Thomas. David Trevaks says that, “With the recent expansion of the Florey following the mergers of several research institutes one of the great successes of the new agreement is to uplift all staff to equal pay and conditions. We also anticipate that the Florey agreement will be influential in relation to negotiations at other medical research institutes in coming years.” To help build on the work of the Research Institutes Branch please contact us for more information. Serena O’Meley, Industrial Officer, NTEU Victorian Division www.nteu.org.au/resinstitutes
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 9
Update NTEU welcomes inquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace More than 30 years after the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act, it’s sobering to think that an inquiry into sexual harassment is still needed. In the wake of inquiries into sexual assault and harassment of students in universities and the Defence Forces, high profile harassment cases in Australia and the US, and the latest results of the Australian Sexual Harassment Telephone Survey, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has announced a 12 month Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. The Inquiry will consider: • The economic impact of sexual harassment. • The drivers for sexual harassment. • The role of technology and social media in both perpetrating and identifying sexual harassment. • Means of preventing sexual harassment in workplaces. • Best practice approaches. • Identifying any legislative changes required to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace The Inquiry won’t be considering individual complaints of sexual harassment, but will take a systemic view. The Human Rights Commission will be seeking submissions and running sessions around the country. The exact details and timelines are yet to be announced. At the time of writing, the 2018 Australian Sexual Harassment Telephone Survey had been completed. If NTEU is unable to obtain data for the staff in our sector from the survey, the Union may make its own submission to the Inquiry. Please check the NTEU website for your opportunity to contribute. Susan Kenna, Industrial Officer
Ending discrimination of workers employed in faith based organisations NTEU delegates at the ACTU Congress in July will be asked to support a motion in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer (LGBTIQ+) workers. The motion prepared by the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (VGLRL) is for the insertion of two additional clauses in to the ACTU Work, Life and Family policy. NTEU National Executive at its June meeting moved a separate motion that the Union’s representatives at the upcoming ACTU Congress support the motions prepared by the VGLRL. The Lobby is a grass roots LGBTIQ+ community organisation with no political affiliations. The motion at National Executive raised concerns that: Current ACTU policy is blind to the discrimination of LGBTIQ+ workers in faith based universities, schools, healthcare and community services. Discrimination of LGBTI workers is permitted under Section 351 of the Fair Work Act, read the motion presented to National Executive. In November 2017 a young gay teacher at a Baptist school in West Australia was fired after coming out in a Facebook post. The Catholic Church indicated during the marriage equality survey that it would fire LGBTIQ staff who married. ACTU’s most recent official public comment on this issue is a 2013 Senate Inquiry Submission, “the union position is not unified on the issue of exceptions for religious organisations and consequently the ACTU makes no comment in relation to the matter.” ACTU indicated to VGLRL at
a recent meeting that they will wait until after ACTU Congress to update this view. A core ‘Change the Rules’ campaign strategy is to change aspects of the Fair Work Act that disadvantage workers. LGBTIQ+ discrimination should be included in this campaign. The motion went on to outline that: Adverse action provisions of the Fair Work Act contain an exemption in regard to action that “is taken against a staff member of an institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion” where the action is “taken in good faith and to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.” Interpretations of this provision vary because of lack of certainty regarding what constitutes “the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion” as well as varying interpretations of religious doctrine across religious denominations. For LGBTIQ workers in faith based organisations this uncertainty manifests as fear and trauma with devastating consequences including humiliation, relationship breakdown, financial loss and a cost to mental health. Many people are not aware that this discrimination could play out for as many as 200,000 workers across Australia – this is not a small matter. The two clauses the VGLRL is asking the 2018 ACTU Congress to support inserting in to the ACTU Work, Life and Family policy, read as follows: 1. Congress further notes that loopholes in the Fair Work Act allow religious employers to take adverse action against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers as well as single parents, divorcees and workers in de facto relationships. 2. Congress will lobby for improvements to the Fair Work Act to ensure all workers, including those working for religious employers, are protected from adverse action regarding their sexuality, gender identity, marital status or other attributes. Andrew MacDonald, Media & Communications Officer
As details are released by the Australian Human Rights Commission, they can be found at: www.humanrights.gov.au/news/stories/world-first-national-inquiry-workplace-sexual-harassment
page 10 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Update Acting on the advice of the Union’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee, the NTEU delegation to the ACTU Congress in July tabled the following statement.
The Statement from the Heart – one year on *
Statement from the National Tertiary Education Union to ACTU Congress delegations, July 2018 NTEU has a large and organised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander membership embedded throughout the Union’s structures. NTEU policy on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander matters, including support of sovereignty and the making of treaty(ies), are updated each year at our annual National Council Meeting, on the advice of the elected National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee, and informed by the feedback enabled by having representative voices throughout the Union. We are about to hold our 20th annual National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Forum made up of delegates from around the country. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment targets, cultural leave, languages allowances and other matters are mandatory in our collective agreements. We take all these responsibilities very seriously and they are core to our union’s identity and work. We make the following statement from a position of informed experience. A year has passed since the three-day meeting at Yulara, following the twelve consultations around the country, to discuss the future of the Recognise campaign for constitutional reform and recognition. Many conversations have been generated amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities, and also with the wider community over the past twelve months, and there is currently some reflection and discussion on ‘where to from here’. Nationally, there is substantial support for treaty and truth telling processes. However, of great concern for many is the concept of an advisory Voice to parliament. This aspect of the Statement from the Heart was placed on the agenda toward the end of the three-day meeting last year and had not been tabled at the previous twelve by-invite consultations. NTEU believes that it is too early to endorse a recommendation on an advisory Voice. Extensive consultations about a truly balanced and representative structure are still needed. Our combined futures require free, prior and informed consent (as supported by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues) and not a recommendation from a limited membership committee. Significantly, we note that commentators who supported the Recognise campaign for Constitutional Reform and Recognition have also expressed reservations about the advisory Voice. The legal affairs editor for The Australian, Chris Merritt, has noted that the advisory Voice is “a plan for an advisory body that would provide no services, enact no laws, administer no revenue and raise no taxes. It would have one duty: to provide advice on proposed laws that affect Indigenous people. Parliament would be free to accept or ignore that advice. This new body would supervise nothing. It would not even have control over its own composition, role, and procedures.” Professor George Williams has raised concerns. “It may give a voice but it will not give influence, I think is the basic problem.” NTEU urges ACTU Congress delegates not to prematurely endorse the Voice proposal, but continue to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices within the trade union movement and the community as discussions continue. In solidarity Jeannie Rea NTEU National President Terry Mason National Executive member & Chair, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee *Some will recognise this as the ‘Uluru’ Statement. However, Anangu Elders have asked that we respect place and protocols and not – refer to Uluru for this document that arose from the conference at Yalara
Authorised by G.McCulloch, General NTEU Secretary, NTEU, 120 Clarendon Melbourne 3205 ADVOCATE • vol. 25 St, no.South 2 • July 2018 • VIC www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 11
Secure Jobs News Unlocking democratic activism of university casuals Unlocking the spirit of democracy was considered by educator and philosopher John Dewey to be essential for combatting “vested interests” that are “powerfully on the side of the status quo”. True democracy, Dewey argued, means that everyone should have the right to have a say in how their work environment is run. A key aspiration of the half-day professional development workshop that NTEU Deakin Branch ran on 1 May for casual academic and professional staff was to unlock the democratic spirit of activism through bringing casuals together to learn about our rights at work, deliberate about the aims of the work we do and learn how to plan for tackling the challenges we face.
and social isolation experienced by university casuals nationwide. I contacted the National Union Education Officer, Helena Spyrou, who offered feedback on the program I had drafted and gave advice about NTEU resources. Then I took the plan to Deakin’s Casual Action Committee and Branch for their consideration. After incorporating amendments, it was agreed that Deakin Branch would run the workshop in conjunction with the Deakin Supercasuals campaign. Held at Victorian Division offices, the workshop was introduced by Division Secretary Colin Long with a line-up that showcased the rich expertise of members and staff: Dr Piper Rodd (Deakin) presented a session on engaging students through critical pedagogy, Jesse Page presented on industrial rights, Noel Gardiner ran a listening post for professional staff, Helena Spyrou gave a talk on preparing academic job applications, Ken McAlpine spoke about the significance of the union movement for casuals and
The impetus to organise a workshop grew out of my experience as a casual teaching academic who is excluded from the university’s intellectual life and socially isolated due to the lack of forums for engaging with other casuals. It was after I found out that the Australian Education Union (AEU) runs an annual professional development day for members that I hit on the idea that a half-day workshop for casuals designed and run by NTEU casuals in collaboration with the Branch and Division might offer another way for our union to address this exclusion
‘Change the Rules’, and Gaurav Nanda informed participants about the Supercasuals campaign. Through creating this unique forum to bringing casuals together around issues that directly affect them and are of relevance to casuals, the workshop clearly demonstrated the value NTEU membership can offer current casual members in attracting new members. To carry forward this new momentum, we are planning to expand the workshop which will be run at Division level soon (date to be confirmed). Nothing less will suffice if we are going to take up the task of contributing to the renewal of our union and combatting neoliberalism by creating such spaces for fostering casual activism animated by the driving force of true democracy. Dr Audrey Statham, Deakin University
Dr Piper Rodd, Deakin University (above) and Jesse Page, NTEU (left) presenting sessions at the workshop.
Casual Member Branch Committee positions At NTEU National Council 2017, a new Branch Committee designated position was created for casually employed members. Unfortunately, quite a few of these positions have not been filled – yet. There is still time to nominate! If you had been thinking of standing for an NTEU position, you should talk to your local Branch staff or Committee. For further information on nominations and declarations, visit our NTEU 2018 Elections website: www.nteu.org.au/myunion/about_us/elections/2018_elections
page 12 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News A&TSI higher education funding The release of the 2018-19 Federal Budget saw a small but welcome budget increase to the supplementary funding allocation and forward estimates attributed to the Indigenous Student Assistance Grants (ISAG) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student Support; administered through the Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP) . Student support ISSP commenced on 1 January 2017, combining three previous A&TSI educational support programs: the Indigenous Support Program (ISP), Commonwealth Scholarship Program (CSP), and Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme – Tertiary Tuition (ITAS-TT). Budget allocations detail that ISSP received an increase to budgeted allocations and forward estimates when compared to the previous Federal Budget. The Budget saw a 3% efficiency dividend ($2.1 million) and further budget cuts of $21.1 million applied, when compared to the 2015-16 Federal Budget. An overall funding increase of $9.79 million has been reallocated to the ISSP from 2018-19 to 2021-22, with an additional $2.97 million allocated to 2018-19.
While the reallocation of funding to this vital program is welcomed, projected A&TSI student support funding from the 2015-16 Federal Budget and forward estimates would have seen projected allocations total approximately $75.7 million in this financial year. While any Budget increase is useful, funding allocations for A&TSI student support will never fully recuperate the total loss of allocated support program funds from previous forward estimates. The total overall loss of current years funding and forward estimates in the 2018-19 Federal Budget has been reduced from -$23.2 million (-31.6%) to -$13.4 million (-18.2%), and while funding cuts continue to impact the ISSP, A&TSI students will unfortunately continue to bear the brunt of this loss, through reduced tutorial assistance, scholarships and wider support programs. To outline the exact losses to the ISSP, Table 1 details total funding cuts (including forward estimates) across four Federal Budget cycles. Funding cuts to the ISSP for this financial year alone equates to -$5.9 million or -8.0%. As stated, the reallocation of funds to the ISSP provides some welcome relief; although without concerted effort by Government to ensure appropriate funding allocations are attributed to the ISSP in future budget cycles, targets for A&TSI students, academic and general/professional staff will not be achieved.
Staff and students Funding cuts of this magnitude can only result in a reduction in support for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander students and a flow-on reduction in Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander academic, support and administrative staff.
Table 1: Budget allocations and 3 year forward estimates for the last four Federal Budgets ACTUAL BUDGET
$50,000
$77,462
$72,000 $775,573
$71,494 $70,484 $73,730
$72,070
$75,733 $69,887 $69,101
$67,979
$71,683
$62,013
$60,000
$69,061
$70,000
$73,880 $68,283
FORWARD ESTIMATES
$80,000
$40,000 $30,000
While there has been a turn-around from 2015 where a reduction in the number and FTE for A&TSI staff was recorded, the total number remains at 1.1% of all university staff (1.1% FTE). As the key funding allocation supporting Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Support Centres and their staff, the ISSP provides funding allocations to all Table A and B higher education providers to provide Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander students with culturally appropriate support and places of cultural safety on campus. The need to maintain and grow the number of A&TSI staff employed is paramount, particularly with the ongoing growth of commencing and all A&TSI students.
The future The Federal Budget 2018-19 provides a much needed funding increase for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student support; although contradictions between the Government’s policy direction and employment targets vs. budget allocations and forward estimates exist. The total funding cuts over previous Budgets and their forward estimates, not only incorporates the 3% efficiency dividend, but also incorporate a total funding loss of 31.6% from the 2015-16 forward estimates to the 2017-18 Federal Budget. Australian universities and higher education providers will only seek to increase the number of A&TSI staff, providing funding allocations to their institutions under the ISSP allow for further employment opportunities. In a nutshell universities will not utilise or seek to utilise their own funds to employ A&TSI staff. As we have seen previously, A&TSI staff will simply be forced to do more with less or risk being culturally isolated into areas of the university outside of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Support Unit or Centre where they may have been employed in the first instance. Put simply, while a reallocation of funding far outweighs a reduction, there are few other positives for A&TSI university students or higher education staff. Those staff and students will only suffer under the fiscal pressure imposed by this Coalition Government: a government that would seem to have little care or concern for these particular constituents and their communities. Adam Frogley, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Officer
$20,000
www.nteu.org.au/atsi
$10,000 0
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 13
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News A&TSI Forum marks 20 years This year marks 20 years since the first NTEU National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Forum was held. This was an historic gathering as it was one of the first union gatherings to be held in the country focussed entirely on the struggles and working conditions of A&TSI union members. As the staffing numbers and NTEU membership numbers have grown since that first gathering, so too has the NTEU Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Forum. Thanks to A&TSI member activism within the Union over the past twenty years, we have seen the inclusion of a mandatory A&TSI claim in bargaining including employment targets in Collective Agreements, the expansion of the NTEU’s A&TSI staffing contingent in the sector, the adoption of our own internal Union employment policy, and the continued progressive stance that the NTEU has taken on a wide variety of social justice issues. We have also seen a partnership develop between the NTEU A&TSI caucus and the New Zealand Tertiary Education Union’s Maori Hui – a national gathering of Maori delegates from the various universities, polytechnics and wananga - which has led to over a decade of exchange across the Tasman. In recent years, the A&TSI Forum has also travelled around to culturally-inclusive spaces in Geelong and Halls Gap, as well as Brisbane in 2017.
To mark its 20th anniversary, the NTEU A&TSI Forum will be returning to where it first began: the NTEU National Office in Melbourne from 26–28 July. An official dinner will be held on Friday 27 July to mark this special occasion. The theme of this year’s Forum is ‘Change the Rules – Change the Future’. The theme draws upon, and casts an Indigenous lens over, the ACTU campaign to change the current employment laws, which have led to a vast increase in insecure work and a series of laws which disproportionately protect the rights of employers rather than workers. At a time when A&TSI employment is becoming more precarious on campus, and our programs continue to face mainstreaming threats justified by governmental funding freezes, this discussion has never been more urgent. The Forum will focus on the Government’s and university managements’ agenda for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members, staff, communities and the academy. Topics for discussion will include: • I ’m still not a racist, But…, the second NTEU report on racism, discrimination, cultural respect and lateral violence in the Australian higher education sector.
page 14 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
• The 2018-2019 Federal Budget. • 2018 NTEU elections and organising. • N TEU Round 7 bargaining and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Clauses • The campaign for Treaties versus calls for Constitutional Recognition. • A&TSI motions for 2018 NTEU National Council. In addition to this, delegates will discuss the challenges and triumphs at their universities and assist in driving the agenda for the NTEU’s work on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights over the next twelve months. We look forward to welcoming all to the 2018 NTEU Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Forum and hope this will be the biggest and best yet. We also look forward to continuing the push for fairer and more just conditions for A&TSI members, both on campus and more broadly in Australian society. Celeste Liddle, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Organiser
Above: Forum delegates in 2002. Below, left: Forum session in 2008. Below, right: Members with the new A&TSI logo flag at Batchelor, 2017.
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander News Cultural & ceremonial leave entitlements Cultural and ceremonial leave provisions in Awards and Enterprise Agreements have been instituted to recognise the cultural diversity of the Australian workforce, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. The entitlement provides for an additional paid or unpaid leave that is utilised specifically to recognise cultural undertakings and obligations that are fundamental to A&TSI and culturally diverse communities. Cultural and ceremonial leave entitlements for A&TSI employees allow for attendance and participation in funerals and culturally significant events including birthing ceremonies, smoking/ cleansing ceremonies, men’s and women’s business, NAIDOC week, Reconciliation week and Coming of the Light festival (Torres Strait Islands). The benefit to employers and organisations that provide cultural and ceremonial leave entitlements to employees are many and varied. Firstly, attendance by culturally diverse groups including A&TSI peoples at culturally important events provides significant kudos and reach into those communities, and will also ensure organisations that provide cultural and ceremonial leave entitlements to their employees are recognised as a best practice employer or employer of choice for A&TSI and culturally diverse communities. Increasing cultural diversity in the workplace and implementation of cultural and ceremonial leave entitlements will also work to: • Improve short and long-term competitive and sustainable advantage over competitors. • Attract and retain the right people, at the right time and for the right reasons. • Improve productivity and innovation.
In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities a range of organisations, particularly education providers, can and do benefit through increased awareness and interest in undertaking and/or continuing their studies to achieve nonschool qualifications. This also translates to increased involvement and participation by A&TSI communities and Elders at that institution and builds trust ‘both ways’ and provides a solid foundation for maintaining respectful and ongoing relationships into the future. A&TSI communities are very much aware of entitlements such as cultural and ceremonial leave, with many A&TSI peoples seeking to work for and with employers who offer a range of additional entitlements, including leave and allowances that encourage a link to culture and the workplace.
Cultural & Ceremonial Leave across industries Cultural and ceremonial leave entitlements can be found across a range of industry awards and Enterprise Agreements, particularly in the university sector, health and human services sector and across all levels of Government. Examples of cultural ceremonial leave entitlements in current Industry Awards include the Aged Care Award 2010, Nurses Award 2010, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2010, Victorian Public Service Enterprise Agreement 2016, and NTEU’s Round 6 & 7 university Enterprise Agreements.
Cultural & Ceremonial Leave in university Agreements In the previous round of bargaining for university Enterprise Agreements (Round 6) a total of 32 Agreements (89%) made provision for a Cultural and/ or ceremonial leave entitlement. Of this, 23 Agreements (64%) had a specific cultural and/or ceremonial leave provision for A&TSI staff, while a further nine Agreements (25%) made provision for Cultural and/or ceremonial leave (or so named) under the title of another leave provision. The industry standard entitlement for cultural and ceremonial leave across the Australian university sector is five days paid and ten days unpaid leave.
Building the A&TSI higher education workforce Attracting and retaining A&TSI academic and general/professional staff to the Australian higher education sector
can prove to be challenging; particularly when examining the salaries and entitlements offered across a variety of industries seeking to employ those same potential A&TSI staff members. The ability to attract and retain those employees can be improved greatly through the incorporation of additional and specific entitlements, such as cultural and ceremonial leave. In the Australian university sector, the attraction of cultural and ceremonial leave has assisted in the increase of A&TSI academic and general/professional staff across the sector. While challenges do exist, there is a need to examine and implement a range of culturally appropriate and effective measures to attract A&TSI peoples into academic and general/professional staff roles. Cultural and ceremonial leave provisions will provide greater benefit to organisations, companies and their employees and will have little impact on existing leave liabilities and overall cost to employers. In an environment of increasing fiscal prudence, employers and their organisations will need to examine and utilise a greater range of entitlements and benefits to ensure the attractiveness of employment within their organisation. Adam Frogley, National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Coordinator www.nteu.org.au/atsi
Above: Yirrganydji man and woman. Credit: Rafael Ben-Ari
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 15
Photo: NTEU members at the Canberra rally. Credit: Lachlan Clohesy
Time to Change the Rules! Between 29 April and 19 May, several hundred thousand people attended nineteen Change the Rules rallies held in capital and major regional cities across Australia. The largest of these was the Melbourne rally, with an estimated 100,000 plus people attending.
Michael Evans National Organiser M@NTEUNational
page 16 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
The University of Melbourne Branch held a stop work rally about bargaining on campus, then marched to join the larger rally at the Victorian Trades Hall. About 400 people attended, overwhelmingly NTEU members. Social media carried photos and stories of NTEU members’ involvement in rallies in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, ACT and Tasmania.
Jobs You Can Count On The ACTU released its “Jobs You Can Count On” jobs policy on 23 May. The policy sets out a strategy to improve both the quantity and quality of work: creating new jobs, lifting pay, enhancing the security and conditions of employment, and ensuring access to decent work for all Australians. Its key elements are: • Australia must move to a more even playing field by updating our industrial laws to reflect the reality of the modern workplace and labour market – we must change the rules to put working people’s needs on par with business profits. • We must promote and encourage local industries that provide good, secure jobs, rather than relying on a failed model of trickle-down economics. This means maximising job opportunities for locals and investing in industries that train and employ local workers.
• We must fight gender inequality, marginalisation and discrimination so that people who have the toughest time getting good secure jobs have a fair shot.
Federal by-elections campaign A main focus of the Change the Rules campaign over the coming period will be the five by-elections scheduled for 28 July, to be held in the seats of Longman (QLD), Mayo (SA), Braddon (TAS), Fremantle (WA) and Perth (WA). The ACTU, trades and labour councils and unions will be focusing on the seats of Longman and Braddon around: • Penalty rates – penalty rate cuts took effect on 1 July. • Job security – of the million jobs the Coalition claims to have created, half are workers on temporary visas or casual and fixed term jobs.
Defenders of Higher Education pledge Candidates in the July by-elections have been asked to sign onto NTEU’s Defenders of Higher Education pledge, developed at the last federal election. The pledge is: If elected in the 2018 by-election, I will support policies that: • Keep the cost and debt of going to university within the reach of all. • Improve the level of public investment in teaching and research for our public universities. • Ensure university autonomy and academic freedom are protected in the public interest. • Protect the international reputation of our higher education system through rigorous regulation and public accountability. • E nsure the working rights of all staff are protected through collective bargaining Agreements.
Marginal seats campaign The ACTU has also started its marginal seats campaign for the next federal election, due by May 2019. The campaign’s aim is to identify union members in marginal seats who are swinging or undecided voters, and to seek to persuade them to vote against the Coalition.
The future campaign The ACTU and trades and labour councils are considering further nationwide rallies in spring, and additional phone banks to engage with workers around key issues such as job security. NTEU members and activists are meeting and planning activities around the key issues affecting higher education, such as job security and the rights of casually employed staff to convert to more secure employment (if their work is regular and systematic). In the lead-up to the federal election, NTEU members should visit their local Members of Parliament, seeking commitments around job security and adequate funding for the sector.
Images, this page: NTEU members marching in (from top) Perth, Darwin, Sydney and Melbourne.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 17
Women
Bluestocking women changed the rules, and so will we NTEU’s national Women’s Action Committee (WAC) are excited because the ACTU Change the Rules campaign identified that the headline reasons for changing the employment laws are that the current rules are not helping achieve gender pay equity, secure jobs or equality for women workers. These issues resonate with NTEU women as they do with working women everywhere. The current Workplace Relations Act has proved woeful in prosecuting gender equity, nor can it be used to curb skyrocketing job insecurity. And despite our enthusiasm to make change in our workplaces, we break the law if we take industrial action without jumping through hoops designed to look after the employers’ interests. So WAC decided to jump on board with the ACTU campaign, and make this year’s theme for Bluestocking Week, 13 -17 August, “Women Change the Rules.” Like our sisters in other unions and the community, NTEU women are celebrating ongoing feminist leadership in our unions and the ACTU. It is a big change when the issues in a major campaign of particular concern to women are not relegated down the list of key issues or dropped off the list.
Standing up for women in and through our unions
Typical unionist is a women with a degree
Our foremothers in the trade union movement had to fight to join unions, then fight their male comrades to get equal pay and an end to gender job discrimination on the agenda. We have had to fight sexual harassment and gendered violence in our movement simultaneously with that in the workplace and on the streets. In just this decade we have fought to have dealing with domestic violence addressed as a worker’s right.
Now in Australia, more women than men belong to trade unions. The typical trade union member is no longer a man in a hard hat, but a woman with a degree.
We have had to demand participation in leadership and reject being told that we were not ready for it yet. We have had to demand to be listened to when we said that women’s paid work is not the only place we labour, and that men need to change their attitudes and behaviour outside of workplaces as well. We have had to demand that it is different for women as many of us bear children also look after them and take on much of the unpaid caring in our families and communities, and that should be viewed positively rather than diminishing our equity. We continue fighting to be heard when we say that just because women predominate in particular jobs, they should not be paid less and have less job security. It has also often been the women that have stood as or with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers, with LGBTIQ workers, with migrants and refugees to call for more than recognition and equality, but for the mainstream trade union movement to take up the fight against discrimination at work and in the community. We, who are mainstream women, have had to check our own privilege and listen and learn – and change our behaviour.
page 18 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
So women of the NTEU are now the face of trade unions. Indeed, two of our own have already featured in the ACTU Change the Rules campaign. Did you see Jenny Smith on A Current Affair recently in a segment on long term contract workers? Jenny is a scientist at the University of Tasmania who has been employed continuously on contracts for decades. Dr Audrey Stratham, a lecturer employed casually at Deakin, featured in a case study of casualisation in the Change the Rules handbook. Women are the majority of NTEU members too; yet when we get together, we still talk about the everyday sexism in our workplaces - and even, at times, in our unions. But we are not deterred. We made NTEU policy that opens all our Enterprise Agreements to scrutiny for gender bias in development and implementation. We push back at the gender inequities in our various positions and levels in our workplaces, and importantly we seek allies amongst men. But we do not let men speak for us – or become our champions. We say walk with us, listen to us, challenge your attitudes and then speak out with us.
Bluestockings understood the power of the rules Our forebears, the bluestocking women knew about the need to change the rules. They also knew that those with privilege and who made the rules would resist change. Generations of women pioneers in higher education wanted to change the rules that excluded women from universities, the professions, politics and even
Women public houses. Some broke the rules to make their point. They were vilified, beaten, arrested and jailed. The term ‘bluestocking’ was created by opponents of women wanting change. It was supposed to be a criticism; a term of distaste; a comment upon their appearance as drab and unappealing. We even occasionally hear the term today to describe a serious woman speaking out, unconcerned with her appearance, but demonstrating her intellect. While education focussed, some last century and earlier, bluestockings were also prominent in anti-racist and anti-colonial movements, and working women certainly identified with the labour movement. Militant women teacher and public service unionists fought within their unions a century ago, and got equal pay on the agenda. Later they pioneered maternity leave and women’s access to superannuation. First they had to get past the laws that made women resign from paid work on marriage. Women wanting to work across many trade and technical areas were not even allowed to undertake the training, let alone the jobs, or join the union.
WOMEN CHANGE
Union men collaborated with bosses and politicians to keep the doors closed to women. And this was not all in the mists of time. There are still many women working today who have experienced explicit laws against them as women workers – and there are many older women now living in poverty because they have not accumulated superannuation. Joining these will be many women in our workplaces who have been stuck in lower paid jobs and overlooked for promotion or advancement; have left their jobs to raise children; have had part-time jobs; or have been on a series of contracts or casually employed. So when we organise Bluestocking Week events this year let’s remember the blue-
stockings, and all the trade union women before us, who campaigned to change the rules, and who had the courage to break the rules when pushed. While some women have much to celebrate on the improvements for women, things remain grim for many. Inequality is increasing and while older women face poverty, many younger women are facing contracting rather than expanding opportunities. We should also remember that many of our foremothers remained sceptical about changing the rules, while sexism and patriarchal cultures and practices still lingered in private and public life. Unfortunately they were not wrong, which is why we are still seeking to change the rules to make them work for women.
Bluestocking week is now in its sixth year and the NTEU, together with NUS (National Union of Students) and CAPA (Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations) has seen the event grow in both scope and size. Jeannie Rea, National President Check out what is happening at your workplace by contacting your local NTEU Branch or see the events calendar: nteu.org.au/bluestockingweek
2018 Bluestocking Week artwork by Maryann Long
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 19
Federal Budget 2018
Tax cuts will not help those with HELP debts Blessed with a sudden and unanticipated increase in revenue, the centrepiece of Treasurer Scott Morrison’s third Budget was the Government’s personal income tax plan which will cost the Budget $13.4 billion over the four-year forward estimates. The proposed tax cuts however will result in a very significant reduction in government revenue of some $140 billion over a ten year period, as the more expensive tax cuts, which are targeted predominantly at people on higher incomes, kick in from 2024–25 onwards.
Paul Kniest Policy & Research Coordinator M@NTEUNational
page 20 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
As expected (and as outlined in the diagram opposite) the Budget included very few announcements in regard to higher education and research. While we welcome the announcements especially in relation to improved (albeit very modest) support for regional and rural students, we are highly critical of the decision to hand back over $100 billion in tax cuts, rather using this money to invest in education and training (starting with reversing the $2.2 billion funding freeze for universities), the NDIS, public hospitals, or improving the woefully inadequate levels of Newstart or Youth Allowance payments. Not only should this money have been invested in the provision of goods and services in the public interest, the proposed tax cuts unfairly favour those on higher incomes. Analysis undertaken by the Australia Institute for example, shows that by 2024-25, 61.2% of benefits of the proposed tax cuts will go to people in the top 20% of the income distribution, and 82.5% to those in top 40%. As a consequence these changes reduce the progressivity of Australia’s personal income tax regime, including strongly favouring male compared to female tax payers.
Tertiary education & research budget measures The Budget contained the following additional investment in higher education:
$124m over five years for some (already announced) additional Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs) for USC, UTAS and SCU
$393m for research infrastructure projects to be distributed through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (NCRIS)
$83.3m over 5 years to strengthen rural, regional & remote health outcomes by aligning distribution of the health workforce to areas of greatest need
$96m in funding for additional places and improved access to student income support as the part of the Government’s response to the Halsey Review
$4.5m over 4 years to allow students that have reached their combined lifetime limit for tuition fee assistance to re-access loan amounts repaid after 30 June 2019
While not involving any additional expenditure, the Budget included the allocation of some funding from the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF)
The Budget also included a number of cost savings including: ● ●
●
●
$30.7m over four years from 2018-19 from higher education providers for partial cost recovery for the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP). Net savings of $34.1m over the forward estimates by allocating $18.6m to ASQA to assist to transition to full cost recovery for its services, which is expected to raise $52.7m over the same period Net saving of $4m over 4 years from TEQSA which involves $24.3m to strengthen the regulatory but which will be offset by $28.3m in cost recovery from higher providers. The Government will also save $2 billion over the forward estimates by tightening the eligibility criteria associated with R&D tax incentives. These changes do not include giving special consideration or treatment of collaborative research between business and research organisations or universities.
Interaction of tax cuts and changes to HELP In delivering the Budget, Morrison was at pains to emphasise that there were five things Government must do, the first of which was to “provide tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians and reduce cost pressures on households, including lowering electricity prices.” However, when the interaction of the proposed tax cuts with the Government’s intention to lower the HELP income repayment threshold are considered, the Government’s supposed intention to provide relief to households and reducing cost of living pressures are laughable. In its 2017-18 MYEFO statement, released in December 2017, the Government announced its intention to: 1. Lower the income threshold for the repayment of HELP debts from $55,074 to $45,000 and 2. Introduce new repayments of 1% of total taxable income between $44,999 and $51,957 and 2% for income between $51,958 and $55,074. If the Government was to be successful in having these policies implemented (they are yet to get through the Senate), then anyone earning between $45,00 and $55,000 with an outstanding HELP debt, will find that the benefits of the proposed
Tax saving
Additional HELP repayments
Net change in disposable income
$4,000 $2,000 0 -$2,000 -$4,000 -$6,000 -$8,000
$45,000
$55,000 TAXABLE INCOME
$65,000
Figure 1: Changes in Disposable Income, 2018-19 to 2024-25, as a result of Reductions in Personal Income Tax and Lowering of HELP Repayment Threshold income tax cuts will be wiped out by the proposed changes to HELP. Figure 1 shows someone earning $45,000 would be $290 better off over the entire period from period from 2018-19 to 2024-25, when both the tax cuts and the additional HELP repayments are taken into account. This equates to $42 a year or less than $1 per week. Someone earning $50,000 will be $240 or 65 cents a week better off. Figure 1, how-
ever, shows that someone earning $55,000 would be considerably worse-off, by $3,900 over seven years which translates into roughly $10 per week. If the Government pushes ahead with its proposed reductions to the HELP repayment thresholds, they clearly do not think that anyone with a HELP debt earning between $45,000 and $55,000 is suffering from cost of living pressures.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 21
Higher education funding
Funding freeze is a Catch 22 On 14 June, the ABC published data obtained under Freedom of Information from the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training which showed how much the Department expected each university’s funding to be reduced as a consequence of the funding freeze announced as part of the Turnbull Government’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) Statement of December 2017. The data revealed that, as a result of the freeze, universities will be more than $2 billion worse off over the period 2018 to 2021. The extent of the loss is estimated to vary from zero for the University of Queensland to $177m for the University of Tasmania and $175m for La Trobe University. The two universities suffering the biggest losses expressed as share of base funding (Commonwealth and student contributions) for Commonwealth supported places were CQUniversity at 15% and the University of Tasmania at 11.4%. However, not long after the ABC story was published, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, Professor Rufus Black , dismissed concerns about the
impact that the funding freeze would have on teaching and learning at the University of Tasmania. As Professor Black noted, the Department’s estimates were based on projected increases in Commonwealth Supported Places provided by each university. However, following the announcement of the funding freeze, the University was now not expecting to increase undergraduate numbers. Professor Black was careful to stress that while the University would continue to increase enrolments of local students, the trade-off would necessarily be enrolling fewer students from other parts of Australia. In other words, the decision made by the University of Tasmania means that there will be some students (albeit not necessarily from Tasmania) who will not be offered a place but who, in the absence of the funding freeze, would have been offered a place. If on the other hand, the University had decided to increase its enrolments in line with its pre-freeze announcement plans it would in effect be suffering a funding shortfall in the order of $177m over four years. Some would say that it would be irresponsible for the University of Tasmania to enrol more students in response to funding freeze. Others, however, might legitimately argue that a responsible public university, such as the University of Tasmania, should enrol more students. That’s a Catch 22 (maybe not the best there is) and highlights the dilemma universities face in deciding how to respond to the funding freeze.
Universities response scenarios 1. Maintain current participation rates 2. Maintain real level of funding per CSP 3. Maintain enrolments at 2018 level
page 22 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Impact of funding freeze NTEU’s analysis of the impact of the funding freeze on enrolment levels, the level of unmet demand and the real level of average funding per student further highlights the dilemma universities face in responding to the funding freeze. NTEU analysis (Table 1) shows the impact of the funding freeze in relation to each of the following university response scenarios: 1. Universities elect to maintain enrolments at 2018 level over the period 2018 to 2022. 2. Universities elect to maintain current student participation rates by increasing enrolments in line with the increase in 18-64 year age group. 3. Universities elect to maintain the real level of average funding per student to ensure they can offer students the same educational experience as they currently enjoy. The results of the analysis in terms of the impact on total enrolments, unmet demand (the shortfall of enrolments compared to maintaining current participation rates) and real average funding per Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) are summarised in Table 1 below. The results shows that regardless of how universities respond the outcome will either be an increase in the level of unmet demand, or a reduction in the real level of average funding per student, or both.
These scenarios demonstrate the almost impossible decision that universities are being asked to make. Table 1 Do they prioritise the desires of potential Change 2018 to 2022 students and commuEnrolments Unmet Demand Real $ per CSP nities by maintaining or growing enrolments, 30,869 zero -$1,043 and if so, how do they (4.9%) (-9.4%) find the cost savings to -29,442 60,31 zero accommodate reduced funding levels? Are (-4.6%) (9.1%) savings to be found zero 30,869 -$554 in reduced teaching (4.6%) (-5.0%) (larger or fewer classes),
Higher education funding
or reduced levels of student amenities or support, or even heavier staff workloads, or greater reliance on casual staff or staff on short term contracts? Or, do universities prioritise the quality of students’ educational experience and cut enrolments, in order to maintain the real level of funding per student? What are the consequences to the thousands of students who will miss out on places under this scenario, and what implications
ALP announces inquiry into post-secondary education Earlier this year, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Education Tanya Plibersek announced that the ALP would hold an inquiry into post-secondary education within one hundred days, if elected to government. NTEU agreed with this comprehensive approach because of the need to examine the whole post-secondary sector. With the expectation that most students will finish secondary school, and the reality that adults will move in and out of education and training throughout their lives, separate reviews of higher education and VET would not be able to take on the challenges of providing life-long education and training opportunities. The primary objective of the inquiry should be on developing a coherent and consistent regulatory and funding framework for post-secondary education, that avoids the temptation of focusing upon exploring different funding models which simply distribute a limited and
will this have on the broader society and the economy? The Government has left universities with a genuine Catch 22 situation where regardless of how universities respond there will be losers. Putting it in a somewhat irreverent restatement of Joseph Heller’s classic Catch-22:
they enrolled more students. However, as responsible public educational institutions, surely they want to enrol more students. Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinator
Image credit: Matthew Gibson/123rf
Given the freeze on funding, universities would be financially irresponsible if
inadequate funding envelope. Instead, the ALP should commit to providing the level of public investment necessary to ensure Australia has a world class public post-secondary education system. While Labor pointed to the success of their policies in higher education, in particular the demand driven system which has opened up more places, they have been more circumspect on TAFE and the vocational education system. While not shouldering the responsibility for much of it, Labor does now agree that the system has been substantially damaged by ‘poor and incoherent policy development’. The discussion paper arising out of submissions sought on the terms of reference for the inquiry says: The system has been damaged by privatisation and poor regulation, unhealthy competition which has not improved the quality, price or access to services, fragmented and narrow qualifications, lack of leadership and diminishing funding. The sector has suffered significant reputational damage, and funding and enrolments are declining relative to the other sectors of the education and training system. Over the last three decades marketisation of vocational education has opened the way for unscrupulous providers; left students with debts for an education they have not received; and allowed low quality providers to operate in significant areas within the
system. This has contributed to a precipitous decline in TAFE resources and enrolments. NTEU agrees with this summary of the damage done to our once internationally envied TAFE system, and welcomes the overdue focus on restoring the vocational education part of post-secondary education. However, we are concerned if there is a view, in contrast, that all is well with higher education. The Bradley Review of Higher Education a decade ago found that higher education places, for example, were not adequately funded. The then Labor Government did not increase funding, but instead deregulated access to Commonwealth Supported Places (the demand driven system), leading to increased enrolments, but little increase in resources to educate the new student cohorts. At an expert panel discussion on the terms of reference and issues for the proposed inquiry, convened by the ALP in June, NTEU emphasised the critical issue of the impact of the wholesale casualisation of academic teaching, along with expanding insecure work across the sector. We also emphasised that the unions covering the staff of the sector have a particular interest and perspective invaluable to the inquiry and this should be acknowledged along with the inclusion of the ACTU. Jeannie Rea, National President
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 23
Demand driven funding, innovation & student retention
In May, the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) released a final report on improving retention, completion and success in higher education. This report is the culmination of a longer investigation initiated by the Minister for Higher Education into factors affecting attrition rates at our universities following the release in late 2016 of the Department of Education and Training’s cohort analysis on completion rates.
Initial response was panic about attrition rates The cohort analysis led to much speculation about what was causing, what some considered to be, unreasonably high attrition rates at Australian universities. The speculation as to possible causes included the introduction of the demand driven funding model, higher student numbers, more students with lower student ATARs, and lax admissions standards or procedures. The publication of the cohort analysis and subsequent work by HESP also initiated a number of related policy measures including improving the transparency of university admissions processes and standards as well as the announcement of the Government’s intention to use performance based funding, which the Minister made patently clear should include a measure of student success.
Photo credit: René Mansi
Final report curbs the panic
Paul Kniest Policy & Research Coordinator M@NTEUNational
page 24 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
The latest report observes that while there has been some movement in attrition rates at our universities over the last decade, it concludes that the sector is not in crisis, but like with most things, there is room for improvement. The report makes a number of sensible recommendations in regard to the need for universities to provide students with
16%
15% ALL UNIVERSITIES
14%
ALL UNIVERSITIES EXCLUDING SWINBURNE, FED UNI & UTAS
13%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Figure 1: Attrition rates in Australian universities, 2005 to 2014 (adjusted for change of course or institution) better information and resources to make better decisions about what, how and where to study, but also the need to provide better support to assist students, especially distance and external students, to succeed in their studies. Importantly the final report strongly emphasises that student characteristics are not as important as many might think in determining attrition rates. Where a student chooses to study is also an important determination of attrition rates.
for the allocation of Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs) was first announced. While it is true that attrition rates in 2014 were similar to those in 2005, the HESP’s conclusion that changes in the attrition rates over the period could be described as “some movement” is questionable. Not only has, what might have been a downward trend, clearly been reversed since 2009, it also seems that the rate of increase has accelerated since 2012, which is the year the DDS was fully implemented.
The findings also raise a number of questions about the impact of the introduction of the demand driven model for funding of university places and some of the consequences, especially in distance and online education.
While the NTEU is prepared to accept that it is too early to fully appreciate what impact the introduction of the DDS may have had on attrition rates, without wishing to be in anyway alarmist, it is also too early to dismiss recent trends around the introduction of the DDS as inconsequential.
Attrition rates and the demand driven system
The widening gap
A fresh look at the data on adjusted attrition rates published by HESP final report (see Figure 1 – for which the data is derived from the report) reveals two distinct patterns or trends. First, is the reversal of the downward trend in attrition rates after 2009. Second, is the very apparent widening of the gap from 2009 onwards between attrition rates for all of the universities (including Bond, Notre Dame and Torrens) and all universities excluding Swinburne, Federation University and the University of Tasmania. While attrition for both groups show the same overall pattern, it is very apparent that the rate of increase is significantly less when these three universities are excluded
The fall and rise in attrition rates The data presented in Figure 1 would suggest that 2009 is pivotal. That is the year that the demand driven system (DDS)
While the HESP report shows little concern about overall changes in attrition rates, it does none-the-less express issues “about imbalance of attrition rates between a small number of institutions and between external and internal or mixed modes of educational delivery.” According to latest published adjusted attrition rates, the growth in attrition rates between 2009 and 2014 for Swinburne University (80.7%), Federation University (66.4%) and the University of Tasmania (106.4%) is at least three times the rate of growth for all universities (21.8%). This accounts for the widening of the gap between attrition rates for all universities and all universities excluding these three shown in Figure 1. The HESP report notes that the rapid increase in attrition rates experienced by Swinburne and the University of Tasmania are associated with rapid increases in external or distance education enrolments.
Other universities with traditionally high numbers of external students (UNE and Charles Sturt, for example) however, did not experience these sorts of increases in attrition. Likewise, while Federation University enrols disproportionately high numbers of low SES students and mature aged students, it is not unique in that regard. The sudden increase in external online enrolments at the University of Tasmania is associated with a deliberate strategy to give more Tasmanians (who have low participation rates) access to higher education. The rapid increase enrolments at Swinburne on the other hand, are essentially the result of a public-private partnership known as Swinburne Online. While Swinburne Online, formerly known as Online Education Services (OES) may be considered to be innovative and have been a financial success, the data would indicate it is not delivering for students. While it may have been a pioneer, Swinburne Online is not the only public-private partnership with some universities now contracting-out core university services to private providers. A number of universities now use Studiosity (formerly YourTutor) to offer academic support services to students. NTEU has always argued that simply increasing places is not good enough. Every student a university enrols must be given the opportunity, resources and support to succeed. Therefore it is essential when assessing the demand driven system and any innovations it may have encouraged, that these be assessed not only in terms of increased enrolments.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 25
Students
Case to answer for in the use & abuse of student evaluation surveys Almost six-out-of-ten of 2,500 respondents to a recent NTEU survey of members reported a response rate on student evaluation surveys of 30 per cent or less. Almost nine-in-ten believed that surveys are used to appraise and manage staff performance. But well under one-in-five reported that they thought that the evaluations gave an accurate measure of their performance. Six-in-ten survey respondents felt that SETS (Student Evaluation of Teaching and Subjects) could be used to inform and improve teaching or the delivery of subjects of units, but only four-in-ten agreed that they were used for this purpose. These responses to a NTEU survey sent to members will not surprise anyone, and we can readily be accused of bias and unscientific methods. However, upfront, we are not claiming that these results are anything more than they are. The facts are that NTEU members employed to teach at least one higher education unit were invited to participate in the survey which opened on 17 April and closed 4 May 2018. There were 3,065 responses of which around 2,500 contained enough information to be analysed.
Two thousand five hundred responses from a link sent to just over 16,000 is a low response rate, even lower than the 30% reported of SETS responses. However, our findings are not going to be used to appraise and manage anyone’s performance and maybe jeopardise their future employment.
in-ten cases was the complaint followed up. Very little effort seems to have been made to identify or discipline students. A common response to a formal complaint was to offer the staff member support or counselling, or modifying the reports by the removal or redaction of offensive or abusive comments.
Abusive comments
Like the student evaluations, the more compelling narrative comes through in the written comments by our survey respondents. The comments reinforce the critical view already held by the NTEU, and is reflected in the union’s policy position re-affirmed at annual National Council meetings of elected delegates.
Nor did the NTEU responses include disrespectful or abusive comments. Unfortunately, six out of ten respondents to the NTEU survey said that some students had used SETS to make disrespectful and abusive comments. Based on open ended responses, by far the most common category of these comments related to an individual’s competency to teach a subject. Other common themes were comments about gender, cultural background and spoken English, age (too old and too young), personality/attitude, favouritism and political views. Again this was not a lot to work with and those with something to report may have been more likely to respond – just like the students with an axe to grind.
Why survey the surveys? So why did we do the survey? Just to reinforce our existing opinions and prejudices? To support the policy positions? Well yes, in part. The main reason, though, was to support NTEU branches who are trying to raise these matters, in response to staff concerns about local staff surveys.
Management response
Seven-in-ten respondents who reported on comments also recorded feeling more distressed, angered, fearful, self-conscious or embarrassed after reading the comments. A few also reported experiencing real physical symptoms including loss of sleep or appetite or loss of motivation.
We understand that they have had little traction. Just telling students that you should be abiding by the student code of conduct and not be abusive just gets management off the hook. It is an inadequate response to the raft of professional and personal concerns.
However, only about a quarter of respondents, who were the subject of disrespectful or abusive comments, made an official complaint. And in only one-
If the findings of a national survey back up local experiences, and this is publicised, it adds to the discussions going on in many places.
page 26 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Students
There appears to be little management response to the questioning of the legitimacy of making decisions on staff performance, promotion and continued employment on the basis of surveys with an under 30 per cent response rate. Staff are just told to encourage students to fill out the surveys to increase their validity. It doesn’t work. In some places management disputes that student evaluations matter that much. It is only one of the metrics used in performance assessment; staff are assured. But this is contradicted by reported experiences of staff, including being sent off to re-education camp if their teaching evaluation scores fall below a certain level. Those applying for jobs cite their student evaluation surveys results, and casuals registering for work are asked for them. It is disturbing that one in five respondents either ‘frequently’ or ‘always’ considered amending assessment grades or feedback so that students rate their teaching more favourably. This response was higher amongst staff on fixed term contracts compared to the average. If some staff are giving students more favourable grades in the belief that would improve students’ evaluations of their teaching, then the student evaluations have the potential to significantly undermine academic integrity.
What do students know? And there remains the big elephant in the corner. How do students know if their lecturer is doing a good job of teaching or writing a good unit?
Taking the second point first; teaching staff are vulnerable because the chance of having actually written the course and having any say in revisions of content, assessment, delivery and pedagogy is increasingly remote with more than half of teaching being done by casually employed staff. (There are academics employed casually to write and teach and maybe even revise units; and that is another issue.) Later year teacher education students could do a meaningful evaluation of teaching performance, but can any first year students? If there are problematic issues during the teaching session, surely we need other ways to report, rather than wait until after the end of the session. Even as customer satisfaction measures, these do not work. Clearly they fail because students do not take them seriously, and do not have expectations that their feedback will have any impact.
“We have to do them” So why are universities doing these surveys? Interestingly, at one university, staff questioning the surveys were told that universities have to do these to get their government grants. Not so. Certainly universities must have measures of quality assurance. But these now ubiquitous SETS are predominantly standardised compulsory online exercises undertaken every time a unit is offered, over which teaching staff have little input or control in terms of content or timing. Nor do staff have a right of reply.
Given these results, there is little wonder that just over one in ten respondents were satisfied with the SETS at their institution. Not only are the value of these evaluations all but meaningless in terms of appraising or managing staff performance, they also potentially raise workplace health and safety issues, as well as maybe even cases of unlawful discrimination. In a recent article in Inside Higher Education (www.insidehighered.com, 22 May 2018), Colleen Flaherty reported on recent decisions by some US universities to abandon standardised online one size fits all evaluations, not only because they do not the job they are supposed to, but also because of concern about “mounting evidence of bias in student evaluations of teaching against female and minority instructors in particular.” Flaherty reports other methods are being trialled, and methods previously abandoned for being time consuming are being reconsidered. NTEU recommends that universities abandon these surveys. Jeannie Rea, National President Look out for the report on the survey: Staff experience of student evaluation of teaching and Subjects/units at www.nteu.org.au The NTEU Policy and Research Unit welcomes feedback and more information on experiences at different institutions and campaigns: policy@nteu.org.au
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 27
What’s wrong with Western Civilisation anyway?
Photo: The Decadence of the Romans, Thomas Couture, 1847. Source: Musée d’Orsay
The story of the VC, the donor, academic integrity and the Union Last December, the Australian National University (ANU) announced that it was negotiating with the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation to host a new teaching program in Western Civilisation. In an online announcement, ANU Vice-Chancellor, Professor Brian Schmidt AC said “…The gift of Paul Ramsay is the most substantial gift in Australian history to support the study of humanities. The generous scholarship program will give a diverse group of high-potential students the opportunity to access one of the best educational experiences in the country…”
Many NTEU members saw the scholarship partnership as an exciting opportunity to highlight the depth and breadth of the humanities and social sciences at ANU. However, concerns were soon raised by some students regarding the apparent narrow focus of the degree. Privately, some academics expressed concern about the level of influence the Ramsay Centre was seeking to have in the setting of the curriculum, the selection of staff and the composition of the student cohort.
Quadrant article These concerns solidified following the publication of an article in the April 2018 issue of Quadrant magazine. The article, by Ramsay Centre board member Tony Abbott MP and Ramsay Centre CEO Professor Simon Haines, suggested that the Ramsay Centre would pursue a narrow, radically conservative program and seek to influence staffing decisions. This article prompted the ANU NTEU Branch Committee to write to ANU VC Brian Schmidt. On Monday 21 May 2018, a letter was sent to convey “grave concerns” about the proposal.
Rachael Bahl ACT Division Secretary M@NTEUACT
Matthew King ANU Branch President
page 28 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
The Quadrant article also suggested that the Ramsay Centre would promulgate the alleged superiority of Western culture and civilisation. The ANU Branch Committee was concerned that “… any association,
real or perceived, with this divisive cultural and political agenda could potentially damage the intellectual reputation of the humanities at ANU and the ANU more broadly…” The NTEU Branch committee’s letter then went to the core of the matter. In the Quadrant article, Mr Abbott implied that the Ramsay Centre CEO and academic director would wield considerable influence over staffing and curriculum decisions. They wrote, “If this is true we are very concerned that this would violate the core principles of academic freedom, integrity and independence, and reflects an ignorance of, or disregard for, the role of Academic Board as final arbiter of academic standards…” The letter called on the Vice-Chancellor to address these concerns by making a clear statement of the University’s position on the following core issues: • The University’s commitment to academic freedom, integrity, autonomy and independence. • The University’s commitment to the role of Academic Board as the ultimate arbiter of academic standards; • The University’s position concerning the involvement of donors in processes concerning the recruitment, selection and appointment of academic and professional staff. Following the letter on 21 May, which was released to Branch members via the Branch website, the story was first picked up by a number of online news providers and then The Australian, which devoted considerable space to the issue. A range of other media coverage followed. The matter was even raised in the Federal House of Representatives on Thursday 24 May with the LNP Member for Flynn, Ken O’Dowd asking “Is the minister aware of reports that the National Tertiary Education Union is seeking to restrict the study of our history and that of Western civilisation? How is this consistent with principles of the academic freedom at our universities?” Most of these articles, and the question in Parliament, seemed to miss the point raised in the original NTEU Branch letter that this issue was about “… the core principles of academic freedom, integrity and independence, and … the role of Academic Board as final arbiter of academic standards…”
Responses from ANU On Friday 25 May, the ANU Council considered the issue at its regularly scheduled meeting. Later that day, the VC acknowledged the press coverage in his weekly report to staff. The VC outlined the core principles that inform the University’s approaches to partnerships and funding opportunities
including “retaining, without compromise, our academic integrity, autonomy and freedom, and ensuring that any program has academic merit consistent with our status as one of the world’s great universities.” Following a further week of press coverage, on Friday 1 June, again in his weekly report to staff, the VC announced that ANU had decided “… to withdraw from contention for the program…” Professor Schmidt indicated that “…the autonomy with which this university needs to approve and endorse a new program of study is not compatible with a sponsored program of the type sought…”
A welcome announcement The NTEU ANU Branch Committee welcomed the announcement. The Branch President issued a statement to the media, which said: In view of the Centre’s insistence that they have unprecedented interference in curriculum and staffing decisions, ANU has today stood up for the academic principles which make it one of the world’s great universities. This has always been about academic integrity, academic processes and university autonomy in a democratic society. This decision makes clear that no matter the financial or political pressure powerful interests bring to bear, public universities are not and ought not to be for sale.
Union to “blame” In an article in The Australian on 2 June, former Prime Minister John Howard was quoted as saying, “The facts speak for themselves … Negotiations had gone very well indeed and then the academics’ union became involved…” The Minister for Education, Senator Simon Birmingham, indicated that he was “disappointed” in the decision in response to a question in Senate Estimates that week. He went on to say that he hoped universities … manage to stare down the fear and negativity that the likes of the NTU [sic] or various student unions engage in from time to time and recognise that academic freedom and free academic inquiry should extend across all disciplines and not be constrained by union officials or branches within different academic institutions who seek to shut down such inquiry or work purely because they don’t like a board member on an institution or one or two things that board member might have said… Professor Schmidt defended the University’s decision on ABC TV’s 7.30 on Thursday 7 June saying the Ramsay Centre sought “unprecedented” influence in academic decision making.
‘gutless’ and ‘insane’. ANU was accused of double standards and criticised for taking donations from other philanthropists with Middle Eastern links. Critics also pointed to other universities who run Confucius Institutes with funding from China. Other headlines spoke of “a holy war”, “culture wars”, “missed opportunities” and said that “Ramsay Centre should take its money and seek truth elsewhere”. The NTEU ANU Branch Committee opted not to respond to comments that were clearly inflammatory and incorrect in their characterisation of the Union’s position. The Union’s comments have always focused on academic integrity, academic freedom and independence.
What’s wrong with teaching Western Civilisation? There is absolutely nothing wrong with universities teaching courses in Western Civilisation. ANU already teaches dozens of courses about Western Civilisation and the ‘great books’. This is one of the reasons why the Ramsay Centre chose to open negotiations with ANU first. The issue was with the Ramsay Centre seeking to interfere in academic autonomy.
What about accepting funds from philanthropists? Universities welcome philanthropic contributions, especially in a time of diminishing government investment. However, as Margaret Sheil, former CEO of the Australian Research Council wrote in an article in The Australian on June 6: In my experience, most prospective funders understand that the appropriate forum for debate on curriculum is within the academic boards, not the popular press or the corporate boardroom.
Where to from here? ANU has not ruled out working with the Ramsay Centre in the future should a revised proposal be put to it. The University of Sydney VC, Dr Michael Spence, has confirmed that the University is in conversations with the Ramsay Centre. The proposal has already attracted strong criticism with University of Sydney academics signing an open letter condemning the degree as “European supremacism”. At the time of writing the NTEU Branch at the University of Sydney had sent a letter to Dr Spence seeking answers to questions about processes, transparency and upholding academic autonomy. The NTEU will always advocate and defend academic freedom, integrity and independence.
ANU has been criticised in some media with the decision being described as
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 29
Governance
University integrity undermined by declining public investment While the argument rages around the conditions attached to the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation’s ‘gift’ on offer to selected Australian universities, other critical issues have been largely sidelined. Ramsay Centre’s attempt to insert themselves, as some sort of Trojan horse (their paranoia not mine) into our public universities should be casting a spotlight on: • Decision-making in universities; • Policies and practices governing university processes in accepting external gifts or donations; and • Decreasing government funding which has sent universities off, begging bowl in hand, to external sources.
Funding crisis The focus should be upon why comparatively wealthy universities like the ANU and University of Sydney are even looking for donations to bolster humanities courses. Both Professor Schmidt and Dr Spence pointed to the Ramsay Centre’s financial offer as substantial and helpful. It is a lot of money, but not that much for the mighty ANU and University of Sydney.
Their eagerness to try and find a way to accommodate the Ramsay millions, points more to the impact upon the humanities of declining public investment in higher education, than to seriously accepting any merit in the substance of the Ramsay proponents’ argument that there is a gap in teaching about ‘western civilisation’. Years of inadequate government funding for teaching along with local decisions to squeeze faculty budgets (not just in the humanities) have resulted in staff, subject and course cuts and increased casualisation and Taylorisation of academic work. When looked at from this perspective, the Ramsay Centre offer can be cast into an even more cynical light. These universities do not need the Ramsay Centre money, but they could certainly use it to support their humanities offerings and staffing. However, the bottom line is that the Ramsay Centre offer is not to generously plug a gap in public funding; it is to pay for a niche to push their ideological barrow. Of particular concern is that they want to establish ‘their’ course in opposition to the current courses and the people who teach them. This is not a picture of energetic intellectual debate amongst academics and students arguing their perspectives, which is the lifeblood of a healthy university. The Ramsay Centre proponents have firmly positioned themselves, their course, academics and student cohort in intractable opposition to current courses. If major universities are prepared to even enter protracted negotiations over the private funding of a course of study, suggests that the funding decline has tipped into crisis.
page 30 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
University autonomy and accountability But ANU rejected the Ramsay Centre gift. Vice-Chancellor Professor Schmidt and Chancellor Gareth Evans explained “We took our decision for no other reason than the Centre’s continued demands for control over the program were inconsistent with the university’s academic autonomy.” University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Dr Spence is adamant that the Ramsay course proposal would have to fulfil the university usual processes of rigorous scrutiny – and he maintains that they will not entertain special treatment of this ‘donor’. In response to the NTEU Branch on 29 June he said that, “We are talking to the Ramsay Centre about what our terms of engagement with them might be. This includes non-negotiable matters such as academic freedom and autonomy. If we are unable to reach agreement on these matters, we will not proceed with further negotiations.” The NTEU concerns at both ANU and Sydney have focused upon inadequacies in the processes of decision making in our universities. “What is going on?” ask the staff, the students and the broader community. Who makes the decision? How and on what criteria? Who has input? Why have you not told us, nor sought our involvement? The Ramsay gift is unusual because it is to fund a course of study – not just provide scholarships or endow a chair which are more usual. Both Vice-Chancellors were quick to explain that the proposal would have to go through the usual course approvals processes of development
Governance
and approval. However, before this was revealed, staff were concerned that the usual processes may be waived in the enthusiasm to get access to the money. (At the time of writing, Sydney is still in negotiations.)
rations and industry partnerships. They also have policies about the conditions for accepting gifts and donations. But the university community rarely knows what is being discussed and even contemplated – or why?
Commercial in confidence
Tabling a report at the academic board or the university council once the deal has been made is not good enough. There must be greater transparency. But there must also be more than information. There should be more than consultation. Consultation is little more than sharing some information and answering questions for clarification, and then the door is closed for negotiations to continue.
So much of what is done in our universities is now hidden from scrutiny, even from within the university community. Staff, student and community representatives on university councils/senates are told that there is little they can say about the council discussion or decisions. Anything to do with money is determined ‘commercial in confidence’, and that confidentiality is extended to even knowing that the university is considering partnerships and collaborations with external bodies. No wonder there are suspicions that something could be amiss. The university community should be able to participate in decision making. Gifts and donations are even more secretive. University communities often only find out when the media event is held with the big cheque handover pictures. Raising objections at that stage look parsimonious. For example, even suggesting that a multimillionaire funding a scheme to support disadvantaged students could have instead paid their taxes and thus contributed to funding public higher education, does not go down well. Pointing out that university decisions to, for example, sign onto collaborations with lethal weapons manufacturers, contradict their values and mission statement, is very unpopular. Protestors are dismissed as being unrealistic – after all, don’t universities need to get the money from somewhere?
Demise of governance, transparency & accountability Universities have detailed policies and processes governing research collabo-
It is about time we demanded more democracy in our universities. Staff should be included in decision making, as well as students and community. Instead, university governance has been taken over by corporatised management. This is starkly illustrated in the demise of academic boards as sites of debate on university policy and direction, into a place for tabling management reports. Even the critical area of course approvals is increasingly being professionally managed, rather than facilitating rigorous peer interrogation amongst academics. Universities are distinguished by being self-accrediting. The responsibility of academics is to make the judgement calls on what knowledge and skills are required to grant a degree.
NTEU proposes code of practice on university external partnerships The recent NTEU National Executive meeting committed to developing a draft code of practice for university partnerships with external bodies that is based around the principles of academic autonomy, freedom and integrity; anti-discrimination, honesty and respect; transparency and disclosure; and accountability to the university and wider community.
For this purpose, university partnerships include not just those for research and consultancy, but also for sponsored teaching and student experience, scholarships, internships, public/private partnerships, commercial activities, commercialisation of research and even internal industry consultation or advisory bodies. In the first instance, NTEU Branches should seek undertakings from university management to: • Develop a register of all external partnerships. • Require reporting to academic board/ senate of any partnerships under negotiation. • Propose specific new policies that are inclusive of all types of partnerships and that encompass the principles of the proposed code of practice. Universities have always accepted gifts and donations, and have encouraged research and other collaborations with external bodies. Indeed Australian business and industry has often been criticised for not investing in more collaboration. However these arrangements must not be at the cost of academic autonomy, integrity, independence and responsibility to all stakeholders. The continuing trend of declining public investment in public universities, in Australia and elsewhere, puts enormous pressure upon universities to cut corners and accept terms that may be incompatible with the university’s own values and mission statement. For this reason alone, negotiations with external bodies must come out of the shadows and be done transparently, inclusively and democratically. Jeannie Rea, National President
Above: Great Court at the University of Queensland. Source: Wikipedia
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 31
Governance Workshop
Accountability on Councils & Boards In late May 2018, 34 NTEU Academic and General/ Professional delegates who are elected representatives on Academic Boards or University Councils attended a three day NTEU workshop to address issues affecting their role on University Boards. Australian universities are established under individual Acts of Parliament, which specify the governance structures and underlying operational processes for the university governing body. The NTEU maintains that staff and students are key stakeholders and bring extensive expertise to their role on university governing bodies. Their participation is critical to the ability of universities to work in the public interest and defend principles such as academic freedom. The Workshop began with a public forum on the evening of 23 May 2018. Emeritus Professor Tony Coady (University of Melbourne), Adjunct Professor Rick Sarre (University of South Australia), and Jeannie Rea, (NTEU National President) discussed the state of university governance and how staff can best represent their University on these bodies. This panel was chaired by Dr Colin Long (NTEU Victorian Division Secretary). This was followed with two days that focused on assisting workshop participants to problematise the issues they face as representatives on these governing bodies. A panel of three speakers set the scene. Emeritus Professor Jim Jackson (Southern Cross University), outlined the relationship between Academic Boards and University Councils and the proper boundaries between them. Dr Julie Rowlands (Deakin University) discussed
academic governance and the kinds of challenges that Academic Boards face. Emeritus Professor Jamie Doughney (Victoria University) focused on University Councils and the role of Union staff representatives, paying particular attention on ethics and conflict of interest. These issues were then teased out in three hypothetical scenarios, of which delegates selected two to participate. Each scenario focused on an aspect of being on a governing body. Scenario A, dealt with a proposal from a Vice-Chancellor’s Change Committee to amalgamate the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Education and participants considered the merit and possible interventions to this proposal. In Scenario B, participants developed a plan to address the potentially discriminatory character of the Student Evaluation Surveys. In scenario C, participants critiqued the merits of a proposal by the Chancellor for a private arm of the university to teach banking ethics. On the final day participants reviewed the panel scenarios of day two and then took identified key points and unresolved issues and questions to the Plenary, with Professor Bernadine Van Gramberg (PVC Research, Swinburne University). The workshop concluded with discussion on how the NTEU can continue to assist staff representatives in their role on governing bodies. Two key outcomes were that: participants developed a community of practice facilitated via a blog where they can air issues as they arise and get feedback; and the recommendation that the NTEU repeat this workshop biannually and in the meantime run specific training focused on knowledge and skills development. Helena Spyrou, Union Education Officer
page 32 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Testimonials “One of the best run and most worthwhile professional learning days I have engaged in. The scenarios were scarily real, and the facilitators together with expert advisers struck an effective balance between advice and scaffolding debate and discussion from participants.” UTAS Delegate “The best training I have had from NTEU! … We really got value out of learning from each other, and reporting back to the larger group. Also, developing a network/community of practice for ongoing assistance is great.” UQ Delegate “A wonderful example of the high quality of NTEU training and I will be keen to undertake further training opportunities of relevance to university governance and other topics on tertiary education.” Deakin Delegate “[Gave me] a clearer perspective on how to approach participation strategically and constructively.” JCU Delegate “The hypothetical scenarios were dynamic and engaging … pushed my thinking further than I expected.” La Trobe Delegate “Scenarios were excellent, they demonstrated how complex such issues are and the level of support the NTEU needs to provide members on these bodies.” FUA Delegate “Content was very interesting and relevant to my role so very helpful. It has improved my confidence and made me feel more empowered. Networking with colleagues and hearing of others’ experiences was also very useful.” ANU Delegate “[Scenarios] were a fabulous opportunity to work through the legal/conflicting zones that arise with these positions. Excellent!” Newcastle Delegate
Conference
Future of the Sector On 10–11 September 2018, NTEU is holding the Future of the Sector Conference, a public conference on the future of the higher education sector. The conference (and accompanying roadshow events) is an intervention to make space for the experiences and voices of people working in the sector, amongst current raging debates about the future of universities and post-secondary education.
Questions Will we be replaced by AI? Do we need to teach degrees anymore? Won’t people just grab online whatever bit of ‘education’ they need for their next ‘gig’? Ninety per cent of jobs in the near future will require post-secondary qualifications says one lot of research, while other data suggests new graduates are finding it hard to get jobs.
What is a fair funding model for regional universities? Where does vocational and further education fit in a post-secondary sector? Many university academic and professional staff write scholarly and popular articles and speak in and outside universities on the future of the sector, but rarely, even amongst union members, do they reflect upon the experiences of or implications for those working in the sector.
Action The Future of the Sector Conference (and Roadshow) is about action. We know the problems in post-secondary education, and with work in the sector. The aim is to envision how the sector and our work should be, and discuss how to get there.
Topics Discussion topics include: • Higher education policy in the 21st century post-secondary landscape. • Democratising the university.
Can universities do what is expected of them if two-thirds of university staff are already employed insecurely? What is happening to the role and expectations of universities or of public intellectuals?
• T eaching today’s students for tomorrow’s world.
What happened to democratic accountability and responsibility? Has corporatisation gone too far, or is it just getting started? Are students customers? If so, how do we keep them satisfied? Are student evaluation of teaching surveys gender discriminatory? Is it fair that fee paying international students subsidise domestic students as government investment in higher education remains amongst the lowest in the OECD, while our students pay amongst the highest fees in public universities? Who should be paying?
• T he future of higher education work and workers.
• C reating and disseminating new knowledge.
• Funding high quality high education for all. In addressing the topics, speakers are being asked to consider the themes of diversity, inclusion and intersections; internationalisation and globalisation; technological change; the public role (and expectations) of universities; responsibilities to and from students; and community participation (e.g. of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander elders).
International speakers Our experiences in Australia are similar and different to what is happening internationally. Confirmed international participants include Dr Lai Suat Yan, Director of the Gender Program, University of Malaya and an active trade unionist, who will be talking about the impact of the recent change of government in Malaysia on academic freedom, trade unions and democracy. Dr David Robinson, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, will address the impacts of the corporatisation, privatisation and commercialisation in Canadian universities. Dr Sandra Grey, President of the NZ Tertiary Education Union will address funding of higher education with a change of government. And John Ross, Times Higher Education Asia-Pacific editor will point to key issues throughout our region.
Roadshows The conference is the culmination of Future of the Sector roadshow events being organised by Divisions and Branches. Visit the website for local up-to-date information.
Attending the conference All Branches will have a fully funded delegate and the conference is free for NTEU members. You just have to get to Melbourne, and you must register. If you are interested speak with your Branch. The conference is also open to the public with a $200 registration fee to cover costs ($100 for those on low income). Amelia Sully, Industrial Organiser and Jeannie Rea, National President For the details of Roadshow events near you and to register for the Conference, visit the Future of the Sector website: www.nteu.org.au/futureofthesector
A public conference on the future of the higher education sector
www.nteu.org.au/futureofthesector NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 33
Flight of the Humanities
Photo: Greek vase, painted by Douris, 500BCE.
Not long ago, the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum published a short book entitled: Not for Profit. Why Democracy needs the Humanities (Princeton NJ, 2010). Nussbaum identifies a crisis facing the humanities, in the United States as well as internationally, with higher education coming under increasing pressures from commodification and corporatisation. In the US, there is now an administration that is in the process of abolishing that country’s National Endowment for the Humanities, apparently in the pursuit of right-wing culture wars and faux populism.
Nussbaum makes a strong defence of the humanities as essential for the creation of a population of competent democratic citizens. Nussbaum argues that a “humane, people-sensitive democracy dedicated to promoting opportunities for ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’; to each and every person” [not just a tiny elite] will need the following characteristics that a good humanities education can foster (not an exclusive list): • The ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority. • The ability to recognise fellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different [in several respects]. • The ability to have concern for the lives of others […]
Andrew Bonnell, University of Queensland NTEU Vice-President (Academic)
page 34 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
• The ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them. (Nussbaum, Not for Profit, pp.25-26).
A recent University of Queensland Student Strategy White Paper makes a point of citing Nussbaum: The primary function of universities has long been to develop knowledgeable, critical thinkers and empathetic citizens. Only to thrust her rudely aside: However, in recent times, the remit of universities has expanded beyond its traditional priorities with many turning their focus to improving and strengthening the employability of their students. While the career benefits of a higher education are many, there is no doubt that factors such as rising education costs, future job displacement, the globalisation of the labour force, and ongoing disruption present a confronting question: what can a higher education offer that will ensure it remains a good value proposition worth the commitment and cost?
Students seen as labour-market participants The philosophical grounding of the UQ vision behind the student strategy is worth considering. In place of informed, critical and empathetic citizens of a democracy, the focus is on students as labour-market participants first and foremost. In UQ’s “student strategy” documents, students are constructed as consumers and “customers”. Not only are they “digitally-minded learners”, they are also defined as inherently “entrepreneurial”, apparently a generational characteristic acquired through learned expectations of a highly precarious and unstable labour market regime. UQ’s new automated student inquiry system, that may soon displace some of the friendly professional staff behind enquiry counters, is named a Customer Service system. A discussion paper promulgated within the HASS Faculty envisages that Arts and Social Sciences courses will increasingly focus on “Work-Integrated Learning”, which will prepare students for careers as successful leaders of entrepreneurial start-up companies.
Yet another review by accountants To this end, the Faculty and its BA Program face a potentially bruising round of course cuts and “rationalisations”. Back in 2005-06, a “BA review” slashed courses and majors (reducing the Gender Studies major to a minor, and cutting several other majors altogether). Other universities have also experienced swingeing cuts to their humanities offerings. Newcastle University is one recent example, cutting philosophy and ancient history majors last year, in the name of “closer engagement with industry”.
But there is worse to come. Reportedly, UQ has engaged PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to conduct a review of all courses and programs in the second half of this year. This represents an extraordinary abrogation of intellectual leadership by a major university. PWC are essentially accountants. It is by no means clear that they will have the capacity to assess which courses or programs will endow students with a richer, more profound understanding of the world’s cultural heritage; which courses are intellectually rigorous and help to develop higher reasoning faculties; or which courses students will look back on in ten years’ time and consider to have enriched their lives in a non-monetary sense. The large consultancy firms, like vultures catching the scent of decay on the wind, are circling our universities, looking for lucrative opportunities. UNSW recently had the full PWC treatment, which reportedly cost that institution over $25 million. The references to the economic environment in UQ’s student strategy reflect on one level a realistic assessment of the current state of globalising capitalism – labour is becoming increasingly precarious. The proportion of jobs out there that are not chronically insecure or profoundly alienating for the workers is limited. UQ is therefore promising to sell tickets to the more comfortable, more prestigious positions in this economic landscape – teaching students to be buyers of labour power, rather than its sellers. UQ students are in effect, buying tickets for the business class seats on the ‘plane. A braver, more imaginative, and less thoroughly corporatised institution might have the ambition of equipping students to think differently, to imagine a different kind of society, and to use tools of critical thinking to start working towards alternatives.
The responsibilities of universities Of course, it is a truism that only a privileged minority of university students have never had to worry about their employment after graduation (except for the relatively golden years of full employment in the mid-1960s, perhaps). The German social theorist Jürgen Habermas, writing at the time of the beginning of the German student movement just over 50 years ago, in a lecture entitled “The University in a Democracy – Democratisation of the University” (1967), acknowledged that universities had to “transmit technically exploitable knowledge”. But he also argued that universities had responsibilities beyond this – to ensure that students acquired qualifications of
what he called “extra-functional abilities”, the capacity for higher-order thinking and judgement. Secondly, universities had the responsibility “to transmit, interpret and develop the cultural tradition of the society”. Thirdly, universities had a role in developing the political consciousness of students. (Not of course, by telling them what to think, but training them how to think and by giving them space to develop their political selves.) In a subsequent book, Legitimation Crisis (1973; English edition 1975), Habermas borrowed from systems theory to argue that society’s sub-systems functioned best when allowed to evolve according to their own innate logics, and that dysfunction would result from one subs-system, e.g. the market, colonising others. Today, we are seeing university managements embracing the colonisation of higher education systems by the market. But I am confident that humanities will survive – as a result of my conversations with students, both in universities and schools, and seeing their eagerness to engage with subjects like history. But increasingly, we will be cultivating the humanities in the interstices and at the margins of corporatised universities, in the cracks behind the shiny façades of corporate branding. Intellectual rigour and deep immersion in cultural life will become acts of passive resistance. There is no small irony in the fact that politicians who simultaneously espouse conservative values and neoliberal economic policies are wont to bemoan the state of the humanities in universities. If students today have too little time to read because they have to work at least 2–3 days a week (as most now do), it is precisely because a generation of neoliberal policies have made higher education increasingly expensive, and the idea of a ‘time-out’ from the labour market, with adequate state financial support making genuine full-time study a feasible option, has become a luxury in a way it was not in the 1970s and 1980s. University managements have followed the line of least resistance into vocationalisation and marketisation of higher education (and have been well remunerated for it). It is genuinely impressive that, despite all the pressures they experience, we still have some students who sense that there should be more to university than what managers and politicians are selling to them. Andrew Bonnell is an Associate Professor in the School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry at the University of Queensland.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 35
Academic freedom
Ridd sacking a blow to academic freedom The case of Professor Peter Ridd, who had his employment terminated by James Cook University (JCU) management after more than 25 years, is a sorry indictment of the modern corporate university. Ridd’s case throws into stark relief issues of academic freedom, industrial rights, following management instructions, confidentiality and the Code of Conduct.
the finding of the internal misconduct investigation, which issued him with a censure, and by refusing to keep quiet about the process or the censure. Ridd was ‘insubordinate’.
An opposing view
The Union and academic freedom
The interaction of these issues is less than clear cut in a complex issue like the sacking of an academic who promotes views of climate science and the impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef that are at odds with the majority of his colleagues, and most of the published evidence. JCU management claim that Professor Ridd was not sacked because of his opinions on climate change or reef science. Management say rather that he breached the staff Code of Conduct by making disparaging claims about the research of others, including those at the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies (both entities related to JCU). They said that those comments were made inappropriately and disrespectfully. They said his comments denigrated his colleagues. Ridd then breached the Code of Conduct by refusing to accept
Insubordination is a term better suited to a military setting than a University. Indeed the intellectual freedom clause in the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement expressly allows insubordination: JCU acknowledges the rights of staff to express disagreement with University decisions and the processes used to make those decisions. Professor Ridd had the right to express his opinion that the misconduct process and censure were inappropriate and wrong. University management’s claims that Ridd was required to keep the matter confidential, even though he disagreed with the findings, are bordering on Orwellian (a term which, when they found it during their investigation in an email sent to a journalist, management said was denigrating of the institution).
NTEU has a track record in defending members from attacks on their academic freedom in the past two decades: from Ted Steele at Wollongong University to Andrew Fraser at Macquarie University, Judith Bessant at RMIT to Roz Ward at La Trobe. As General Secretary Grahame McCulloch observed on 9 June in The Australian in an article by Janet Albrechtsen: The interesting point is that the intellectual perspectives of the academics involved have ranged from the right conservative to radical left poles … this underlines that NTEU has adopted a principled defence of academic freedom – a necessary condition for a viable university – even at the cost of internal and external criticism. NTEU Policy on Intellectual and Academic freedom states that “Academic freedom is
page 36 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
an essential and defining characteristic of the modern university”. Academic freedom is, according to NTEU policy, about: ...the rights of members of a university community, without administrative constraints or fear of retribution, to freely: • Discuss, teach, assess, develop curricula, and engage in community service. • Research and publish. • P ublish and speak in public debate constrained by a responsibility to reflect scholarly standards. • E xpress opinions about the institutions in which they work or are enrolled, and • P articipate in decision-making structures and processes within the institution. This seems fairly comprehensive, but there are grey areas. What constitutes “scholarly standards”? When expressing opinions about one’s institution, do those same scholarly standards apply? Many definitions of Academic freedom include the proviso that the freedom only extends to “issues and ideas related to their discipline area or area of professional expertise”. Where does a psychology academic’s discipline area end? What about a scientist’s area of professional expertise?
The right to publish The JCU Research Portfolio states that Professor Ridd “is a geophysicist with the following interests: coastal oceanography, the effects of sediments on coral reefs, instrument development, geophysical sensing of the earth, past and future climates, atmospheric modelling.” Staff members have a right to publish materials related to their discipline area or area of professional expertise, broadly defined. They have a right to publish their work in the publications that they feel best reflect and promote their work. Members
Academic freedom
of the academic community may wish to challenge the hypothesis / methodology / findings of those materials and/or the value and reliability of the publications they are in, as they would any other academic literature. That is the NTEU view on the academic freedom aspects of the case. The subject of science is best left to scientists, who can research, publish and speak in public debate on science and its methodology and philosophy, in a manner that reflects scholarly standards. It is not for a university management to determine that such scholarly debate either denigrates or offends others. And to be clear, colleagues of Ridd that I approached or that were approached by the media, did not want the University to ‘defend’ them against Professor Ridd’s claims about their science. They were more than happy to defend themselves. Regardless, Ridd has now had his employment terminated by JCU management. He is still fighting the matter, and has sourced $260,000 through his gofundme page (now closed due to the funding target being reached). It is ironic in the extreme that JCU management appear to have been trying to protect the reputation of the University and bodies like the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Given the nature of the (entirely predictable) extensive media coverage, all management have done is
to feed a right-wing media narrative that universities are conformist and actively suppress heterodox views on topics such as climate change.
modern, corporate university. Institutional reputation means everything and people mean nothing. Insubordination is punished.
Academic freedom in the age of corporatisation
In this environment, the NTEU is obliged to reassert its commitment to academic freedom, even or especially where its expression contains statements that may be at odds with many or most members’ views. Without the maintenance of the core value of academic freedom, our universities would cease to be worthy of the name.
A university, even a relatively young one such as JCU, should have the courage of its convictions and commitment to its mission so as to allow its staff to engage in robust scientific, political and academic debates, regardless of any perceived reputational damage that critical positions might generate. The simple fact of the matter is that defence of the core value of genuine academic freedom is not well served by the corporate, top-down, anti-collegial and managerialist structure and culture in today’s universities, and is incompatible with managerial preoccupations with ‘brand’ and ‘image’. Many members will have experienced the oppressive nature of top-down management at their institutions, management which brooks no criticism, opposition or dissent. Our members repeatedly report that managers pervert the intent of the Nike advertisement, telling them to “just do it”. Research metrics, meaningless teaching evaluations, restructures with no purpose other than to generate fear and unwillingness to express dissent are common in the
Some members have reacted to our defence of Professor Ridd’s industrial and academic rights. One of our less loquacious members responded to our email titled “Reinstate Peter Ridd” with a one word email: “No”. Others have condemned how, where and with whom Ridd promoted his controversial views, while maintaining that he had a right to do so. Many members have not commented on Ridd at all, but expressed gratitude that their Union, and by extension themselves as NTEU members, are the ones left fighting for academic freedom in Australian universities. Michael McNally, Queensland Division Secretary
Above: Three wise monkeys, Tōshō-gū Shrine, Nikkō, Japan. Source: Wikipedia
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 37
Liberals & IPA lock step in selling off the ABC Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson are Research Fellows with the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and their book, Against Public Broadcasting: why we should privatise the ABC and how to do it, was launched in May.
The IPA is a conservative think-tank, founded by big business in the early 1940s, to counter the rise of perceived dangerous left-wing sentiments. Over the decades it has championed the free market. It insistently advocates for the privatisation of state-owned enterprises and wage deregulation. More recently it has trumpeted climate change skepticism. Its supporters include Gina Rinehart, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Abbott, George Pell and Mitch Fifield. The haters of the ABC will love this book. They will linger over its assertions that the market would do a much better job; that the $1 billion annual funding is tax payers’ hard earned income down the drain; and, that the ABC is filled with lefty journalists plotting the overthrow of the Australian way. The book is a sour and bitter brew. It is laced with inconsistencies and ill-intent.
Professor Ed Davis AM NSW State President of the ABC Friends M@FriendsoftheABC
page 38 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Does it matter if this effort fails to land a blow? The IPA already has one of their own, Senator Mitch Fifield, in the very handy role of Minister for Communications and it would be hard to miss his regular attacks on the ABC. In this, he stands in a class of his own. He is the recognised Chief Prosecutor against the ABC.
No other Communications Minister has ever so consistently and relentlessly attacked the ABC. He should desist. He is not winning over the 80 per cent of Australians who engage with the ABC, trust and place a high value on it.
The case for public broadcasting Berg and Davidson fail to address the extraordinary importance of public broadcasting and its rich contribution to the quality of life of Australian citizens. The case for public broadcasting has been well made in Europe. The United Nations Economic, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (UNESCO) observed: (P)ublic broadcasting’s only raison d’etre is public service. It is the public’s broadcasting organisation; it speaks to everyone as a citizen. Public broadcasters encourage access to and participation in public life. They develop knowledge, broaden horizons and enable people to better understand themselves by better understanding the world and others. Public broadcasting is defined as a meeting place where all citizens are welcome and considered equals. It is an information and education tool, accessible to all and meant for all, whatever their social or economic status. Its mandate is not restricted to information and cultural development-public broadcasting must also appeal to the imagination, and entertain. But it does so with a concern for quality that distinguishes it from commercial broadcasting1. The European Commissioner for Human Rights said in a paper published last year: Well-funded and strong public service media are a good indicator that a democracy is healthy – this is the result of a study published last year by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU). The report notably found that countries that have popular, well-funded public service broadcasters encounter less right-wing extremism and corruption and have more press freedom2. Public broadcasting provides enormous value. It differs from state broadcasting, where the broadcaster operates at the direction of the Government. It differs from commercial broadcasting, which must pay attention to the interests of those who purchase its services. A further distinguishing feature is that many commercial media vigorously pursue their own vested interests. News Corp comes to mind. It could never be accused of being faint-hearted in pursuit of its goals.
Commercial media certainly are not constrained by the noble aims set out in the ABC’s Charter: to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive services of a high standard…broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. Commercial media are not enjoined to, “encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia”3. Commercial media are not subjected to the extraordinary scrutiny that is the lot of the ABC: the presentation of Annual Reports to the Federal Parliament; the marathon of Senate Estimates and seemingly endless reviews. Berg and Davidson’s claim that the ABC has somehow escaped serious scrutiny (p.7) is laughable.
ABC and Funding The authors rail against the $1 billion annual funding for the ABC. Is this really an excessive amount? Perspective helps. The ABC’s funding has declined by 28% in real terms since the mid-1980s. The latest round of cuts announced in the Morrison budget provide for a further $84 million to be cut on top of the $254 million cut by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2014. ABC Friends well remember his infamous pre-election promise, ‘There will be no cuts to the ABC or SBS’. Comparison with European nations shows that the British Broadcasting Corporation has a budget eight times the size of the ABC, serving a population just three times greater and not spread over the great distances found in Australia. When broadcasting costs are considered on a per capita basis, Norway, Germany and France are much more generous in their funding for public broadcasting. A recent estimate placed Australia twelfth out of eighteen Western nations in per head expenditure on public broadcasting. No gold medal for Australia in this race; no place on or near the podium4. What has happened to ABC funding as a proportion of government revenue? In the late 1970s, funding for the ABC was 0.6% of government revenue. In 2018, this has fallen to approximately 0.25%. ABC Managing Director in the 1980s, David Hill, said that the ABC cost Australians 8 cents a day; in real terms, this has fallen to 4 cents a day. It is plainly ridiculous to argue that the ABC is a significant burden on the Australian taxpayer. Rather than less funding, the ABC requires at the least restoration of its funding to 2013 levels to allow it to operate according to its Charter.
The book asserts that the ABC is a den of left-wing journalists and that this spills over into a bias against conservative parties and interests. To their credit, Berg and Davidson acknowledge that ‘direct and uncontested evidence for bias in the ABC is hard to come by’ (p.103) and they quote Chris Uhlmann, former ABC political editor, who commented that whatever the colour of ABC journalists’ personal political leanings, their sense of professionalism meant that their reports were objective and fair. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) examines complaints about television and radio content. It has conducted more than 200 investigations into the ABC since 2012 and has found only two matters which it has considered breaches of impartiality. In addition, since 2008, the ABC Board has commissioned nineteen independent Quality Assurance Reviews into its impartiality and accuracy. None of these reviews have found any serious breaches. At the end of Berg and Davidson’s book they acknowledge that ‘the single largest impediment to privatising the ABC is public opinion’ (p.126). They recognise that the ABC is very highly valued and that people see it as balanced and even-handed. The authors’ fear is that conservative governments will lack the courage to act so obviously contrary to the public interest. The decision by the Liberal Party’s National Conference, in mid-June, to selloff the ABC, with hardly a murmur against, demonstrates that public broadcasting in Australia is in peril. Universal, high quality public broadcasting, that informs, educates and entertains, is central to citizens’ quality of life and the function of democracy. This fight is union business. Professor Ed Davis AM is a retired NTEU member Find out more and join the ABC Friends : www.abcfriends.org.au 1. UNESCO. (2001). Public Broadcasting: Why? How? UNESCO. 2. Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe. (2017). ‘Public Service Broadcasting under threat in Europe’, Human Rights Comment, Strasbourg, 2 May. 3. ABC Charter, s.6, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act (1983). 4. David Tiley. (2018). ‘ABC downhill for thirty years’, Screen Hub, 16 February. See also: ABC Radio National (2018). ‘The ABC of Budget Cuts’, The Money, 24 May.
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 39
LGBTIQ+
A queer celebration May 17 was IDAHOBIT Day: International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia, Inter-sexism and Transphobia. Buoyed by the overwhelmingly positive outcome of the marriage equality campaign, it’s easy to think everything’s rosy for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ+) communities and cultures. IDAHOBIT reminds us that: • 53% of Australian lesbians and gay men experience workplace harassment and discrimination. • Unemployment for transgender people in Australia is about four times that of the general population and eight times for gender diverse people. • The death penalty can be applied in 10 countries for same-sex acts. • Across the world, sexual and gender minorities face public stigmatisation, police violence, state repression, attacks and murder. Their most basic human rights are denied daily. NTEU acknowledges that homophobia, biphobia, inter-sexism and transphobia is the lived experience of LGBTIQ+ workers and recognises IDAHOBIT Day annually on our union calendar. This year, LGBTIQ+ NTEU members and their allies stood together to ‘Speak Up, Celebrate & Support’ LGBTIQ+ workers on university campuses throughout Australia. Homophobia, biphobia, inter-sexism and transphobia is happening in universities, on our watch.
The findings of a groundbreaking 2018 ‘Diversity and Safety on Campus @ Western’ research project at Western Sydney University shines a light on the significance of LGBTIQ+ university campus events like IDAHOBIT Day (see quotes, below). The researchers examined the campus climate experienced by sexuality and gender diverse people including inclusion and safety on campus, learning experiences and learning materials as well as homophobic language. They noted that 46% of respondents thought it safest to hide their gender/sexuality on campus, 53% felt vulnerable to discrimination/prejudice from strangers and 55% avoided doing something because of potential discrimination/prejudice.
ity’ stalls and entertainment at CDU; ‘QUTE Queeries Quiz Night’ in South Australia; ‘Pride @ The Clyde’ in Victoria to launch ‘pride chats’ and an online LGBTIQ+ workers’ survey; ‘Wear it Rainbow’ on campuses including the Queensland University of Technology; campus stalls in Western Australia, NSW and Tasmania and many more including BBQs and other get-togethers.
Alarmingly, 30% reported being physically or psychologically harmed by an incident on campus. For many LGBTIQ+ staff and students at this university fear of unfair treatment is a barrier to their full participation in work or studies.
Dave Willis, NTEU Organiser
NTEU’s IDAHOBIT Day events are a contribution to making campuses inclusive and safe for LGBTIQ+ workers. Our events included NT Division’s ‘Alliance for Solidar-
Queer Unionists in Tertiary Education (QUTE) have formed a national steering committee consisting of representatives from each state/territory. This group will work with Division staff to help organise the next LGBTIQ+ event on the NTEU calendar, ‘Wear it Purple’ on 31 August. Get your purple ready! For more information on QUTE or LGBTIQ+ issues contact Dave Willis dwillis@nteu.org.au
Above: Dr Belinda Chaplin (QUTE), Vogue MegaQueen (Drag Territory), Josha Varajarathan (student, IDAHOBIT volunteer) and Shaniqua Tiwi Sista (Drag Territory) at the CDU IDAHOBIT event. Credit: Delia Lawrie Below: Showing support for Safe Schools at the SA QUTE Queeries Quiz night. Credit: John Pezy
“I hide my gender and sexuality from everyone. No one at all knows and in doing so I avoid all the repercussions that goes with that. As a staff member, there are no people/clubs/societies/divisions/units available.” “I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea that some of my [queer] peers ...wandering around the campus after dark. I don’t like to verbalise this and I don’t like thinking it but I certainly would be worried about their safety.” “Usually if [lecturers are] using a family example it’s always mum and dad, two children, picket fence type of thing…if they [just once] said, here’s a male couple in this example...” page 40 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
International
HE staff rights under sustained attack Educacion International Research
Twenty years later: International efforts to protect the rights of higher education teaching personnel remain insufficient is the title of a new Education International (EI) report launched at a special event marking the 20th anniversary of the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation on Higher Education Teaching Personnel (R97). UNESCO Recommendation R97 asserts that:
and the challenges facing academia around the world. Our institutions of higher learning were once known for, and rightly so, as spaces for debate and intellectual freedom. Academics were able to pursue their research and teach ideas that ruffled the feathers of the gatekeepers of societies’ status quo. Sadly, this protection is being stripped away.
protect the rights International efforts to ching personnel tea ion cat of higher edu icient uff ins remain
The EI report, authored by Nelly Stromquist identified five areas as significant challenges to higher education today:
Nelly P. Stromquist October 2017
• The constant crisis represented by “austerity” policies. • Threats to academic freedom. • Growth of casualisation. • Expansion of privatisation, and • Extent and potential of unionisation.
Higher education teaching personnel should have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in governing bodies and to criticise the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they should also have the right to elect the majority of representatives to academic bodies within the higher education institution.
The intersections between these issues, such as the capacity of vulnerable precariously employed staff to exercise academic freedom, and the inability to influence rampant privatisation with the diminution of democracy in universities, are investigated in the report.
Speaking at the forum, organised on the margins of the General Conference of UNESCO in Paris in October 2017, EI General Secretary Fred van Leeuwen, emphasised that the event not only shed light on the under-utilised UNESCO Recommendation, but more importantly on how many of the rights and freedoms it outlines are being stripped from academics:
Academics exert leadership today mostly through decisions on programs and curriculum, with very little input on policy issues affecting the university as a whole, such as decisions to increase tuition, to change organisational structures or create new ones, to decide on financial matters affecting the university, to set the strategic direction of the institution, to erect new buildings, to provide long-distance learning, to
The recommendation throws a spotlight on post-secondary education
Twenty years later:
The lack of workplace democracy, and even participation in decision making, facing the Australian university workforce with increasing corporatisation of university governance are not unusual, as Stromquist found that:
appoint tenure track higher education personnel for their own units (often being told there are no funds to do so), and even to create new academic programs. Under the slogans of “competitiveness” and “innovation” many such decisions are now in the hands of senior administrators. Stromquist recommends that that given the current threats and practices against higher education teaching personnel, it would be “highly advisable” to make R97 much better known”. NTEU is one of the few unions that have made a complaint to the ILO using R97, back when the Howard Government introduced Work Choices for higher education – the HEWRRs (Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements). The Government changed before the case was concluded! Jeannie Rea, National President Originally posted on the NTEU website on 6 November 2017
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 41
Photo: Academic protest outside the Iranian Embassy in Dublin in support of Homa Hoodfar. Source: Emer O’Toole / Twitter
Imprisoned for ‘Dabbling in feminism’ When sociocultural anthropologist, Professor Homa Hoodfar spoke at the opening session of a recent conference in Berlin on ‘The University and the Future of Democracy’ about her research and teaching in Iran, it sounded like familiar terrain. Australian colleagues would take it for granted that they could examine sociocultural mores in marriage in our society, without being arrested for ‘dabbling in feminism’.
Not so in Iran, and Hoodfar was held in Evin Prison for 112 days, where she was not only denied paper and pens, but also her glasses without which she could hardly see at all. An author of seven books, she is currently out on bail and in Canada. She spoke of using her toothbrush to ‘write’ on the walls of her cell just to be doing something familiar, even though she left no mark, and would not have been able to see it anyway. In speaking of the dangers of anti-intellectualism, Hoodfar noted that ‘freedom of expression’ is insufficient as the academic responsibility is to hold up a mirror to society. Professor Judith Butler, Department of Comparative Literature and the Program of Critical Theory at University of California Berkeley, provided the keynote address to the conference. Judith Butler’s academic work will be well known to many NTEU members as she has been a key influence over the recent decades.
(Re) introducing democracy in our universities
Jeannie Rea National President M@NTEUNational
page 42 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Butler spoke to the question of what is free and open inquiry. In a deep and far-ranging address, she focused upon the dire need to (re)introduce democracy in our universities – as well as in society. She differentiated between academic freedom
and the rights to political expression, but noted that universities are bound to support both. Universities must promote academic freedom and scholars, as ‘citizens’, should not face discrimination on political expression in the public sphere. She also urged that people oppose censorship as it is always used by those with power to silence those speaking out. Several times in her address, Professor Butler emphasised the importance of trade unions in our key role of advocating and protecting salaries and conditions, but also in speaking out against injustice and silencing of dissent. She noted that the opponents of academic freedom and freedom of expression will always seek to silence the unions and urged delegates to support unions.
Academics for Peace receive award The Turkish Academics for Peace were exercising their freedom to speak when they signed a petition for demilitarisation and peace with the Kurds in northern Turkey. This was, as Butler explained, readily interpreted for their purposes by the Erdogan regime as a call to violence. NTEU has strong policy in support of Academics for Peace and against the ongoing persecution of dissenters including not only academics, but the media, civil servants, and even the judiciary and military. Butler, always practical, noted early in her address that the reality for persecuted academics is that they lose their livelihood and means to support themselves and their families. In Turkey those who have lost their jobs have also lost all their other entitlements, for example their pension plans. The Turkish Academics for Peace were awarded SAR’s 2018 ‘Courage to Think Defenders Award’. Many a scholar at risk has a family to protect and needs to bring their immediate family with them. Universities in other
countries have managed to assist scholars and their families by providing temporary safe havens.
urgent need to develop the scope of SAR and/or like organisations in the Asia and Pacific region.
Scholars at Risk in Germany
NTEU is approaching Universities Australia to pursue this with their affiliates. NTEU National President, Jeannie Rea and NTEU National Vice President (Academic) Andrew Bonnell participated in the conference and undertook to contact those universities that are affiliated and see what can be done to progress commitment in Australia.
The conference at Free University in Berlin in April 2018 was organised by Scholars at Risk, the US-based international organisation focused upon advocacy and education, and finding refuge for academics at risk in their own country. Amongst the around 500 participants were a number of ‘scholars at risk’ now safely working in German universities, who have, in the space of just a few years, embraced the SAR program and are hosting scholars from many war-torn and oppressive regimes including, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. This has occurred in the context of the German Government not closing their border to refugees, and seeking to settle them in the German community. Notably around 7,000 Syrian refugees are studying at German universities, either continuing or embarking upon undergraduate and graduate studies. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the attitude of the Australian Government and our universities. Not insubstantial is that the hurdle of tuition fees is not the issue in Germany. Rather the focus has been upon finding financial support for living expenses.
Dangerous Questions MOOC NTEU is regularly engaged in advocating academic freedom and defending breaches of this. Our efforts here matter not only for those impacted here, but have global ramifications. Of interest to some will be the MOOC developed by Scholars at Risk and partners on academic freedom. It started on 4 June, but you may still be able to join – or it may run again if there is sufficient interest: www.futurelearn.com/courses/academic-freedom. www.scholarsatrisk.org Report on Scholars at Risk Global Congress, Free University, Berlin, 23-26 April 2018.
Above: #FreeHoma image. Source: Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Australian involvement SAR was founded in 1999 by a group of American academics and civil rights advocates including lawyer and now Executive Director, Robert Quinn, who said the mission is to, “protect scholars and the freedom to think, question and share ideas”. Around 15 years ago quite a few Australian universities signed up with Scholars at Risk. Few remain, and none have accommodated a scholar at risk. There is an
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 43
News from the Net Pat Wright
Digital deployment for by-elections Information & communication technology (ICT) has been deployed for many years in the service of marketing and, more recently, in the service of electioneering. The leading exponents of harnessing ICT for election campaigns were the Democrats in the USA, but they may have been over-taken recently by the Republicans. ICT made it possible for political parties to develop and maintain massive databases of electors in each electorate and use past election returns, broken down booth-bybooth, to target their campaigning in the most effective way. Added to political market research, such as Gallup Polls, these techniques proved invaluable for the US Democratic Party. In the 1980s, officers of the NSW ALP Branch, such as Stephen Loosley and Graham Richardson, observed Democratic Party campaigns and brought such techniques back to Australia to help with the marginal seats campaigns of the Hawke/ Keating years. Of course, the Liberal Party soon followed suit, and made up much ground in the subsequent decades. Electoral databases became increasingly sophisticated over the years, with data matching across two or more databases making micro-targeting possible, email and online communications making distributed intelligence and feedback possible, and social media making individual voter profiles possible. This latest development was highlighted in the March 2017 edition of this column with some revelations of how Cambridge Analytica gained access to the personal profiles of more than 100,000 users of Facebook, and subsequently ‘Friends’ of those users to compile a database of about 50 million American voters for the Trump presidential campaign. Cambridge Analytica claimed to have developed algorithms analysing the ‘Likes’ of these voters to generate psychographic profiles, but the value of such detail
is dubious – the basic demographics is probably powerful enough for political party purposes. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was mightily embarrassed by this breach of the privacy rights of so many Americans, and Cambridge Analytica went into liquidation to evade legal pursuit, but not before it had made sales pitches to political parties in Switzerland, Germany and Australia, and Facebook tried to sell its own targeting tool, Custom Audience, to Australian political parties. In the last weeks of the 2016 Australian federal election campaign, Facebook offered the data matching tool with a 17 per cent increase in matching rates to the Liberal Party, but the offer was rejected, probably because of concerns that their data from the full electoral roll being stored on servers outside Australia might constitute ‘misuse’, prohibited in the privacy agreements reached with the Electoral Commission to access the full electoral roll. Registered political parties in Australia have been exempt from the Privacy Act since 2000, when the Howard Government amended it to make exempt political parties, their representatives, such as MPs and Councillors, their contractors and sub-contractors, and their volunteers. The exemption is designed to “encourage freedom of political communication” and support the electoral process, according to Attorney-General Christian Porter. Nevertheless, the major political parties have denied dealing with Cambridge Analytica, are non-committal about using Facebook data, and the Liberals are cautious about where electoral roll data is stored, though the Electoral Act does not specify arrangements such as the storage of data. The latest development in electoral ICT combines sophisticated databases, communications and social media in the one campaign targeting tool, made accessible on a smartphone near you – i360. The i360 tool was devised by a former John McCain adviser after McCain’s defeat in the 2008 US presidential election. The project was bankrolled by the conservative billionaires, the Koch Brothers to the tune of $300m, tested in Republican Marco Rubio’s successful campaign for re-election to the US Senate, and extensively used marginal States such as Ohio in the Trump presidential campaign. There is an i360 app for smartphones which allows political canvassers to view a
page 44 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
detailed profile of each household before they knock on the door. This enables them to skip the 70 per cent of household with ‘rusted on’ voters for a major political party, and concentrate on the 30 per cent who are uncommitted, and scan a script designed to address an issue of interest to the householder who answers the door – with different scripts for the older man of the house and his younger voting-age daughter. Ideally, the voter and the canvasser should be matched by occupation. The householder’s reaction is then fed back into i360 through the smartphone to enrich the database for a follow-up contact or the next election. Being uncommitted, the householder may not have an interest in any political issues, in which case the canvasser surfs the international wave of antipolitics, agrees that all MPs are bastards, but explains why ‘Their’ MP is a bigger bastard than ‘Our’ MP. A vote against an opposing candidate has the same value as a vote for one’s favoured candidate. The i360 app allows a well-trained political canvasser to concentrate their efforts on the most fertile ground, making the campaign more cost-effective by spending less on the public campaign of full-page ads and TV commercials aimed at everyone, and spending more on the more effective private campaign of personalised, faceto-face, ‘word of mouth’ messages and follow-up visits or phone calls aimed only at the uncommitted. It is this digital tool that the Koch brothers have allowed to be used for the first time outside the USA by the Liberal Party in Australia – in the hope that it will allow them to overtake Labor in tech-savvy campaigning. The Koch brothers would never sell a licence to a Labor party. SA Liberal leader Steven Marshall and his State Director Sascha Meldrum visited the centre-Right Republican campaigning machine in Ohio in August 2016 to assess the i360 targeting system and were followed by other campaign strategists to participate in the training and implementation to effectively use the system. They followed-up with visits every six months for further training and adaptation of the system to Australia’s compulsory and preferential voting. The Liberal Party in SA paid $25,000 a month to use i360 in the SA election campaign and synchronised it with the data they already had in their NationBuilder database. continued on p. 54...
Lowering the Boom Ian Lowe
Slow death of the Great Barrier Reef In late May, I visited Heron Island research station. It has been there since the early 1950s, allowing researchers and students to monitor the health of coral reefs and associated ecosystems from a genuine coral cay, one of only two on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) with accommodation. The research station is supervised by staff of the University of Queensland, but obtains significant funding from other research organisations and educational activities. Groups of school and university students were there when I was, as well as tourists staying in the island’s resort, experiencing the reef system by diving and snorkelling. I was shown around the research station and given a briefing on its work by the manager, Dr Ashton Gainsford, and another reef scientist, Dr Abbie Taylor. A central research program is studying the resilience of corals at the southern end of the massive reef system. While the northern reefs are in desperate trouble from the severe bleaching events of recent years, the lower end of the GBR is still in relatively good shape. The researchers explained that the coral in the region is used to experiencing significant seasonal water temperature variations, as much as seven degrees warmer in summer than in winter. So they have dealt much better with the warming brought by climate change than the northern reefs, accustomed to a tropical climate with relatively small differences across the year. The corals around Heron Island don’t have the spectacular colours of a healthy northern reef, but they also don’t have the consequent disastrous bleaching that has devastated the reef’s northern sections. One researcher told me of recently travelling to the extreme northern end of the GBR, in the Torres Strait, and finding the coral literally crumbling away as a consequence of the latest bleaching event.
I subsequently checked the overall picture. It is grim. It was recently summarised by a leading expert, Dr “Charlie” Veron. Writing in the journal of the Independent Scholars Association of Australia, ISAA Review, he said that 2016 saw the worst incidence of coral bleaching in the history of the GBR, “mostly in the pristine northern third”. This was followed by a second mass bleaching in the middle third of the reef system in 2017. The combined effect of these bleaching events, Dr Veron wrote, stretches for 1500 kilometres along the Queensland coast. According to the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, in the northern section of the reef (from Port Douglas to Lockhart River) 67 per cent of the coral is dead, while in the far north the figure is 26 per cent. Some of the northern reefs have changed their overall composition and are now dominated by slower-growing species with simpler physical structures. As the reefs have changed, the populations of other species that rely on it have also altered, with reductions in the diversity of reef fish being documented.
Even though the GBR Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) are large organisations with a strong history of doing good science, the Government perversely bypassed those bodies and gave most of the money to a small charity with little experience or scientific credibility.
While it was pleasing to see some funds allocated in the Budget to helping the GBR, there is widespread criticism of the Commonwealth Government’s decision to allocate almost all the money – $443 million of the $500 million total – to a small private organisation. Even though the GBR Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) are large organisations with a strong history of doing good science, the Government perversely bypassed those bodies and gave most of the money to a small charity with little experience or scientific credibility.
While the funds are to be used for worthy projects in such areas as improving water quality in the reef lagoons and controlling crown-of-thorns starfish, these shouldn’t be the highest priority to protect the GBR. Depressingly, the Budget said absolutely nothing about climate change, which is now clearly the greatest threat to the future of coral reefs. As University of Queensland coral biologist Dr Sophie Dove said, unless climate change is slowed “a lot of the other solutions such as cleaning the water and removing crown of thorns are somewhat immaterial”. AIMS CEO Paul Hardisty made a similar comment, warning that continued inaction on climate change would mean that “in a few decades there won’t be any reefs, or at least reefs as we know them today”. Taken together with the Government’s support for developing coal mines in the Galilee Basin and its inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets, it is difficult to see this reef funding as a serious attempt to restore its health. As Dr Veron wrote, “It seems to be Coalition policy not to let the Great Barrier Reef and its climate change problems get in the way of coal mines”. He went on to warn that mining the Galilee Basin would produce “at least seven times as much carbon dioxide as the rest of Australia combined”. The Government approach of continuing to encourage development of the proposed Adani mine and other coal projects is not just environmentally irresponsible, it is economically disastrous. In their desperation to see the mine go ahead, the Queensland Government has offered an exemption from paying royalties. With Adani’s complex corporate structure meaning it will almost certainly pay no tax in Australia, there will be very little economic benefit from the mine if it goes ahead. By contrast, reef tourism generates by an order of magnitude more revenue and employs many times more people than coal mining. We urgently need our leaders to recognise the GBR’s critical situation and respond appropriately. Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University. M@AusConservation
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 45
The Thesis Whisperer Inger Mewburn
Vale Malcolm Anderson In February 2018, Dr Malcolm Anderson, a 48-year-old accountancy lecturer at Cardiff University, fell to his death through the glass ceiling of his building atrium. Recently, a coroner recorded Dr Anderson’s death as a suicide. There is no doubt that workplace stress contributed significantly to Malcolm Anderson’s death. It was the marking that finally broke him. Someone on Twitter estimated he was being asked to work 9 hour days for two weeks straight, with no break, even to go to the toilet. Malcolm tried to tell people it was too much, but without success. Maybe his managers had just got used to the idea that Malcolm would always get the job done. His wife talked about his ‘passionate dedication’ to his work and his tendency to put other’s needs ahead of his own. A colleague spoke of Malcolm’s tendency to stress out about getting things ‘right’ at work, but his colleagues agreed he was a sociable guy, with a good sense of humour and willingness to ‘banter’. Reading this story struck cold fear into my heart. Malcolm sounds just like many of my male academic colleagues. While there are plenty of arrogant academic males, most academic men I’ve met do not conform to this stereotype. In fact, there is a certain kind of gentle academic masculinity that I find genuinely appealing. Guys who clearly love their families and extend this caring to their colleagues
and students. Guys who are slyly humorous and like to ‘talk shop’ for hours at a time. These guys are ‘woke’ – aware of their privilege and careful to make space for others. They are the men I hope my son will be like one day. I have at least 5 close male academic friends I’d put in this category, and I love them dearly. My favourite academic men react to distress differently than the academic women in my life; they are less demonstrative for a start. There’s no hugging and handing over of tissues/chocolate/wine, but you do get careful, respectful listening. When told a trouble, these academic men respond thoughtfully, empathetically – usually with advice, but that’s OK (it’s usually advice worth hearing). These men generally won’t tell you their troubles and it’s hard to get them to admit to having Feelings about their workplace problems.
Reading this story struck cold fear into my heart. Malcolm sounds just like many of my male academic colleagues. I can’t help but contrast this reticence to share with the open relationships I have with female academics. There seems to be a female rhythm to talking about Feelings that makes sharing easier. It’s kind of like a debrief after a hostage crisis or something. We ponder the Feelings – challenge them, refute or validate them in pairs or groups. This Feeling work is essential. Sharing Feelings helps us work out what went wrong and how to tackle it better next time. Sure, sharing Feelings can lead to us being unfairly judged as not capable of taking leadership positions, but personally, I’d rather have the emotional relief that sharing brings. My attempts to bring my male work colleagues into this female way of talking about Feelings are not always success-
Since 1958, the Australian Universities’ Review has been encouraging debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life.
ful. My male colleagues will only share Feelings at times of deep crisis and, after they have shared, they are mostly unable to do the ‘debriefing’ part of the Feeling work with me. Some have expressed shame that they admitted to having Feelings at all. I remember one male colleague crying about his loneliness and stress after relocating away from his home country. It took a lot of drinks for him to get to this point and I’m not sure he felt any better after breaking down in front of me; by that point, he was so drunk, any kind of useful Feeling debrief was impossible. Academia is good at minimising and marginalising feelings; in academic writing, explicit mention of emotions will make you sound ‘illogical’ or ‘weak’. Reading Malcolm’s story, I wonder what role the academic denial of Feelings played in his tragic death. He clearly tried hard to tell people he was overworked, but his Feelings were ignored or dismissed. But Malcolm’s death must be understood in relation to the bigger problem of workplace exploitation. No one should have to work that many hours and put their health at risk. It was Malcolm’s death that motivated me to join the union ‘Change the Rules’ rally at Parliament House in June. I waved an NTEU banner in the cold Canberra wind. I listened to speeches and yelled ‘Shame!’. I got angry, but you know – in a good way. The whole time I thought about Malcolm and his family. I thought about the uncaring workplaces we have created where there is no room for Feelings – or even to go to the toilet. I hope to see more colleagues at the next one because I think Change the Rules has the potential to become a Movement. We can fight the inhumane aspects of our academic workplaces. We must. We will. Vale Malcolm Anderson. Dr Inger Mewburn does research on research and blogs about it. www.thesiswhisperer.com 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 page 46 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
Letter from Aotearoa/NZ Sandra Grey
Silencing debate at University of Auckland Student, staff and community voices are being shut out of debates on the future of our largest institution, the University of Auckland, because of actions taken by the ViceChancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon. The problem arose when McCutcheon decided recently to include a confidentiality clause in the University’s change management documents. Unless staff are directly affected by a proposal, then they have been barred from talking about it with their colleagues because, the Vice-Chancellor says, staff owe him ‘loyalty and fidelity’ – and to share any proposal would be a breach of this obligation. Put simply, changes to staffing at the University, which ultimately impacts on students and, in turn, on society as a whole, cannot be properly debated. To understand the true impact on this one needs only look at a recent announcement by McCutcheon that he plans to cut staff from the University’s Faculty of Education. As some of you may know, New Zealand is facing a massive shortage of teachers – an issue that our new Labour-led Government has been grappling with since it came to power. McCutcheon’s justified his proposed cuts on the basis that the Faculty of Education had fallen short of meeting arbitrary performance measures. In other words, a focus on meeting narrow performance measures was deemed to be a higher priority than maximising the contribution the University could instead be making to help the Government address the teacher shortage. So, what we have here is an issue of huge public importance, but one where even people working in the teaching profession have been shut out of the debate on the future of teacher training in Auckland. It should go without saying that McCutcheon’s silencing of debate through use of his confidentiality clause is contrary to
good employment practice and sound decision-making. But leaving that aside, the statement contradicts and undermines the very core of what universities are about, as set out in the University’s own policies and law, and our nation’s obligations under international conventions.
The University of Auckland’s own Critic and Conscience group notes that “a university is not worthy of the title unless it performs the role of critic and conscience”. Any attempt to silence debate about matters of importance to the university infringes on this requirement.
The University of Auckland’s stated aim is to be “a research-led, international university, recognised for excellence in teaching, learning, research, creative work, and administration, for the significance of its contributions to the advancement of knowledge and its commitment to serve its local, national and international communities.”
In an op-ed in 2016, McCutcheon himself said: “The academic freedom to which he refers is the statutory right of academics to teach and assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning, to engage in research, and to advance controversial or unpopular opinions.” Yet his actions violate the very right he claims to hold dear – the right of academics to state ‘controversial or unpopular opinions’.
Unless staff are directly affected by a proposal, then they have been barred from talking about it with their colleagues because, the Vice-Chancellor says, staff owe him ‘loyalty and fidelity’ – and to share any proposal would be a breach of this obligation.
McCutcheon’s rejection of public debate stymies the University of Auckland’s ability to demonstrate a “commitment” to “local, national, and international communities”. Many of the University’s own “Review and Restructure Policy and Procedures” are also contradicted by McCutcheon’s actions. How can the institution fulfil its own commitment to fair and transparent change management processes if staff, students, and other stakeholders are prohibited from speaking about proposals? McCutcheon’s actions are also an affront to the legislated role of critic and conscience and the right and responsibility of academic freedom. According to law, the University of Auckland community has the right to question and test any ‘received wisdom’ including that of senior management. Added to this staff are protected in debating matters relating to teaching.
Staff working in tertiary education are not responsible for the maintenance of a ‘business’ rather their loyalty lies in protecting and advancing the broader mission of higher education. This is noted in the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, 1997. In other words, it is accepted internationally that staff will challenge their own institutions in order to ensure the ‘advancement of higher education’ and to contribute to the ongoing development of ‘humanity and modern society’. Now, we may not be able to vote the Vice-Chancellor out of office, as you can with a politician, but ultimately we should all have the right to speak up if the decisions he is making undermine what’s best for New Zealand. By telling staff they must be ‘loyal’ to him, Stuart McCutcheon as the Vice-Chancellor and employer, is squashing this right – and the rights and responsibilities of staff. It is with that in mind, we have written to the Vice-Chancellor outlining our concerns with the actions he has taken and will be working hard to ensure students, staff and local communities can reclaim their rightful place at the heart of debates about the future of our public institutions. Sandra Grey is National President/Te Tumu Whakarae, New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa www.teu.ac.nz
M@nzteu
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 47
My Union 2018 NTEU elections Elections for some full-time and honorary positions at NTEU branch, division and national level are currently underway. Ballots open on Friday 3 August 2018 and close at 10am on Friday 24 August 2018. National leadership changes The biggest news in this round of elections is that foundation General Secretary Grahame McCulloch is retiring. After two terms, the current National President Jeannie Rea is also leaving to return to working in the sector.
Dr Alison Barnes from Macquarie University and current NSW division assistant secretary has been elected unopposed as National President. Current National Assistant Secretary, Matthew McGowan has been elected unopposed as General Secretary. Both take up their new positions in mid October 2018.
Contested elections There is a contested election for the position of National Assistant Secretary. And in Victoria the positions of Divisions Secretary and Assistant Secretary are contested. At a few Branches there are also contested elections for some positions. Members will know if they are eligible to vote in a contested election because they will receive ballot papers from the AEC sent to their address registered with the NTEU after 3 August. You may also receive campaign materials from the candidates.
Vacancies There are a number of positions that were not filled in the first round of elections, and it is hoped that they will be filled in a round of supplementary elections. There are a range of positions on Branch Committees, including designated positions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members. A new Branch Committee designated position was recently created for a member employed casually. Unfortunately, quite a few of these positions have not been filled – yet. There is still time to nominate! If you had been thinking of standing for your Branch Committee, contact your local Branch. Michael Evans, National Organiser Info, nominations and declarations: www.nteu.org.au/myunion/about_us/ elections/2018_elections
State of the Union State of the Union is an upcoming exhibition at Melbourne University’s Ian Potter Museum of Art that explores the relationship between art and the labour movement, through an extraordinary series of contemporary and historical artworks and ‘visual protests’ including banners, posters and collaborative actions. Curated by Jacqueline Doughty, it features work by over 30 artists and artist collectives along with five new commissions, this exhibition investigates industrial action and labour issues through a range of media, from painting, to video and performance. State of the Union includes the work of artists who draw upon the traditional visual strategies of trade unionism, as well as a collection of works from artists whose practices are a form of cultural activism through which they advocate for fair working conditions, including those of artworkers. State of the Union highlights two periods in Australia when interactions between artists and the labour movement were particularly rich: the Depression era of the 1930s and 40s when the political
convictions of social realist artists were reflected in artworks depicting the hardships faced by workers and their families; and the 1970s and 80s, when visual artists were funded to undertake residencies at trades halls and union-affiliated workplaces around Australia. One of Australia’s most significant historical trade union banners is featured: The Operative Painters and Decorators Union (Victorian Branch) banner dates from 1915 and is one of the largest and most beautiful banners to survive from this golden age of banner making. This rarely displayed banner demonstrates the great importance placed by unions upon visual communication, and their belief in the power of the image. State of the Union includes artworks that illustrate the revival of the trade union banner tradition in the 1980s, and how contemporary artists continue to appropriate its visual traditions. A number of artworks explore issues such as factory closures, the working conditions of miners, the contribution of Unions to social movements such as environmentalism and feminism in the 1970s; while other
page 48 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
artworks explore particular protests or campaigns, for example, the 1998 Waterfront Dispute. While the exhibition primarily focuses on Australian art, there are three important works by international artists, Jeremy Deller, Im Heung-Soon and Mikhail Karikis, which encourage a consideration of global trends that have impacted upon the union movement in recent decades, providing a broader context for the Australian content. The exhibition also includes film screenings and a series of discussion forums on topics such as precarity and the casualisation of the workforce, and the continuing need for an artist union. The project is supported by NTEU alongside the ACTU, Creative Victoria and the City of Melbourne Grants Program. Exhibition Dates: Tue 24 July to Sun 28 October, Tue to Fri 10am to 5pm, Sat to Sun 12 noon to 5pm. Free admission.
Above: Alex Martinis Roe, video still. Courtesy of the artist. Image reproduced with the permission of Pat Fiske and Meredith Burgmann
My Union Education International recognising Professional & General staff In May I had the privilege of attending the first Education International (EI) conference on Education Support Personnel (ESP – the EI term for Professional/General staff). As the first ever conference for staff who work in education in professional and support roles, it was not only an important event for those involved – it also has the potential to change the way we all discuss the delivery of education.
Acknowledging contribution of all education workers For many participants, I suspect the opportunity to discuss their roles and how they contribute to the educational project was refreshing and valuable. The lived experiences shared by participants indicated a frustration at not having their contributions recognised in their workplaces. In some cases, these contribution are ones that allow or enable teachers and academics to do their work effectively. If someone doesn’t pay the electricity bill, there are no lights. If someone doesn’t clean the classrooms, they would be a mess. In other cases, sometimes involving the same people, the contribution is listening and providing guidance to a student who is struggling. Or it is a direct role in teaching and other support that make it possible for students to learn. In our universities, technical staff set up classrooms and provide direction to students about how to make the most of the equipment. Librarians offer a bit of everything; support, guidance, and facilitation. For many attending the conference, it was the first time these contributions had been fully acknowledged. This recognition was uplifting as it recognised the full range of support that goes into educational settings. It is clearly the case that recognising the complementary and interdependent roles that professional, support, and
teaching staff play is an important step in understanding how to best improve our educational institutions.
From greater recognition to better conditions At this conference we were also there as unionists, as well as participants in the education project. The fact that many of those present identified with comments about lack of recognition is an issue that affects more than their feelings and morale. The absence of recognition not only contributes to lesser outcomes in the classroom, but also to inferior conditions of employment. It was reported that in some countries, funding models do not recognise the support infrastructure required and restricted funding is used to keep workers in insecure and part time work. In one case, the conference heard that support staff were not legally permitted to collectively bargain for wages and conditions. We were told about the impact of contracting out of ESP work in all countries present. This was manifested in many locations by the degradation of working conditions, pay, and of educational standards. When work is contracted out, the people replacing school staff are often poorly paid, and have no connection to the workplace. Is it any wonder that student experiences are diminished as a consequence?
The way forward It is worth noting that EI is a body dominated by teacher unions. It has focused heavily over the years on the interests of teachers as might be expected. However, since 2014, EI has made significant progress in acknowledging and supporting the work of ESP, and to providing a real voice. This has not only resulted in the establishment of a taskforce to focus on ESP, but much more.
Informed by the taskforce, EI has worked to give real effect to their commitment to ESP workers. Across EI’s activities, more inclusive language is clearly apparent. Work with the ILO and UNESCO is also now reflecting an understanding of the broader education workforce. In some countries, ESP can go unrepresented by any union and in some cases there is a divide between teacher unions and those who represent ESP. In other countries like Australia, we work together with teaching and academic unionists for our collective good. Our goals should be to increase union membership across the globe regardless of the configurations within unions, to support each other, and to ensure we can collectively improve the outcomes for students. The next steps are important. EI can play an important role in encouraging equality of recognition in the workplace. By continuing to incorporate a broader understanding of what it takes to educate a student into its work, by giving ESP opportunities to share experiences and strategise about improving their working conditions, and by supporting those that most need it, we can collectively improve our understanding of education and the community it takes to educate a child. The conference, and the establishment of International ESP Day on May 16, is a clear move to imbed ESP in the work of EI. There is more to be done, but from the perspective of an ESP who is committed to working in education and is committed to improving the working lives of our members, it is fantastic that we now have a place where our work is acknowledged and recognised as complementary and interdependent in the education project. Matt McGowan, National Assistant Secretary
Above: Matt McGowan at the ESP conference. Source: EI
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 49
My Union Well worth the effort: Joan Hardy Scholarship four years on Applying for, and receiving, the 2014 Joan Hardy Scholarship was an endeavour well worth the effort for Katrina Recoche. Established in memory of the late Joan Hardy who died in 2003, the scholarship ($5000) is offered by the National Tertiary Education Union each year to a student undertaking a postgraduate study of nurses, nursing culture or practices, or historical aspects of nursing as a lay or professional practice. It was while working on her PhD, focusing on palliative care for homeless and disenfranchised persons in Australia, that Katrina first became aware of the scholarship. “I was coming up towards the later stages of the PhD, when I learned about the scholarship,” said Katrina. “Applying was a relatively straight forward process but it’s like anything else, it’s competitive. You need to be strategic about how you complete the application form and what supporting documents you add, but in terms of other applications I had seen, it wasn’t as onerous as many.” Currently working at Monash Peninsula Campus in the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Katrina said it was her personal and professional experiences which had informed the direction of her studies. “I have worked in palliative care for over 30 years both clinically and in education and I certainly am responsible for teaching palliative care in undergraduate and post graduate programs at the moment,” said Katrina. “In relation to the homelessness aspect, I had been a volunteer in my local community for many years as well. So it just dawned on me over time that
people who were homeless or disenfranchised were less well than the general population. People’s health status was significantly different to the general population.
“I’ve spent seven years of my life working on it, and then being able to take it to an international forum is really important. And definitely I wouldn’t have been able to get there without the support.
“Homeless persons with chronic illness were not necessarily keeping up with recommendations of their health providers and their health status was declining. Then I started to wonder if people weren’t looking after their health on an ongoing basis, would they suddenly change their mind and accept healthcare at the end of life, or in the palliative phase of care. I wondered about homeless and disenfranchised people, and how they were cared for, particularly seeing as how palliative care in our community is often provided in people’s own homes.”
“Winning the scholarship in a sense is validation for you too, because the subject is something that I think is important but NTEU also thought it was important. So it is nice to have your work validated and it also helps in your work environment.”
Though her PhD was relatively well advanced at the time of her applying, Katrina said winning the scholarship provided some welcome support. “It was particularly helpful in relation to things like, I needed some support for transcription and data analysis. So it helped with that,” said Katrina. “The other thing was I was able to submit for conferences, and I have had a paper accepted at a big international palliative care conference in Canada. So it had a big impact on my decision to put in an abstract to that conference, and that’s really important because it is, unfortunately, an area of growing interest. I say unfortunately because of the homeless element of it.
page 50 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
With applications closing for this year’s scholarship on 27 July, Katrina said she would encourage anybody thinking about applying to do so. “I would suggest that anybody who wants to further their studies, and particularly if they’re academics and they’re working full time, it can be really tough to meet all you commitments. It has been great having that opportunity to have little bit of the load lightened. “I would just really encourage people if they are studying and they are at the stage where they think they might benefit from a bit of help, then they should apply. Don’t be shy. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Andrew MacDonald, Media & Communications Officer For more information about the Joan Hardy Scholarship visit: www.nteu.org.au/myunion/ scholarships/joan_hardy
My Union Member focus
Prof Frances Separovic knows a thing or two about firsts As the child of immigrants who settled in Broken Hill when she was just three-and-a-half, the long-time NTEU member went on to become the first in her family to complete primary school and eventually went on to a PhD. Despite initially ceasing those tertiary studies after feeling overwhelmed by life in big city Sydney, Frances went on to take a job as a junior technician in the microbiology lab at the CSIRO. Following the birth of her first child she returned to her studies while also working full time. This eventually resulted in a number of other firsts, including Frances becoming the first woman professor of Chemistry in Victoria, the first woman to be appointed Head of School of Chemistry at the University of Melbourne, and first woman chemist admitted to the Australian Academy of Science. On International Women’s Day this year, Frances marked another achievement when she was inducted into the Victorian Honour Roll of Women. Speaking to Advocate, Frances offered some reflections on her achievements, as well as the changes which have occurred for women in science over the course of her career. “There have been changes for women in STEMM, and I think the big one now is that there is a lot more talk about discrimination and unconscious bias whereas previously there wasn’t an open discussion about it,” said Frances. “It’s healthy that people are talking about it and are conscious of it which is a really good change.” Frances said she was hopeful of using her growing and evolving list of achievements and commitments to continue promoting careers in science for women.
“I had my first career when I was at CSIRO where I worked full time, studied part time and was a single mum, and now I have my career as an academic at the University of Melbourne. Then the Honour Roll people asked me if I would act as an ambassador for women in science and I said ‘sure’. I’m calling it my third career,” said Frances. “I think a big part of it is showing people how rewarding it can be doing something that you love, having a career where you can’t wait to wake up every morning. Sure there are bad days, but that’s what makes the good days so good.” Given her achievements, it was perhaps inevitable that Frances has come to be regarded as a role model. She said it was a concept she was still coming to terms with, but also approaching in her own way. “I didn’t really think that I was a role model, but I’ll just give you one experience,” said Frances. “I was speaking at a breakfast just after I had just been made Head of School of Chemistry at the University of Melbourne. “I told the women as I started that I didn’t sleep the previous night and that I always get nervous before a talk. I said it in passing and I forgot about it. “Then a few years later a guy told me that I was the main reason his wife stayed in science and it was because I had confessed about being nervous. We know how stressful giving talks can be, but we all pretend it’s fantastic and the most nor-
mal thing. The reality is, I dread it. So that made her feel better: the sense that she’s not an exception. So perhaps it’s good to be a different sort of role model. “They keep telling us as women to behave a certain way instead of saying it’s OK to be you. It’s about being brave even when you are not confident.” In regard to the benefits of education, Frances said she was not averse to getting ‘a little bit political’ particularly when it came to fair access, particularly for disadvantaged students. After all, it was free tertiary education introduced by the Whitlam Government which helped Frances on her way to so many firsts. “Everyone sort of goes with ‘first in family to go to uni’, but I was the first one to finish primary school. My dad went to first grade and my mum went to second grade, so I was actually the first to go to third grade. Then it was on to secondary school and university,” said Frances. “It was a real eye opener to see how much your life is enriched by being educated. Education is a wonderful thing, allowing you to get jobs and everything else that comes with it but, aside from that, it is just an intrinsically wonderful thing.” Andrew MacDonald, Media & Communications Officer
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 51
My Union Victorian Trades Hall Council Women’s Conference This was my first Union Women’s conference and three things struck me from the outset. First, the number of passionate, confident and articulate women from a diverse range of backgrounds who were prepared to unite for collective action. I met personal care workers, nurses, teachers, electricians and hospitality workers all passionate and enthusiastic advocates for women in their sector and the community more broadly. Second, the occasional chanting that would punctuate breaks between speakers. As a regular conference-goer I had never experienced anything like it and might propose it to get things revved up at the next academic conference I attend. Third, how good unions are at organising. The conference ran smoothly because of so many orange-shirted union officials to shepherd us along. This army of organisers would again be another innovation in the academic conferences I attend when a speaker might be running over time. After a rousing morning session, the afternoon saw us break into groups to attend skills workshops with four to choose from: Women in Bargaining teams; Persuasive Conversations; Organising at my workplace and the Gender Pay Gap Tool. I chose the Persuasive Conversations workshop fa-
cilitated by the impressive Edie Shepherd who was indeed a persuasive communicator. Among many other things, I learnt never to apologise when asking someone to do something – they are not doing you a favour rather they are stepping up. As a result you congratulate them for this rather than thank them. The day ended with an update provided by the energetic and impressive Wil Stracke on the union movement’s successful campaign to have WorkSafe recognise gendered violence as a workplace safety issue. This was celebrated as a significant first step, but one of many to address the issue. The final plenary was from Natalie Hutchins MP (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Women and Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence). Natalie spoke of growing up in a family of unionists and having been well-versed in the importance of unions by the age of three. She spoke of the gains her Government had made regarding improving gender equity in Victoria – such as the achievement of its goal to have 50/50 gender representation on paid government boards. She also spoke of the greater work to do in relation to breaking down barriers to entry for women in non-traditional professions, such as within the construction sector, as well as ensuring the Government itself
acted proactively to address the gender pay gap within the public service which currently sits at 12 per cent. Natalie then fielded some questions from the audience including a tricky question on the right to strike which revealed the tensions between a commitment to union principles and the compromises made when in government. Naturally the day ended with some more chants before the mighty women of the union movement either went home or kicked on further for some well-earned drinks. Kathryn James, Monash University
Above: Kathryn James, Sorina Grasso, Michelle Giovas, Barbara Smith and Sarah Roberts. Credit: Jess Mengel
WGEA Report 2018 In accordance with the requirements of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 (Act), on 24 May 2018 the NTEU lodged its annual compliance report with the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). The report can be found at: nteu.org.au/library/view/id/8848
NTEU WOMEN’S MAGAZINE
WWw.NTEU.org.au/womeN AgeNda IS seNt free To aLL womeN MEMberS. oTHer meMbers can opt-iN via thE oNliNe MEMber portAL page 52 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
PUBLISHED aNNuALLY IN aUGuST
My Union Women’s Action Network at ANU
NTEU supporting Asylum Seeker Pathways Project
Recently a group of women met at ANU to identify the major issues concerning women in our sector.
The NTEU Victorian Division has been a key member of the Asylum Seeker Pathways Project (ASPP), in partnership with St Joseph’s College, which is part of the Edmund Rice Network.
We were conscious that, though the Women’s Action Committee (WAC) does a lot of great work at the national level including publishing Agenda, there was a gap which needed to be filled in terms of some coordinated local campaigning. Myself and other NTEU women, including ACT Division Assistant Secretary Cathy Day, sought to address this by calling an open meeting of women at ANU. We also surveyed ANU women to hear about their experiences prior to the meeting. Our meeting was a great chance to hear from women at ANU, including NTEU members and many non-members who have subsequently joined as part of this campaign. We heard stories relating to insecure work, children and caring responsibilities, career advancement, flexible working arrangements and more. Many were surprised to learn that although ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt is a Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) Champion of Change, the ANU itself is not an accredited Employer of Choice for women. We used the meeting to launch the Draft Charter of the NTEU Women’s Action Network (WAN). We undertook to incorporate the feedback from the meeting into the draft document, before producing a final WAN Charter to be presented to the Vice-Chancellor in the near future. This Charter will be our guiding document – a broader framework within which to locate our campaigning. Following its presentation to the ANU, our working group will meet and hold member meetings to determine which of the many issues we’d like to prioritise for NTEU WAN campaigns.
The Project was established to provide pathways into tertiary education and work for asylum seekers who have been studying Senior VCAL at St Joseph’s. The school has been operating an asylum seeker programme for a number of years, providing education and support to young people otherwise excluded from schools because of their visa status. The big challenge for asylum seekers on bridging visas is that they are treated as international students by the Australian tertiary education system, even though none of them have the resources to pay the large fees this entails. One of the keys to the success of the Project has also been the continuing support provided by St Joseph’s, even after students have finished at the school and moved into tertiary study or work opportunities. Through lobbying and networking, and thanks to the generosity of a number of universities and other organisations, especially VicSuper and the Victorian Government, the ASPP has been very successful in finding study and work opportunities for asylum seeker students. This was recently recognised by the award of a Government and Industry Diversity Award for the work that ASPP and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning have done to get asylum seekers into work programs with the rural fire service. Over the last two years ASPP has managed to place 15 students in university or TAFE programs and 13 in supported work placements, including with VicSuper and the Victorian public sector. ASPP has also had to work hard to raise money to support these students, especially since the Federal Government recently cut all Centrelink payments for asylum seekers enrolled in education programs. Colin Long, Victorian Division Secretary More information, and to donate youthplusfoundation.org.au/support-us/current-campaign
Below: Young men in a class run by the Youth Plus Foundation
Bel Townsend To join the WAN working group or being a part of future campaigns, please email: act@nteu.org.au
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 53
My Union ‘Matters of Concern’ The ACT Division Seminar Series came about this year as an attempt to address the need for a regular forum at ACT universities where researchers can speak on matters of concern for our campuses, the Australian academy, and universities worldwide. The series, based broadly around the theme of ‘Matters of Concern’, has been put together by a particularly active group of members organising through the NTEU. This group – the Matters of Concern Collective – managed to secure a range of speakers in the first semester. The Series kicked off in February with a seminar by longtime member Prof. Tessa Morris-Suzuki who discussed her research into the Free University experiments of 1920s Japan and reflected on lessons we could learn here. Tessa quoted Japanese writer Takakura Teru, who said: Universities are for people whose spirits are starving for knowledge and truth. They are places where starving spirits come together to reflect on the fundamental elements that link us together as human beings.
The series continued in March with a seminar delivered by New York University’s Prof. Sally Engle Merry, who discussed the dangers of quantification. While quantification has created metrics which have replaced the old boy network of the past, there are still serious questions to be asked of how metrics are created; what is measured and what is not measured; and how these metrics are used. Celeste Liddle, NTEU A&TSI Organiser, was invited to deliver the April seminar, which coincided with the ACT Division’s A&TSI Forum. Celeste joined other NTEU members in a forum convened by the ANU Gender Institute on ‘Being an Indigenous Woman’. Her remarks in both spaces reflected on her own experience as student, staff and now union organiser in the higher education sector. She also clearly articulated the contributions of the NTEU – both industrially and more broadly in terms of social justice. NTEU life member Raewyn Connell came to Canberra for our May seminar. Raewyn delivered a master class on IDAHOBIT Day in partnership with the ANU Gender Institute, and then delivered the seminar on the theme of decolonising the university, sharing her research and insights on universities and the Global South.
Finally, in June, the Matters of Concern Collective convened a panel featuring those involved with organising the series. The aim is not just to understand the modern university, but to change it. With this aim in mind, the panel summarised the speakers from the series so far and then opened the floor to anyone wanting to contribute ideas. This was a great forum for discussing what universities should look like in terms of scope, structure and vision. While there are obviously industrial concerns, much of the value of this series is in seeking to articulate what ‘the university’ is as a civic institution and a fundamental element of democracy in the modern age. While we would have loved to solve these big questions within a single semester, this will be an ongoing discussion and the series will continue into the second semester. Thank you to all who have contributed to the Matters of Concern Collective thus far. Lachlan Clohesy, ACT Div Organiser
Digital deployment for by-elections continued... ...continued from p. 44 In early 2017, Victorian Liberal leader Matthew Guy and his parliamentary team established a ‘quarantined’ account to help buy the campaign software used by the Republican Party in the US. By March 2017, 20 Liberal MPs and other donors had contributed $250,000 and it was hoped to ultimately raise millions. Then Victorian State Director of the Liberal Party, Simon Frost, finalised details of an Australian adaptation of i360 in Washington, and finalised the purchase in July 2017. Dozens of Victorian Liberals including Opposition Leader Matthew Guy visited Adelaide during the SA election in March 2018 to see i360 in action. The tool is fully rolled out now for the Victorian election in November. Senior Liberal sources said the Queensland division was set to sign up for i360, while NSW and the federal party were
considering it. The WA Liberals were not actively considering it at this stage of its electoral cycle. The federal Liberal Party might well have made some i360 connections with the $994,000 they got last year from the taxpayer-funded Australian Political Parties for Democracy Program, which supports international travel to and from kindred Political Parties overseas. Overseas delegates were flown to Australia by the Liberal Party to observe the Tasmanian and SA elections. Another opportunity to pilot the effective use of i360 occurs in the dual citizenship by-elections at the end of July. It is possible that it may be used in the Queensland seat of Longman and certain to be used in the SA seat of Mayo, where the Liberal Georgina Downer hopes to unseat Rebekha Sharkie of the Centre Alliance (formerly NXT). The SA Liberal Party does not expect
page 54 • NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate
i360 to be as effective in Mayo as it was in the SA election in March because of the short lead time for training, though the data-gathering has been done in the corresponding State electorates quite recently, the Rubio campaign had only 139 days, and the Macron campaign in France – not using i360, but similar software – took less than two years to end a political duopoly that had lasted sixty years. However, as with technology in education, the smartest software in the world cannot do the campaigning itself – only the campaigners on the ground can do that. It is very empowering to have the means to do microtargeting of uncommitted voters, but it is useless without well-trained canvassers knocking on doors, talking to workmates, and making phone calls. Pat Wright is an NTEU Life Member. patrite@me.com
My Union New NTEU staff
with Murdoch University members and working with them to protect their rights and conditions. Outside of his work at the NTEU, Jake is an avid reader and an aviation wonk.
Kate Warner Branch Organiser UQ
Colin Muir Industrial Organiser FUA
Kate Warner has recently been appointed as the Branch Organiser at UQ. Kate was an active member of the UQ Branch for a number of years and has been employed as a casual academic in the School of Communication and Arts. She is a committed and passionate unionist.
Colin Muir joined the Federation University Branch initially covering a short term vacancy in October which ultimately became permanent in March. He has a long involvement in the trade union movement, most recently working for 15 years as an organiser with the AMWU.
Jake Wittey Branch Organiser Murdoch
Colin also has strong regional ties with the Ballarat Trades & Labour Council.
Staff movements Growth Team Organiser Rifai Abdul has been appointed VU Branch Organiser. UQ Branch Organiser, David Szumer was appointed Queensland Division Recruitment and Training Organiser in March. Noel Gardiner has been appointed to the Victorian Division Organiser position based at Deakin Branch. Campbell Smith was appointed as a National Industrial Officer in April. Beth Cole has been appointed as WA Division Industrial Organiser position.
Jake Wittey is the new Organiser for the NTEU at Murdoch University. Prior to this role, Jake was the Curtin Student Guild President and the WA State Branch President of the National Union of Students. He played a central role in the collective action to oppose changes to the university acts that would see a removal of elections for staff and students to university council and senates. Jake is passionate about trade unionism, and believes that a union is only as strong as its members allow it to be. He looks forward to standing side by side
All NTEU members are automatically covered for journey injury insurance. As an individual you could be paying hundreds of dollars per year to get this valuable cover, but as a financial member of NTEU, it’s absolutely free!
Travel Work insurance Travel Toto Work Insurance
Find out more at www.nteu.org.au/traveltowork NTEU NATIONAL EXECUTIVE National President Vice-President (Academic) Vice-President (General Staff) General Secretary National Assistant Secretary A&TSI PC Chair
Jeannie Rea Andrew Bonnell Jane Battersby Grahame McCulloch Matthew McGowan Terry Mason
National Executive: Rachael Bahl, Stuart Bunt, Damien Cahill, Sarah Kaine, Gabe Gooding, Andrea Lamont-Mills, Colin Long, Virginia Mansel Lees, Michael McNally, Kelvin Michael, Catherine Rojas, Melissa Slee, Ron Slee, Michael Thomson, Nick Warner, Lolita Wikander
NTEU NATIONAL OFFICE STAFF Industrial Unit Coordinator National Industrial Officers Policy & Research Coordinator Policy & Research Officer
Sarah Roberts Susan Kenna, Wayne Cupido, Campbell Smith Paul Kniest Terri MacDonald
National A&TSI Coordinator Adam Frogley National A&TSI Organiser Celeste Liddle National Organiser Michael Evans National Publications Coordinator Paul Clifton Media & Communications Officer Andrew MacDonald National Membership Officer Melinda Valsorda Education & Training Officers Ken McAlpine, Helena Spyrou Executive Manager Peter Summers ICT Network Engineer Tam Vuong Database Programmer/Data Analyst Uffan Saeed Payroll Officer Jo Riley Executive Officer (Gen Sec & President) Anastasia Kotaidis Executive Officer (Meeting & Events) Tracey Coster Admin Officer (Membership/Campaigns) Julie Ann Veal Admin Officer (Resources) Renee Veal Receptionist & Administrative Support Leanne Foote Finance Manager Glenn Osmand Senior Finance Officer Gracia Ho Finance Officers Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze, Lee Powell, Daphne Zhang
NTEU ADVOCATE • vol. 25 no. 2 • July 2018 • www.nteu.org.au/advocate • page 55
Introducing a new benefit for NTEU members.
www.memberadvantage.com.au/nteu Member Advantage and NTEU are excited to announce our new partnership with The Good Guys Commercial. Register for your new account with access to fantastic savings on over 4000+ products through your benefits program. Exclusively through Member Advantage, NTEU members can save on a range of products, including: • • • • •
whitegoods, audio, computer and laptops, kitchen accessories and much more.
1998 2018
Celebrating 20 years of member benefits
For more information, email info@memberadvantage.com.au or call 1300 853 352. Terms and conditions apply,
When it comes to that big question “What do you make”, most banks give you eight little boxes on a form. As how can you possibly fit everything you contribute to your community into that tiny space? At Bank First, we believe what you really make goes well beyond a dollar figure. So while you’re investing in others, we’re here to invest in you. Visit bankfirst.com.au and find out how we can do more for you.
PUTTING YOU BACK IN THE PICTURE OF HEALTH UniHealth is health insurance for the education community and their families. We get you, your work and your needs. And as a not-for-profit, we’re focused on making sure our members get the best possible value – instead of payouts for shareholders.
Start getting the most out of your health insurance. Visit unihealthinsurance.com.au or call 1300 367 906 Eligibility criteria and conditions apply. Teachers Federation Health Ltd ABN 86 097 030 414 trading as UniHealth. UNI-NTEU-07/18