Advocate July 2010

NTEU Elections p.37 Paid Parental Leave p.19 Private Providers behaving badly p.24 Greek tragedy p.30

Bargaining highs & lows Latest updates p.11

Branches tell: How we got there p.12

My HE Revolution

p.11

TAX GUIDE INSIDE

Volume 17, Number 2, July 2010

AdvocateJournal of the national tertiary education union

rep resenting emp loyees in higher educ ation, tafe, adult educ ation, r acgp, research institutes and universit y companies

ISSN 1321–8476

Big Savings for Union Members

Challenge us to find youa better deal.Union Shopper is all about ensuring members receive great value for money on whatever you are looking to buy.

At no cost to you, we help save time and

money, without the hassles and headache.

Be part of the savings and make the most

of this valuable money saving service.

Before you make another purchase,

remember Union Shopper and challenge

us to find you a better deal.

Participating brands include:

ACTU Member Connect in association with Discount New Cars have put together a package for union members that will give you tremendous benefits in cost savings when it comes to purchasing a new motor vehicle - in fact over and above what Discount New Cars currently offer to the general public.

Discount New Cars Union Member Service is a unique car buying service, offering discounted prices on most popular makes and models of new cars for union members. Vehicles are supplied through a select group of accredited union dealers Australia wide.

This Union Specials page is where you will find the best prices available on a selected range of new motor vehicles. The complete range of manufacture vehicles available to union members is found on the left hand side of the page. This exclusive member benefit proudly supports the union movement and is a strong supporter of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

www.discountnewcars.com.au/unions

REGULAR FEATURES

FROM THE OFFICERS 2 New PM gives Government renewed focus

Carolyn Allport, National President

3 General Secretary Candidate StatementGrahame McCulloch, General Secretary

4 President Candidate StatementJeannie Rea, National President-elect

5 Higher education and unions in FijiTed Murphy, National Assistant Secretary

UPDATE6 ACTU highly commends La Trobe & UWS delegates SSAA Bargaining for first Agreement 7 Equal Pay Day Rally; SA unionist faces jail Workplace rights for casuals 8 VU loses Full Bench appeal Swinburne tackles academic workloads9 UWA mass meeting endorses preparations for action

INDIGENOUS NEWS 10 Indigenous Forum 2010 Ballot for action at Batchelor QCU honours Uncle Bob Anderson

COLUMNS 32 eReading rEvolution

News from the Net, by Pat Wright

33 Gold diggers and rent seekersLowering the Boom, by Ian Lowe

34 Teaching Union Membership 101Regional Focus, by Jenny Austin

35 Missing out on the chance to learnLetter from New Zealand/Aotearoa, by Dr Tom Ryan, TEU

YOUR UNION 36 New NTEU staff 37 NTEU Elections; New Queensland Division office opened 38 Human rights actions by NTEU39 New NTEU website Updating your membership details 40 Contacting your Union

On the cover:Dwight Zakus from Griffith University

standing up for respect at work.

Photo: Bevan Bache

Advocate is published by National Tertiary Education Union,PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 AustraliaISSN 1321-8476 ABN 38 579 396 344 ph: 03 9254 1910 fax: 03 9254 1915 email: [email protected]

Publisher ........................................ Grahame McCullochEditor .............................................. Carolyn AllportProduction ...................................Paul CliftonEditorial Assistance ........................Anastasia KotaidisFeedback and advertising ................ [email protected]

All text & images © NTEU 2010 unless otherwise stated.

VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2, JULY 2010

SPECIAL FEATURES

BARGAINING11 University bargaining enters the home straight

Over the past months more Branches have achieved final Agreements, but some universities are holding out for the ‘old days’.

12 How we got thereFour NTEU Branches report on their roads to achieving new Agreements.

POLICY14 My Higher Education Revolution

Assessing the Government’s performance on higher education and research policy

18 Government defends its record on researchSenator Kim Carr says the Government stands on its record in university research.

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE19 Is this long awaited baby a healthy bundle?

Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave scheme was finally delivered on 17 June 2010. We ask – is it ‘hale and healthy’?

21 Opinions on PPL from the Minister and Shadow Minister

GENERAL STAFF 22 General/PACCT Staff – Looking for better careers

Improving career options for general staff in future NTEU Agreements.

POLITICS 23 Simon Crean takes over the Education Revolution

Simon Crean returns to the portfolio he held 15 years ago.

PRIVATE PROVIDERS 24 Union fills the gap after management abandons staff

La Trobe University acted with callousness towards staff in its sale of the International College to Navitas.

25 Private providers a cause for concern in the public sector Navitas is setting up shop at Newcastle, and members are alarmed.

RESEARCH26 State of the Industry: Discussing the future of research

STUDENTS 28 Us vs Them: Strengthening the relationship between staff

and student unions

INTERNATIONAL30 Bleak prospects for universities in post-GFC Greece

In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, this magazine is printed on Behaviour–a 30% recycled stock, manufactured by a PEFC Certified mill, which is ECF Certified Chlorine Free.

Advocate is also available online (e-book and PDF) at www.nteu.org.au/advocate

NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email notification rather than printed copy) for all NTEU magazines. Login to the members’ area at www.nteu.org.au to access your membership details.

AdvocateJOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION

New PM gives Government renewed focus

I n a surprising move generated by anxiety over low poll figures, the previous PM Kevin Rudd has been replaced by the Hon Julia Gillard. While some voters may have been surprised, it was a brave move in an attempt to re-invent the agenda and

maintain government. The country embraced the new Prime Minister; keen to see a woman, who is often touted as one of the best parliamentary performers, advance to the top job. We now face a Federal election, sooner rather than later.

The Education portfolio has been picked up by the ALP veteran Simon Crean who has always been a hard-working MP. Minister Crean is well known to NTEU: we worked productively with him in 1993 on the Hoare Review over improvements to workforce reform, govern-ance and accountability.(see.report,.p..23)..

Clearly there is much to do before the election is called and Ms Gil-lard is keen to maintain stability at the same time as introducing her own agenda, which includes moving away from Rudd’s ‘big Australia’.It is important in the definition of the Federal Government’s new agenda that programs focus on student participation and strengthen the uni-versity workforce through increasing opportunities for new research-ers, especially postdoctoral staff, to join the academic workforce.

As the noted demographer Graeme Hugo has consistently urged, workforce development should be systemic, especially given the sec-tor-wide crisis that will occur without change. While work has been undertaken in the Department of Innovation, Science, Industry and Research (DIISR) on removing the structural impediments to meeting future demand through its Research Workforce Strategy, there is still no direct government funding program for workforce development within universities and TAFE.

There remain significant questions around the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Initially it was envisioned that TEQSA would be fully operable in 2010 and it would have responsi-bility for quality and standards, thus subsuming the Australian Qual-ity Assurance Agency (AUQA). In addition, TEQSA would have had important tasks such as accrediting new providers, evaluating per-formance of institutions, encouraging best practice and thus provid-ing national consistency. However, there are likely to be delays in the initial timing of the roll-out as was indicated by the latest discussions with the Government and the Quality Agency itself.

What does an uncapped student demand mean for the univer-sity workforce? From a social justice perspective, it is crucial to pro-vide opportunities for more Australians to be able to participate in post-secondary and higher education. In order that this is sustain-able, there should also be a systemic increase in resources which will enable those seeking a ‘new start’ in education. As many of us under-stand, it is particularly important to ensure that funding is available to ensure increased staff numbers and staff development in order that low SES students can take advantage of opportunities to improve their educational qualifications.

In terms of our own working lives, career choices are made accord-ing to issues deeper than relative income. We are are motivated by employment stability, professional autonomy and chances to broaden

their academic career through collaborating with colleagues domes-tically and internationally. However, we should remember that many colleagues do not have the same degree of working stability, working on contracts based on hourly pay rates, working across a number of institutions with little career development opportunities.

This must change if we are to sustain our academic workforce. Work is being undertaken within Government departments, beginning with the Research Workforce Strategy from the Department of Indus-try, Innovation, Science and Research (DIISR). There has also been a somewhat belated start in the Department of Education, Employ-ment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) with the commissioning of the studies ‘The Work Roles and Attitudes of Academics in Australian Universities’ and ‘The Career Pathways and Teacher Training of Higher Degree by Research (HDR) Students.’

Graeme Hugo’s 2010 report, ‘Investigating the Ageing Academic Workforce’ claims existing data lacks the granularity to lead to disci-pline or professional program-based people planning. It also suggests there is a deficiency of research on workforce planning and develop-ment studies. Hugo has argued Engineering is the only profession where the supply of academics has been assessed, though Health and Education sectors are aware of ageing workforce problems, and Accounting is undertaking a survey in 2010. Importantly, Hugo calls for a detailed analysis of workforce planning and development strate-gies at three universities, as well as a separate study on the attraction of mid career professional practitioners into academia. He concludes that national intervention is necessary.

Recently the Research Workforce Taskforce convened by DIISR released the ‘Meeting Australia’s Research Workforce Needs’ Consul-tation Paper. The Consultation Paper is a culmination of DIISR’s con-sultation and engagement with the sector, especially in the early part of 2010 when roundtables with researchers were conducted, and responses to the paper will be critical in formulating the Federal Gov-ernment’s research workforce strategy over the next decade.

NTEU is confident these are signs that the Federal Government understands the scale of our concerns, and that the Education Revo-lution will lead to workforce investment at a transformational scale.

Aurevoir!This is my last Advocate column. I thank all NTEU members and Union staff for their support over the 16 years that I have worked as the Pres-ident and will hand over the baton to our President-elect, Jeannie Rea from Victoria University.

NTEU ADVOCATE2

FROM THE OFFICERS CAROLYN ALLPORT, NATIONAL PRESIDENT

General Secretary Candidate Statement

A t the close of nominations for NTEU elections on Wednesday 16 June, I was the only nomination for the position of General Secretary. The column on this page is my Candidate Statement, which was to be circulated with ballot papers

to eligible voters in the event of a contested election.

Continuityandrenewal

As your General Secretary I have provided strong national leadership since 1993 and continue to have energy and enthusiasm for the chal-lenges ahead. While NTEU has a proud record on bargaining, profes-sional issues and social justice, our visibility as a national advocate on public policy has declined in recent years, and we have struggled to sustain membership growth.

A national leadership team which blends my experience with new ideas and perspectives will help build on our successes and deal with our weaknesses. I am therefore seeking re-election as part of a new team with Jeannie Rea (candidate for President), Jeannie Rea has been elected as National President – see column on p. 4 (Editor’s note).

PublicpolicyFor twenty-five years, Governments have pursued market based ter-tiary education policies. Deep divisions have emerged within and between universities and colleges with adverse consequences for regional/outer-metropolitan institutions and less ‘marketable’ disci-plines.

These trends are continuing under Labor. Julia Gillard has increased public investment (including grant indexation from 2012) but other decisions – the new demand based student enrolment system, the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) initiative and intrusive per-formance indicators – have the potential to create sharper separation of teaching and research activities and a narrowing of the discipline base of institutions. Labor’s decision to establish increased participa-tion targets is welcome but the scale of its increased public invest-ment is insufficient and declining as a proportion of Government outlays and GDP.

NTEU should be more critical of Labor policies, and a new leadership team needs to be more active and vocal in the public policy arena.

StrategicindustrialleadershipWorking conditions have been under pressure as a result of the wider higher education policy environment and successive changes to industrial legislation.

Despite adverse circumstances, NTEU has made impressive gains under the Coalition’s hostile WorkChoices/HEWRRs regime and Labor’s improved but nonetheless inadequate Fair Work Act. Our national industrial strategy has protected working conditions which would otherwise have been eroded by market forces.

In combination with the efforts of members at Branch and Division level, my strategic leadership has helped achieve:• Competitive Salaries which have increased by 45% (2003-2012)

well ahead of others (e.g. CSIRO, teachers, public servants) and inflation. This is the best result in thirty years.

• High quality Collective Agreements which include safeguard-ing the 17% employer superannuation contribution, better general staff reclassification opportunities, peer review and com-mittee processes, groundbreaking parental leave (26-36 weeks paid leave), academic and general staff workload caps, restric-tions on the use of contracts, improved casual staff incomes and job security, limits on management prerogative and guaranteed Indigenous employment targets.

I support a tough minded approach to negotiation. I will not hesi-tate to recommend industrial action when needed but will also offer cautionary counsel when required. The weight and impact of indus-trial action should not be diminished by overuse, but nor should the Union be squeamish when the chips are down.

AninternationalvoiceHigher education is global with world mobility of staff and students. OECD, World Bank and WTO policies shape the evolution of national university systems. As the only higher education member of the World Executive Board of Education International, I lead a growing international network of national tertiary education unions.

PublicvoiceforsocialjusticeI will continue to actively support Indigenous rights in higher edu-cation and more generally, and to promote human and trade union rights and academic freedom nationally and internationally.

VocationaleducationandtrainingOur VET membership has been neglected and I will give priority to remedying this. We need a better approach to Collective Bargain-ing, better Branch structures and a critical engagement with the burgeoning delivery of degree programs by public and private VET colleges.

For more information on NTEU elections, see report on p. 37

JULY 2010 www.nteu.org.au 3

FROM THE OFFICERS GRAHAME MCCULLOCH, GENERAL SECRETARY

President’s Candidate Statement

A t the close of nominations for NTEU elections on Wednesday 16 June, I was the only nomination for the position of National President The column on this page is my Candidate Statement, which was to be circulated with ballot papers

to eligible voters in the event of a contested election.

The NTEU has an impressive industrial and professional record, as well as demonstrated commitment to human rights and social justice in Australia and internationally. This is why I am a proud NTEU member and why I am standing for National President.

I have joined with Grahame McCulloch (candidate for National General Secretary) in a team that offers continuity and renewal.

I can offer experience at every level of the Union, starting from when I joined Victoria University (VU) in 1991:• VU Branch President• Victorian Division President• National Executive member• National Councillor• National Education Committee member.

I have actively participated in Women’s Conferences, Enterprise Bargaining Conferences and Indigenous Forums; initiated new policy (e.g. environmental); and supported higher education union capacity building in the Asia Pacific region.

My academic teaching and research is in social change. I work across gender, cross cultural, environment and labour studies, strate-gic communication and public advocacy.

Before joining VU, I was a TAFE teacher, then communications coor-dinator for the Technical Teachers Union.

In recent years I have also worked closely with general staff col-leagues as Head of School and, currently, as Deputy Dean.

I continue to teach, write and coordinate courses; participate in professional associations, management and governance bodies; and find time for research.

I have extensive experience in policy development, public commu-nication, negotiation and advocacy.

AneweraWe are embarking upon a new era in tertiary education. There is renewed hope that the rhetoric around the critical role of educa-tion in building a fairer, smarter and better world may be realised, but there are also doubts that the new directions are sufficiently different from the old. We can expect big changes in our univer-sities, research institutes, TAFE colleges and other post-secondary education institutions with the massification and consolidation of the tertiary sector. But we are still stuck with governments that want to do it on the cheap.

The NTEU is committed to greater and fairer access to tertiary education. We are one of the few voices arguing for democratic processes and more resources. Change should not mean teaching

and researching more with fewer resources and a forensic level of surveillance. Compliance reporting requirements are draining our lifeblood. We are trying to maintain and improve quality in our classrooms, our services and our research projects, while spending precious time reporting through various metrics of dubious value and validity.

Our collective resilience is demonstrated in the achievements of our Union. These advances have become so much part of the system that we can forget they were won by us – not handed over by man-agement and government.

The NTEU set the benchmark on parental leave, Indigenous industrial and educational rights, intellectual freedom, job security and career structures, and we survived the Howard Government’s HEWRRs/WorkChoices attacks. We can further improve our indus-trial rights – and use our industrial agreements to make fair and just workplaces to enable quality education and research for students and the broader community.

My focus includes:• Ensuring our Union’s leadership and membership are responsive

to changes in tertiary education, including generational change.• Continuing our groundbreaking work with Indigenous and

women members.• Valuing research-informed teaching.• Prioritising career development for general staff.• Articulating and strengthening our political influence with all

stakeholders in tertiary education, including governments. We must be a critical and visible participant.

Coming from the ‘shopfloor’, I understand the need to reduce the workload pressures upon academics and general staff; and the need for job security and fair reward for every member of the NTEU.

ElectionforNationalAssistantSecretary

Elections are underway for positions right across the Union – at National, Division and Branch levels.

The position of National Assistant Secretary is being contested between Matt McGowan and Len Palmer.

All eligible NTEU members should receive a ballot in early August.

See article on p. 37 for full details

NTEU ADVOCATE4

FROM THE OFFICERS JEANNIE REA, NATIONAL PRESIDENT-ELECT

In addition to its Fiji campuses, the USP has a significant campus in Vanuatu, and smaller campuses or centres in Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Nauru, Cook Islands, Niue, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands. While USP is one institution, South Pacific island states rep-resented on the Council of the University have their own industrial relations systems. To date this has not been a problem because there is no counterpart to AUSPS and the other two unions at the Fiji cam-puses at any of the campuses in other countries. However, AUSPS believes there is still some prospect of an association being formed at a USP campus outside Fiji.

USP staff in Fiji are employed under a university staff ordinance rather than a collective agreement, a situation that AUSPS wants to change. The visit by NTEU and TEU officials was organised primarily for the purpose of a two day seminar at USP about Australian and New Zealand experience in collective bargaining and similarities and differences in the conditions of university staff in the three countries.

AUSPS’s elected officers undertake their union roles on top of their normal workload as USP staff, without the assistance of a paid Indus-trial Officer. Arising out of the seminar, NTEU is providing ongoing advice to AUSP on collective bargaining claims and issues.

The visit to Fiji also enabled NTEU and TEU to gain a better under-standing of the changes in the higher education system in that coun-try. USP was for many years the only university in Fiji, then for several years a campus of Central Queensland University offered programs in Suva. With the closure of the CQU campus, USP regained its status as the only university until a private Indian foundation established a small institution called the University of Fiji. A third and much larger institution, the Fiji National University, was established last year when the Government of Fiji amalgamated the Institute of Technology, the College of Advanced Education, the School of Nursing, the School of Medicine, the College of Agriculture and the Lautoka Teachers Col-lege. This dual sector university commenced operations at the start of this year

It is questionable whether Fiji can sustain three universities in the long term. There is also concern about whether over time Fiji, which contributes ten times more funding to USP than any other South Pacific Island state, will give greater priority in allocating higher education funding to the National University of Fiji over the multinational USP.

One consequence of the amalgamation is that there are now sev-

eral unions in the university sector. At the University of Fiji there is a registered union covering academic and general staff. At USP there are three unions: AUSPS, a union representing white collar general staff below the senior grades, and a Trades and Grounds staff union. At the new National University the largest unions are Fiji’s two teacher unions, but there are also members of the civil service association, the nurses union and other unions and associations representing staff from the former Colleges of Agriculture and Medicine.

The two teacher unions have already negotiated an interim Collec-tive Agreement at the National University. Fiji has two peak union councils, reflecting differences between Indigenous Fijians and Fijians of Indian descent over previous coups and the policies of dif-ferent governments. However, there is greater cooperation among the teachers and other key unions regardless of peak council affili-ation. This is due to the impact of the cycle of coups in the country, the problems this has caused or exacerbated, and the policies and practices of the current Government, such as rule by degree, media censorship, monitoring union activity, and the requirement for a gov-ernment permit for meetings to be held.

This requirement applies regardless of whether the meeting par-ticipants are union representatives or Methodist ministers. During the visit of NTEU and TEU representatives, the media reported that some of the Methodist ministers, already charged with meeting without a permit, would also be charged with conspiracy to disobey Com-modore Frank Bainimarama.

FinalcolumnThis is my last column for The.Advocate as I am not standing again for the position of National Assistant Secretary. Although most of my work has been focused on industrial and superannuation matters, I have covered in my columns a wide range of issues including Gov-ernment and Opposition policies, the potential impact of free trade agreements on tertiary education, conditions at the offshore cam-puses of Australian universities, and the problems facing university staff and unions in East Asia and the South Pacific.

NTEU is the strongest and most well resourced tertiary education union in the region and with that comes obligations, which I am confident will continue to be discharged in the future.

Higher education and unions in Fiji

F or many years, the NTEU has had a close relationship with the Association of University of South Pacific Staff (AUSPS), the Union which represents academics and senior professional and administrative staff at the main USP campus in Suva

and the other Fiji campuses of the University. At one stage the NTEU and the then Association of University Staff of New Zea-land, following consultation with AUSPS, advised their members against applying for positions at the USP due to academic freedom issues in the wake of a military coup. In April this year, with another military regime in power, I travelled to Suva – with Ken McAlpine, NTEU Senior Industrial Officer; Tom Ryan, President of NZ’s Tertiary Education Union (TEU); and Nanette Cormack, TEU Deputy Secretary – to meet with AUSPS about collective bargaining and other matters.


FROM THE OFFICERS TED MURPHY, NATIONAL ASSISTANT SECRETARY

TerryMason

Chair of the NTEU Indigenous Policy Com-mittee (IPC) and University of Western Sydney (UWS) Branch President, Terry Mason, received the 2010 ACTU Award for his out-standing individual contribution to the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues in the labour movement.

NTEU proudly congratulates Rhonda, Sean and Terry on their awards, and thanks all activists, elected officers and delegates for the hard work they undertake for their col-leagues and the Union.

Serena O’Meley, NTEU La Trobe Branch Industrial Organiser & Michael Evans, National Organiser

Below: Terry Mason. Photo: Atosha McCaw

NATIONAL

ACTUhonoursNTEUactivistsatLaTrobeandUWS

N TEU activists at La Trobe Univer-sity and the University of Western

Sydney (UWS) have been honoured by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) during its 2010 Organising Conference in April.

RhondaSmallandSeanSlavinProfessor Rhonda Small and Dr Sean Slavin have been highly commended in the ACTU Delegate of the Year awards.

They were nominated by NTEU for their work to promote better job security and working conditions for grant funded research staff both within La Trobe Univer-sity and as part of a national bargaining cam-paign coordinated by the Union.

Rhonda and Sean wrote a paper ‘Better Support for Better Research’ which was framed within the University strategic and operational plans. It drew upon case studies of members who had been on rolling fixed term contracts for years and even decades.

They spoke at a bargaining forum on research issues with 20 senior managers, produced a video for public distribution, published an article in The. Advocate and brought their colleagues to the campaign and the Union.

Rhonda led the NTEU team in the final three months of nego-tiations on the La Trobe University Collective Agreement 2009.

La Trobe University is now leading the way in the higher educa-tion sector on better job security for contract research staff, with a new form of ongoing employment enshrined in the Collective Agree-ment that over time will cover hundreds of research staff members.

VICTORIA

SSAAbargainingfor1stAgreement

N TEU members have com-menced negotiations at

Swinburne Staff Amenities Asso-ciation (SSAA) seeking their first Enterprise Agreement.

Currently the 20 staff of SSAA are the only staff at Swinburne not covered by the Union Collective Agreement and staff are campaigning for the same con-ditions as University Staff.

Unfortunately, management has refused to move on providing Univer-sity conditions to SSAA staff, citing cost as the main impediment to raising the workplace conditions to those of their University colleagues.

NTEU members will be preparing an education campaign shortly to ensure the broader University community is aware of their plight and their simple claim for fair and just conditions.

NTEU members can send messages of support to the Swinburne Branch at [email protected]. A

Serena O’Meley, Dr Sean Slavin, Linda Gale, Professor Rhonda Small were part of the NTEU La Trobe Branch bargaining team with Margaret Botterill and Dr Graeme Byrne (not pictured). Photo: Michael Evans

NTEU ADVOCATE6

UPDATE

NEW SOUTH WALES

RallyinsupportofEqualPay

T he Equal Pay Day of Action held on 10 June in Lismore was the biggest National Action for Equal Pay recorded since the 1970s. It was definitely energising to

see NSW members participate in support of the history making Equal Pay Case to address lower pay among female-dominated community sector workers.

NTEU members from the Sydney metro, Wollongong and Newcastle campuses gathered at Town Hall with an estimated 3,000 fellow sup-porters.

In Lismore, a colourful and deter-mined crowd of 250 workers, includ-ing the Samba Blissta drummers, Federal Member for Page, Janelle Saffin and City of Lismore Mayor, Jenny Dowell, were led by local drag act ‘Julia Gillard’ from the Lismore Workers’ Club to the Town Hall.

In 2010, unions led by the Austral-ian Services Union (ASU) and sup-ported by the ACTU and the Federal Government are lodging a test case in Fair Work Australia (FWA) using the new Equal Remuneration laws embedded in the Fair.Work.Act. The case will impact the working lives of about 200,000 community workers.

The success of the ASU campaign and scope of the test case – demonstrated to have the support of all union affiliates – has been embraced by a broad range commu-nity members and supporters, both men and women, highlighting that equal pay is a matter all Australians want to see won.

The case will be heard by a Full Bench of FWA in August 2010. We encourage NTEU members to continue to show support and say ‘No More Lip Service to Equal Pay’. A

Pay Up c www.payup.org.auFWA c www.fwa.gov.au/equalremuneration

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Unionistfacesjail

A rk Tribe is a South Austral-ian construction worker who

faces a 6 month jail term for not attending an Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) interrogation.

Ark attended an unauthorised safety meeting on site at Flinders University in May 2008. The safety issue was iden-tified by a Safework Inspector and was attended to on the day. Ark was subse-quently summoned to attend a secret meeting of the ABCC and refused. This resulted in the ABCC initiating proceed-ings against him.

In 2005, the Howard Government established the ABCC in an attempt to undermine the role of unions in the building industry. The ABCC has the insidious power to compel individuals (workers or members of the public pass-ing by) to attend secret interrogations, with capacity for extreme and harsh repercussions for those who choose not to attend or ‘fully participate’.

In the same year the Higher Educa-tion Workplace Relations Regulations (HEWRRs) came into being for the higher education sector. Whilst the Coalition’s attack on the building and construc-tion industry moved beyond the powers inherent in the HEWRRs, the underpin-ning ideological aim was the same: dis-empowerment of the unions. Each piece of legislation was condemned by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The implementation of both sets of leg-islation has seen negative changes to the stability and conditions of employ-ment. Neither piece of legislation was designed to in any way benefit workers.

Labor abolished HEWRRs in August 2008 but, despite promises, has yet to do the same to the ABCC. Unions across the country have united to support Ark and campaign for repeal of legislation that treats workers in the construction industry differently from all other work-ers. The case continues on 20–22 July. A

VICTORIA

Workplacerightsforcasuals

S winburne Branch members have commenced campaigns

to enforce the workplace rights for casual staff.

Recently significant underpayments have surfaced in two different faculties. In the Faculty of Business and Enterprise, the

University has slashed pay for some ses-sional staff teaching Post Graduate sub-jects by up to 50%.

In another faculty, the University has paid tutors for classes of over an hour the other academic duties rate for all subsequent hours. While small wins have occurred for members on part of these dis-putes, very significant claims still exist and NTEU is currently assessing its options in relation to enforcing the Union Collective Agreement.

NTEU membership amongst casual aca-demic staff at Swinburne has tripled since February. A

‘Julia Gillard’ with NTEU SCU member Tanya Lienert at theLismore Equal Pay Day Rally. Photo: Tony Davies


UPDATE

VICTORIA

VUManagementloseFullBenchappeal:‘nochanges’meansnochanges

A long-running dispute at Victoria University (VU) over the Academic Work-loads Model has finally been resolved in favour of the NTEU. A Full Bench

decision from Fair Work Australia (FWA) on 18 June comprehensively dismissed the University management’s appeal against an earlier decision by FWA which directed the University to apply the Workloads Model it signed up to in its Enter-prise Agreement.

The dispute arose because, after putting an Agreement to a ballot of staff in 2009 which said there would be no changes to the Aca-demic Workloads Model without agreement with the NTEU, the University then unilater-ally changed the model in the weeks before FWA approved the new Agreement, and con-tinued to implement those changes after the new Agreement came into force.

The changes increased workload alloca-tions by reducing the number of workload points that were attributable to particular duties, without reducing the work involved in performing those duties.

VU’sspecialsubject:thebleedin’obvious

In the tribunal, VU management employed a phalanx of lawyers to run several ‘courageous’ arguments. First, they said that the commit-ment to make no changes only applied when the Agreement came into force in 2010, not when it was put to staff in 2009.

Then they argued that the commitment to no changes really meant that there would be no ‘architectural’ changes to the Model, but management could do whatever they liked to points allocation.

Their third argument was that if changes were made using the Model’s internal change mechanism, they were not really changes.

Then they argued that workload allocation points were not part to the Workloads Model at all.

Lastly, they argued that even if the Union was correct about what the Agreement means, the Tribunal shouldn’t do anything about it because (a) all workload allocations for 2010 were made in January and couldn’t

now be varied without huge expense and inconvenience; and (by) requiring them to compensate staff in second semester work-load allocation for first semester overload was somehow retrospective legislation.

AllargumentsrejectedThe FWA Full Bench comprehensively dis-missed all management’s arguments:

We have no doubt a reasonable person in the position of an employee consider-ing whether to vote to approve the 2009 Agreement would have understood that ‘no change’ to the Model meant that the allo-cation of points for particular duties would not change; that is, that the employee, by approving the agreement, would not be exposed to the possibility of an increased workload on account of a further change to the Model. ([2010] FWAFB 4195 at [43])and… we are satisfied that the intention of the framers of clause 47.3.2, ascertained objectively, and bearing in mind that they are likely to have been people of a practi-cal bent of mind, was that there would be no change to the ‘existing model’, including via the Change Mechanism, other than by agreement with the NTEU. (at [43])and A reasonable employee would not contem-plate, in the particular matrix of facts in this case, that retention of the existing model without change could involve a change to the points allocated for particular duties or activities or combinations of duties and/or activities. (at [44])and A ‘change to the existing model’ is a change to the Model however that change arises. (at [46])

The Full Bench upheld the original deci-sion as ‘the correct conclusion for substan-tially the correct reasons’ (at [54]).

Now, seven months after they voted on an Agreement guaranteeing no changes to their workloads model, NTEU members at VU expect management to finally deliver on that Agreement. A

Linda Gale, Senior Industrial OfficerNTEU Vic Division

Full FWA decision c www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2010fwafb4195.htm

VICTORIA

Swinburnetacklesworkloads

N TEU is conducting forums in all faculties at Swinburne

University to explain the enhanced member rights in relation to work-loads and to engage members in the negotiation of new workload models.

Under the new Union Collective Agree-ment at Swinburne, workload models must now be negotiated with all aca-demic staff and where agreement is not reached, Fair Work Australia is empow-ered to resolve the outstanding mat-ters.

Workload models at Swinburne can be heavily teaching focused with 15 contact hour starting points and very little reduction for teaching responsi-bilities. In some faculties cash payments are made to Academic staff who pub-lish in high ranked journals.

NTEU members at Swinburne are campaigning to establish a common minimum set of workload model arrangements which encourage early career academics and provide real opportunities for research. A

NTEU ADVOCATE8

UPDATE

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

UWAmassmeetingendorsespreparationsforindustrialaction

N TEU University of Western Australia (UWA) Branch held a standing room only mass meeting on 1 June 2010 which gave unanimous support for a motion

that authorises the Branch Committee to begin preparations for a secret ballot to take protected industrial action in second semester of this year.

At that meeting, the bargaining update focused attention on the lack of respect by the UWA Executive toward staff by withhold-ing commitments toward a range of matters.

The major problems in negotiations that were aired prior to voting on the motion were identified as academic workloads, justice for General Staff, improvements in salaries and conditions for casual staff, fair and reasonable salary increases, and no job losses during the life of the Agreement.

Academic workloads: The absence of any limits or prescription in our current Agree-ment allows for abuse by management in the determination of academic workloads.

The University is resisting a defined per-centage normal allocation of teaching and research to academic staff and are also strongly opposed to annualised hours.

Justice for General Staff: This a funda-mental equity issue. Currently there are no clauses in our general staff Agreement to

safeguard fair process for allegations of gen-eral staff misconduct and unsatisfactory per-formance.

While such procedures are contained in University policy; policy can be unilaterally changed by the employer. Every other Go8 university, and almost every other university in the country, has clauses in their Agree-ments allowing for transparent and enforce-able procedures.

Improvements to salaries & conditions for casual staff: Casual staff are some of the most vulnerable and exploited employees in the system. University management keep saying that it is not their preferred position to employ casuals but continue to put up barriers to, and argue against, prescribed limitations on the use of casuals.

Fair and reasonable salary increases: The University can afford fair and reasonable salary increases. Its offer is 3% (September 2010), 3% (September 2011), 4% (September

2012). NTEU’s revised claim is 5% (2010), 5% (2011), 6% (2012).

No job losses: The Union’s claim is no job losses during the life of the Agreement and back filling of all positions lost as a conse-quence of natural attrition.

Scopetoshed330jobsDuring the last round of negotiations, NTEU accepted modest salary increases with the understanding that wage restraint would limit further job losses.

The University argue that there has been an increase in jobs in real terms and that they will only apply a no net job loss clause based on 2004 staffing levels. They claim they need flexibility in case their circumstances change. Use of the 2004 job numbers gives them the scope to shed over 330 positions (that is more than 350 real people – colleagues and friends).

ComingactionOver the coming weeks and months lead-ing up to second semester, members will be advised of the outcome of our continued bargaining and will be encouraged to partic-ipate in activities around raising awareness to the complete lack of respect and recog-nition shown to all staff by the University Executive. A


UPDATE

Indigenous Forum 2010

T he annual NTEU Indigenous Forum was held on 8–9 May in Melbourne. A total of 53 Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander members, Elected Officers and NTEU staff attended the two-day meeting and training workshops.

The Forum was deemed to be a success, with many Indigenous members providing posi-tive feedback.

Forum 2010 had a particular focus on improving Indigenous employment and seeking a greater participation for Indig-enous researchers in the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) model.

Participants discussed the following rel-evant issues:• Setting the Scene: Our Stories – Indig-

enous Policy Committee members.• International perspectives: Māori Guests• How will the ERA affect Indigenous

Research?• Where’s the Money Gone? – NTEU Federal

Budget submission.• The future of Indigenous Employment in

the higher education sector and review of the NTEU National Indigenous Claim.

• Get involved – Get elected!• Bring the Mob Together: Building Local

Campaigns.• Know your Agreement; Know your Rights.• Respect at Work.

A wide range of viewpoints and perspec-tives were raised for discussion during Indig-

enous Forum, with all partici-pants engaged in thoughtful and meaningful debate. The con-sensus from par-ticipants, was the work being undertaken by NTEU in the areas of Indigenous education, employment and social justice are vital and should be pursued into the future.

ThankingCarolynAllportParticipants were advised that this Indig-enous Forum would be the final time Dr Carolyn Allport would attend in her capacity as National President. Forum participants were united in their thanks for and apprecia-tion of the many years of work Carolyn has undertaken to ensure better employment outcomes and conditions as well as her stri-dent, long-term advocacy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

It is expected that the 15th Indigenous Forum will be conducted in May 2011. A

Adam Frogley, Indigenous Coordinator

BallotforactionatBatchelor

N TEU NT Division will conduct a protected action ballot in

relation to the slow progress of bargaining at the Batchelor Insti-tute for Indigenous Tertiary Educa-tion (BIITE).

This is following the successful obtain-ing of orders from Fair Work Australia (FWA) on 23 June.

In granting the orders, Commissioner Hampton recognised the difficult cir-cumstances surrounding bargaining at BIITE over the last 18 months.

He encouraged the parties to work together in a cooperative and produc-tive way over the next few weeks with a view to reaching agreement, and offered his assistance if required.

A representative from BIITE appeared at the hearing but did not oppose the application. The representative indi-cated that the Institute would deliver an administrative pay increase in early July of around 4%.

NTEU will meet with BIITE representa-tives in the week commencing 28 July for a detailed review of the financial situation, and to set the agenda and timetable for future negotiations and discussions. A

David May, NT Industrial Organiser

QCUhonoursUncleBobAnderson

I n June, a group of NTEU Queens-landers attended celebrations

at the Queensland Council of Unions (QCU) to honour a local legend, Dr Robert (Uncle Bob) Anderson.

QCU honoured Uncle Bob for not just his long and outstanding service to the union movement, but also to offer respect to him as a beloved Indigenous activist. To ensure his legacy continues, QCU has instigated

the Uncle Bob Anderson Award which will be given to the outstanding Indigenous union activist each year during NAIDOC week celebrations. A

Barbara Williams, Queensland Division Organiser

Indige

nous

Coor

dinat

or, Ad

am Fr

ogley

. Pho

to: At

osha

McC

aw

Uncle Bob Anderson (centre) with (left to right) Victor Hart (QUT), John Graham, Marcus Walters and Chris

Matthews (all from Griffith) and Aunty Penny Tripcony (retired QUT member).

NTEU ADVOCATE10

INDIGENOUS NEWS

University bargaining enters the home straight

Agreements have recently approved by the NTEU at the following institutions:

Curtin University (Academic Staff): After many months of tough bargaining, and some industrial action, agreement has finally been reached on an Academic Agreement, with a General Staff Agreement expected in a few weeks.

Murdoch University (Academic & General Staff): NTEU members have resisted a hard-line management bargaining agenda over many months, with pay increases ranging from 17–25%.

University of Tasmania (Academic Staff): Another long campaign has achieved a 16% pay rise by June 2012. The Branch is now trying to complete negotiations to ensure that general staff have an Agree-ment as soon as possible.

Southern Cross University (All-Staff): Negotiations have con-cluded with a 16% pay increase by June 2012 (20% by June 2013).

University of Southern Queensland: A 16% pay rise by 2012 has been achieved by the Union’s local Branch (21% by June 2013).

Agreements have now been approved by the NTEU at twenty-three Universities, though at some of these agreements were originally for one year, with follow-up agreements still to be negotiated at UWA and Victoria University (VU).

DeliveringonkeyoutcomesAll of the Union’s Agreements have delivered on key outcomes for members including:• Restoration of the restrictions on fixed term employment lost

under the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs).

• Separate pay for all casual marking, and an increase in the casual loading.

• Restoration of the Union’s representative role.• Commitment to Indigenous employment targets.• Enforceable classification standards for general staff.• Enforceable regulation of academic workloads.

SomeuniversitiesdefyingindustrialgravityAs The.Advocate.was going to press, bans on student assessment

results were in place at VU and the University of New South Wales (UNSW).

At VU, where an ‘interim’ Enterprise Agreement expired in Febru-ary, the University has resisted recommencing serious negotiations for three months, and is now saying there should be no increase in pay at all in 2010.

Meanwhile, at UNSW management was trying to keep the HEWRRs and the Coalition’s WorkChoices alive by refusing to restore the condi-tions of employment which have been recovered elsewhere across the sector. The patience of staff has finally run out, and bans were being widely supported by members. A

Ken McAlpine, Senior Industrial Officer

N TEU Enterprise Bargaining in universities is now heading into the ‘home straight’. More than half of Australia’s universi-ties now have finalised Agreements, and many others are close.

Pages 12 & 13:Four NTEU Branches relate their long, arduous paths to achieving final Agreements.

Phot

o: Je

ss Cro

nin


UNIVERSITY BARGAINING

Murdoch: A strong union supports the long road in bargaining

I t’s been more than two years since Murdoch started the Bargaining

process… and some of us can just drag up from our memory banks the small group workplace meetings and the process of surveying members we went through to establish our mem-bers’ priorities before we embarked upon Bargaining.

The Bargaining negotiations were long, protracted, intense and, on occasion, robust and difficult. However, the Murdoch Bargaining team – Marian Kemp, Chris-tina Ballantyne, Janice Dudley, Sharon Delmege, Walter Bloom, Judy McCulloch and Lyn Bloom – achieved Agreements that:• Incorporate salary increases that ensure

that Murdoch staff are no longer the lowest paid in WA.

• Ensure NTEU representation on Unsat-isfactory Performance and Misconduct

Review Panels.• Improve the pay and conditions for

casual academic staff.• Ensure the regulation of fixed term con-

tracts. The Agreements could not have been

accomplished without the strong and unwavering support of NTEU members for their Bargaining Team. It was their commit-ment, their determination and their unwa-vering resolve which made the difference.

The high level of support for industrial action, particularly the withholding of results at the end of Semester 2 in 2009, was truly remarkable and proved that col-lective action can achieve real gains.

A union is only as strong as the support of its members – and the support of the Murdoch Branch members demonstrates that the NTEU is strong. A

Melbourne: Bargaining tied up with economic program

T he University of Melbourne is one of the richest universities in

the country, yet it went on the offen-sive in bargaining claiming great losses on the stock market and a need to cut staff. Members should not have to pay for any investment portfolio errors or for the lack of public univer-sity funding.

Every Collective Agreement has its own trajectory but a good outcome needs staff engagement. The pathway was difficult. While bargaining, members also cam-paigned to prevent involuntary redundan-cies and had to make connections between the need for a good Agreement and the fight against the economic program.

The clauses in the new Agreement about workload regulation will have to be strin-gently implemented because over two-hundred positions were lost. Academic

workloads are now capped in the new Agreement at 1,725 hours per annum.

Indigenous members are now entitled to 5 days cultural/ceremonial leave and a committee to regulate numbers includes equal NTEU representation. Research and contract staff have improved conditions.

Final agreement took nine industrial actions, including stop-work actions, strikes, and most effectively examination bans leading to a Heads of Agreement last December.

Fair Work Australia ratified our Agree-ment last week giving all staff a good lump-sum back pay.

The 2010 Collective Agreement will also review the performance development framework and the academic and general (professional) staff career structures. Get-ting positive results at this University will be vital for all NTEU members. A

Janice DudleyBranch PresidentMurdoch University

Melanie LazarowBranch SecretaryUniversity of Melbourne

NTEU ADVOCATE12


Curtin: We couldn’t ‘Hacket’ it anymore

A long with all WA Universities, Curtin Branch logged our claim

with the University on 31 May 2008. It took them until August to respond and bargaining began. By May 2009 frustration with the process was building. We continued to meet fort-nightly for both Agreements but it was the usual ping pong of in princi-ple documents with little progress.

In the meantime, we had successfully obtained details of the salaries and KPIs of the Vice-Chancellor (VC) and Senior Man-agers through Freedom of Information, and the campaign was built around the fol-lowing issues: • Comparing the offer to staff and their

own average 2008 pay rise of 18%.• The disparities between VC Hacket’s

words and his actions.• The slogan ‘We can’t Hacket anymore’.

The day of action was woeful, but we had massive support in the ballots for industrial action and members initially applied email

bans, with carefully worded out of office messages, and bans on meetings.

The VC put out messages trying to under-mine the vote but these just made mem-bers and all staff more angry. By the end of semester we had bans on results and we reached Agreements in Principle between December 2009 and February 2010.

In early February, our Branch Vice-Pres-ident, a lead negotiator and our principal eye on the critical detail, was advised that he was surplus to requirement, entirely without due process. We can’t help but see this as a University strategy.

Since then, we have been dealing with the University’s attempts to redraft critical clauses (local issues rather than national mandatory claims). These issues have been very important to our members on the ground and eventually a unanimous vote to impose further action including bans on marks as well as a huge number and variety of strongly worded emails, from members to the VC, got us over the line in early June. A

UWS: Union must reflect concerns of members

N egotiating a Collective Agree-ment should proceed in a col-

legial manner. Unfortunately, the pattern across the country appears to be one where management are bargaining in a manner that does not engender the belief that they are following any process of negotiat-ing in good faith. Management have offered little of a positive nature in words or actions.

NTEU has established clear guidelines based on polling of members opinions so Branches can table claims reflecting these.

At UWS, it was reinforced strongly how important it is that the Branch reflects the actual concerns of staff and ensures mem-bers are fully appraised of progress at all

stages, so that the relationship between members, the Branch Committee and the Bargaining Team remains strong. It is important to support your Branch Organ-isers in the task of keeping the bargaining campaign alive.

UWS Branch found welcome support from local press as our members were primarily concerned with their workload clauses and the way these affect the educa-tional experience of students, rather than the expected pay issues.

Stay strong and remember that some disruption due to action is temporary, but an effective Collective Agreement will bring years of safer representation.

Thank you all for your support during some strenuous times. A

Terry MasonBranch PresidentUniversity of Western Sydney

Jan Sinclair-JonesBranch PresidentCurtin University



MY HIGHER EDUCATION

Revolution

NTEU ADVOCATE14

MY HIGHER EDUCATION REVOLUTION

Assessing the Government’s performance on higher education and research policy

T he Labor Government’s decision to establish websites to enable the

public to access performance data on various educational providers, such as the proposed My University website, is evidence of its commitment to open and transparent accountability mecha-nisms. It seems only fair and reason-able, therefore, that the Government’s performance in implementing its (Higher) ‘Education Revolution’ be sub-ject to the same level of scrutiny and accountability.

In this article we compare the Government’s performance since being elected with the key commitments it made during the 2007 Federal election campaign, as reported in the November 2007 issue of The Advocate.

To ensure consistency, the issues are those identified by NTEU as election priorities in 2007. The commitments made at that time are compared with the reality of the policy outcomes as at June 2010.

The results are summarised in the ‘My Higher Education Revolution’ table (right). This indicates where the Government has kept its election promises (green traffic light) or not kept its promises (red traffic light), or where NTEU is waiting to assess the full impact of the proposed policy changes (yellow traffic light).


COMMITMENT KEPT

AWAITING OUTCOME

COMMITMENT NOT KEPT

ResearchPolicies

Increased research funding See Table 1.

Greater funding stability and support basic research

Yet to determine impact of performance based funding and the ERA.

Independence of ARC Minister Carr appointed independent Advisory Board.

Replace the RQF RFQ replaced by ERA.

Making research/ academic careers more attractive

Both DEEWR and DIISR are undertaking research into these issues .

EducationPolicies

Increased funding for universities See Table 2.

Decrease reliance on specific purpose payments

Increased funding is performance based delivered through Mission Based Compacts.

Improved Indexation New indexation estimated to deliver an additional $2.6b over 5 years.

Remove HEWRRs/National Governance Protocols

Removed from Higher Education Grants Guidelines in 2008.

Decrease or maintain cap on HECS Cap on HECS has been maintained. Cap on domestic places removed with introduction of student demand driven model from 2013.

Abolish full fee places Full fee places for domestic undergraduate students abolished from the beginning of 2008.

Guarantee institutional autonomy Yet to determine impact of performance targets and performance funding in Mission Based Compacts.

Improved student income support Better targeting but no increase in overall funding.

Separate legislation/regulation for universities

Despite ALP platform, the Government is promoting a more integrated tertiary education sector.

IndigenousEducationPolicies

Support Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council .

New IHEAC Board has been appointed.

Improved Indigenous income support /pathways

No specific measures introduced.

Indigenous staff and student scholarships.

No specific measures introduced.

Indigenous community involvement in higher education.

Changes to mission and role of Batchelor Institute took place with no staff, student of community consultation.continued overpage...



Researchpolicies

In the 2009 Federal Budget, the Government provided more than $1 billion over four years in research funding for universities (see Table 1). There was an additional $750m in the Education Investment Fund (EIF) that had yet to be allocated between research and educa-tion infrastructure.

About half of the new research funding - $512m - is for increased support for the direct costs associated with competitive research grants. This funding will be distributed through the Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE) program. It represents a 150% increase over Research Infrastructure Block Grants. The 2010 Budget also included a number of additional allocations in the Innovation and Research portfolio (see.Statement.by.Senator.Kim.Carr.on.p..18)..

One of the Union’s major concerns in the lead up to the 2007 Federal election was that the increasing trend to allocate research

funding through the use of competitive research grants was undermining the capac-ity to undertake ‘blue sky’ or basic research. One result of this is greater job insecurity and the increased use of casual and fixed term research staff.

As a consequence, NTEU sought a com-mitment from each of the parties to pro-vide greater funding stability. It is too early to determine what impact the introduction of performance-based funding (through the SRE) and the ERA will have on basic

research and employment stability within the sector.

In January 2008, Senator Carr established an independent Advisory Board for the Aus-tralian Research Council (ARC). The ALP also met its commitment to replace the Research Quality Framework (RQF) by establishing the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA).

The ERA is currently being implemented. In terms of assessing research quality, questions remain about whether the ERA will meet the Government’s objective of providing a mechanism in which those being assessed have confidence. NTEU is also waiting to see what impact the ERA outcomes will have on the concentration of research funding and its capacity to support and promote multi-disci-plinary and Indigenous research.

The need to introduce policies aimed at making research and academic careers more attractive was a major issue for NTEU mem-bers in the lead up to the 2007 election. The increasing reliance on casual and fixed term employment, together with workload inten-sification and the ageing of the academic workforce were also seen as major issues that needed urgent attention.

To date, the Government has failed to make any specific policy announcements on workforce development concerns. The Departments of Industry, Innovation and Research (DIISR) and Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) are cur-rently reviewing these issues, with NTEU par-ticipation. It’s anticipated that these reviews will be concluded by the end of 2010.

EducationpolicyThe Government has delivered on a number of its initial election promises, including:• Increasing the level of funding for learn-

ing and teaching (total net increase of $2.2 billion over 4 years from 2009–10 to 2013–14).

• Significantly improved indexation of uni-versity grants (estimated to be worth an additional $2.6 billion over the period 2011–2016).

• Maintaining the cap on HECS contribu-tions.

• Removing the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) and the national Governance Protocols (NGP).

• Abolishing full fee places for domestic undergraduate students.

The Government has introduced polices to better regulate the international student market, through the Baird Review. In addition to maintaining the cap on HECS and abol-ishing full fees for domestic undergraduate students, the Government plans to remove the cap on the number of government-sup-ported domestic undergraduate places.

Under the student demand-driven model, every domestic student who successfully gains entry into an undergraduate program will be entitled to a subsidised place. Univer-sities are also likely to compete against one another for students, due to quotas on the number of subsidised places being removed.

An area where the Government has failed to live up to its pre-election commitment is in recognising and protecting the distinct nature of universities through a separate Universities Act. The Government strongly believes that all post-secondary education should be seen as ‘tertiary education’ and not distinct and separate higher education and VET sectors.

MY HIGHER EDUCATIONRevolution

Table 2:MainLearningandTeachingInitiativesin2009Budget

4yr total $m

Student Demand Driven Model / Increased Participation

490.6

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA)

60.8

Institutional Performance Funding 206.4

Revised Indexation 525.9

Structural Adjustment Fund 202.1

Education Investment Fund (EIF) Round 2 612.5

Low SES Participation 436.9Table 1: MainInnovationScienceandIndustryInitiativesforUniversities2009Budget

4yr total$m

Excellence in Research Aust (ERA) 35.8

Sustainable Research Excellence (SRE) 512.0

Postgraduate Research Student Support

51.7

Collaborative Research Networks (CRN) 52.0

Conditional Revised Indexation 51.6

Education Investment Fund (Round 2)* 321.6

TotalAbove 1024.7

NTEU ADVOCATE16


MY HIGHER EDUCATIONRevolution

The impact of the introduction of per-formance based funding on institutional autonomy is another issue which NTEU is monitoring.

Changes to student income support meas-ures will ensure that it is better targeted to students who most need it. However, there were no increases in the overall level of fund-ing, so its capacity to deliver real improve-ments for a significant number of students is yet to be determined.

The total level of increased funding for education announced as part of the 2009 Federal Budget amounted to more than $2 billion over four years. The major compo-nents of this funding are shown in Table 2.

A substantial proportion of this funding ($490m) is being provided to increase the level of student participation by guarantee-ing that each domestic student who gains entry to university is entitled to a govern-ment-subsidised (HECS) place .

The other major component is for univer-sity infrastructure, with $612m allocated through the Educa-tion Investment Fund (EIF). An additional $750m of EIF funding is yet to be allocated and will cover both education and research infrastructure.

To ensure some degree of comparability, NTEU has estimated the impact of the edu-cation budget (excluding capital grants) on a funding-per-student basis (see Chart 1). Our estimates shows that the 2009 Budget initia-tives will result in an increase in real funding per student, compared to the trend without any changes to funding . The increase, how-ever, is only about half of that recommended by the Bradley Review.

To access this new funding each university will be required to negotiate a Mission-Based Compact with the Commonwealth, requiring them to demonstrate how they propose to achieve some of the Government’s policy objectives, including increasing the overall level of participation, increased participation of students from low SES backgrounds, and improving the quality of education and the educational experience of students. Mis-sion-Based Compacts will require each uni-versity to agree to performance targets to be

eligible for this funding. While most NTEU mem-bers would be highly sup-

portive of these policy objectives the

over whelm-ing question

is whether the

additional funding will be sufficient to enable each university to meet these targets. If not, then the outcomes of this reform package will have serious implications for universities, their staff and students. NTEU is particularly concerned about the potential impacts on staff workloads and opportunities to conduct research.

IndigenouseducationOther than agreeing to continue the Indig-enous Higher Education Advisory Commit-tee (IHEAC), the Government has failed to introduce any policies specifically aimed at addressing Indigenous student access to and participation in higher education.

NTEU is particularly concerned about proposed changes to the roles and respon-sibilities of the Batchelor Institute of Indig-enous Tertiary Education (BIITE) which have occurred without any consultation with stu-dents, staff and local communities.

UnfinishedbusinessThere are still a number of key concerns where NTEU believes that the Government’s agenda for higher education remains unfin-ished. These include:• Whether the increased levels of public

investment will be sufficient to enable universities to meet the Government’s ambitious objectives.

• Ensuring that the ERA’s design does not have the unintended consequence of undervaluing the importance of multidis-ciplinary research and researchers.

• Ensuring that research is valued appro-priately, e.g. Indigenous research which is focused on community outcomes and not necessarily by a desire to publish in highly ranked journals.

• Developing specific programs around Indigenous student income support and other measures to increase participation.

• Specific policies and action to address the urgent issue of academic and research workforce development. A

Paul Kniest, Policy & Research Coordinatorand Michael Evans, National Organiser

Chart1:RealLearningandTeachingFundingperGovernmentSupportedStudentAustralianUniversities2004-2013(June2008Values)

$9 500

$10,000

$10,500

$11,000

$11,500

1995 Base Value

Bradley

*excluding additional student load

& capital grants

Budget initiatives*

$8,000

$8,500

$9,000

$9 ,

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Trend with no changes



Senator Kim CarrMinister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research

T he Commonwealth continues to deliver on its promise to lift public investment in science and research. Funding for university-based research has increased

dramatically under this Government, and it will continue to do so in future years.

Labor defends its research record

The Government’s long-term strategy to make Aus-tralia more productive and competitive is set out in Powering Ideas: An Inno-vation Agenda for the 21st Century, which was released last year. It puts universities at the very centre of the innovation system.

ABS data shows that Australia’s higher educa-tion research expenditure (HERD) topped $6.7 billion in 2008, with most of this money coming from the Commonwealth, including $1.1 billion in competitive grants. We now rank sixth out of 19 OECD countries for higher education research expenditure as a propor-tion of GDP and we are well above the OECD average on this measure (see Table 1).

This year’s Budget contin-ues the Government’s funding for first-class research and confirms our support for this most important sector. It is no mean feat, at a time of extraordinary budgetary restraint, that funding for science and research through my portfolio has been boosted by $440.5m in 2010-11. This is an increase of 12 per cent compared with last year and brings total funding to over $4 billion.

The 2010 Budget builds on the election commitments and other new initiatives we

have delivered over the past two and a half years. We have held the line in difficult times and kept our promise to go on reforming and reinvesting in university research, after more than a decade of neglect. We have not only increased funding for existing programs; we have also provided money for new measures to extend our capabilities.

This includes funding of up to $112.9m over four years to establish the Aus-tralian National Institute for Public Policy at the ANU. The institute comprises an enhanced Crawford School of Economics and Govern-ment, the H. C. Coombs Policy Forum, an enhanced Canberra presence for the Australian and New Zea-land School of Government,

a new National Security College, and a new Australian Centre on China in the World. Australia’s ability to tackle public policy chal-lenges will be significantly improved by the Commonwealth’s strategic relationship with the ANU.

Other new initiatives include $15m in 2010-11 and a further $4.5m in 2011-12 for the Cairns Institute Tropical Innovation Hub, a new focal point for international research, innovation and training based at James Cook

University. It will support 125 research staff and aims to be a world-leading centre for tropical expertise.

It will support important new collabora-tions, many of which will have national and international implications. These collabora-tions will address areas such as Indigenous development, marine and climate science, health, and social and community welfare.

The Government has recently announced $550m in new funding from Round 3 and the Sustainability Round of the Education Invest-ment Fund. This will support university teach-ing, learning and research projects around the country, along with projects in vocational education training.

Funding for research programs under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will increase 11 per cent in 2010-11 to $1.48 bil-lion. This includes an additional $38.9m for Australian Postgraduate Awards – up 21 per cent over last year. The additional funding will be used to lift both the number and the value of awards.

On top of all this, the new indexation arrangements announced last year will see universities receive $2.6 billion more over the five years from 2012 than they would have received under the old arrangements. The Government recognised that the indexation of university block grants would have to be overhauled if funding was to match the cost of quality teaching and research. The new arrangements more accurately reflect wage and other price increases in the higher edu-cation sector.

The research agencies in the Innovation portfolio – AIATSIS, AIMS, ANSTO, CSIRO, and the ARC – have also benefitted from a 6 per cent hike in support to $1.69 billion.

The Powering Ideas agenda embraces much more than university research. For example, the Government has established Commercialisation Australia, paved the way for a new R&D Tax Credit, and continued to develop Enterprise Connect, our $50-million-a-year initiative to boost innovation and pro-ductivity in small and medium enterprises.

The Government takes science and research seriously. The 2010-11 Budget proves that. It builds on the foundations we laid in 2008 and 2009 and maintains the momentum of investment and reform. We are sticking to our science and research agenda even in the tightest of fiscal circumstances we recognise it is the key to accelerating recovery and pro-moting sustainable economic growth. A

Table1.HERD/GDPratiosofOECDcountries2008

Country HERD/GDP

Ranking

Sweden 0.80 1

Denmark 0.71 2

Iceland 0.67 3

Finland 0.66 4

Canada 0.64 5

Australia 0.53 6

Norway 0.51 7

Portugal 0.51 8

UK 0.47 9

Belgium 0.41 10

France 0.40 11

Italy 0.39 12

Ireland 0.39 13

USA 0.36 14

OECD (2007) 0.39

NTEU ADVOCATE18


Paid Parental Leave

OverduedeliveryThe long overdue PPL is the result of the fight by Australian unions for more than 30 years to have a national paid parental scheme that allows working parents – and in particular mothers – the time to recover from birth and to establish the necessary bond with their new child, without the financial pressure of having to return to work too soon.

Considered a basic right in almost all other OECD countries (with the exception of the United States), union campaigning first won working mothers a right to 12 months unpaid maternity leave in 1979, and now three decades later, working parents will be entitled to almost $10,000 in financial sup-port after the birth of a child.

The fight to have a national PPL scheme is closely linked to the increase in the participa-tion of women in the workforce over the past 30 years, with women now comprising over 45% of the workforce. However, during the

peak child bearing years, Australian women’s workforce participation reduces by a greater amount than for women in other leading industrialised countries.

This is due to the fact that, in the absence of a national scheme, any paid paren-tal leave has been due to highly uneven employer-funded schemes. In 2007 around 54% of female employees and 50% of male employees had access to some form of paid parental leave, but only one third of employed women who actually had chil-dren received paid parental leave from their employer.

NTEU has been at the forefront of the fight for paid parental leave, and through our collective bargaining strategies we have achieved the benchmark for employer paid parental leave of between 26 and 36 weeks for the majority of staff working in higher education. However, even within the higher education sector, access to parental leave is not universal.

CasualsmissoutEmployees who have been with their insti-tution for less than 12 months or who are employed as casuals may not be entitled to employer paid parental leave. This has long been the concern of the Union and it was initially hoped that the Government’s PPL Scheme would go some way to alleviating this problem.

Disappointingly, the final draft of the leg-islation revealed that, in order to be eligible for the Government PPL Scheme, the pri-mary carer must have completed at least 330 hours work (1 day per week) for 10 months in the 13 months prior to birth. This includes casuals, contractors and self-employed workers. During this time there must not have been break between periods of paid employment for any longer than 8 weeks. This is a significant barrier for casual and ses-sional employees working in higher educa-

But is this long awaited baby a healthy bundle?F inally, after a difficult and prolonged labour in Parliament, Australia’s first national Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme was

delivered on 17 June 2010. We ask – is it ‘hale and healthy’?

continued overpage...


PARENTAL LEAVE

tion as the semesterisation of work leads to breaks of between 12 to 18 weeks, and may in fact disqualify those who would otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.

This means that the Union’s fight for a uni-versal paid parental scheme is not over – in short, while the PPL baby has arrived in a condition far better than expected, there are some ‘health’ concerns.

These problems are not confined within higher education and affect many long term casual and seasonal workers across a number of industries and sectors.

Furthermore, it is the firm belief of the Union that the PPL should be subject to superannuation and other industrial entitle-ments in the same manner as other forms of leave. Therefore, while we recognise the achievement that the PPL represents for the union movement and workers overall, until access to a paid parental leave scheme is guaranteed for all employees we will con-tinue our campaign.

DevelopingPPLintoauniversalsocialbenefit

The Federal Government has left the door open on its PPL scheme, with a review sched-uled for 2012. NTEU, together with the ACTU and other unions, will continue to lobby the Government in a renewed effort to have the scheme amended to address problems and cement the scheme as an industrial entitle-ment rather than a social benefit.

While the PPL is a very important step in the right direction and we are justified in celebrating its arrival, the baby requires to be closely monitored if Australia is to have a truly national, world standard, paid parental leave scheme. A

Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officerand Michelle Rangott, National Industrial Officer

YOUR PAID PARENTAL LEAVE FACT SHEET

• The Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme will be funded by the Australian Government and will be available to mothers, carers and adoptive parents who have been working and who have a baby or adopt a child on or after 1 January 2011.

• To be eligible for the scheme, claimants will need to meet the PPL work test, the income test and the residency requirements.

• Parental Leave pay is not a leave entitlement, but it will complement parents’ entitle-ments to leave such as unpaid parental leave under the National Employment Stand-ards.

• PPL is for a maximum of 18 weeks and paid at the rate of the National Minimum Wage (currently $543.78 per week before tax). Parental Leave pay will be treated in the same way as other taxable income.

• Parents can nominate when they wish to receive their pay. The Parental Leave pay must be taken in one continuous 18 week period. The start date can be on or after the child’s date of birth, (but not before) and all the pay must be received within the first 12 months after the date of birth.

• Parental Leave pay can be received before, after, or at the same time as employer-pro-vided paid leave such as recreation or annual leave and employer-provided paternity leave.

• Parents will lodge their claim with the Family Assistance Office and it will assess the parent’s eligibility. Claims can be lodged up to three months prior to the expected date of the birth.

• Once the scheme is fully implemented, Parental Leave pay will be provided by employ-ers to their long-term employees (a person who has been an employee of the employer for 12 months or more prior to the expected date of birth of the child).

• Employers will generally be required to provide Parental Leave pay to their long-term employees who have a child born or adopted on or after 1 July 2011.

• A parent will not be able to work while receiving PPL but may ‘keep in touch’ with the workplace.

• If a person returns to work before they have received all of their 18 weeks of PPL, the person’s partner may be able to receive the unused amount of PPL. Otherwise, PPL will stop when the person returns to work.

• If parents are not eligible to or do not choose to receive PPL, they may be able to receive the Baby Bonus and Family Tax Benefit under the usual rules. An online PPL estimator will be available from September 2010 to help parents choose the option that is best for them.

NTEU ADVOCATE20

PARENTAL LEAVE

Jenny MacklinFederal Member for JagajagaMinister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Hon Dr Sharman Stone,Federal Member for MurrayShadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and ChildcareShadow Minister for the Status of Women

A fter waiting decades, families will have access to Aus-tralia’s first government-funded paid parental leave

scheme from 1 January next year.

This landmark reform gives new mothers the financial support to make their own choices about work and family responsibilities when their baby is born.

Currently only half of all Australian women have access to paid parental leave, with those on low incomes most likely to miss out.

For the first time, thousands of women who are casuals, who are employed in low-paid or part-time jobs, who are self-employed, are contractors or work in seasonal jobs may to eligible for paid parental leave.

Mothers who meet the work test – who have worked for at least 10 of the 13 months before their child is born and for around one day a week during those 10 months - will be eligible for 18 weeks paid parental leave at the national minimum wage of $570 per week.

The Government’s generous work test allows for women to have a substantial break between days off work – up to eight weeks – allow-ing greater access to paid parental leave for casual and sessional staff.

The Government will undertake a comprehensive review of the new Paid Parental Leave scheme, starting two years after the scheme commences. The review of the Paid Parental Leave scheme will exam-ine the operation of the work test to make sure it provides access to paid parental leave for women with a genuine and ongoing attach-ment to the workplace.

For 12 years, the Liberals in government not only denied Austral-ians the benefits of paid parental leave, they actively railed against it. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said paid parental leave would happen over his ‘dead body’.

Now he wants to hit business with a $10.8 billion tax that will hurt Australia’s economy and flow through to increases in the cost of living for all Australians.

Also, the Liberals expect some employ-ers would scale back their existing schemes, which could leave some university employees worse off.

The Government’s Paid Parental Leave scheme is in addition to existing entitlements, and will extend the amount of time thousands of parents get to spend with their newborn babies.A

A ustralia will have its first universal Paid Parental Leave scheme from 1 January 2011. It will pay 18 weeks at the

minimum wage, without superannuation. When in Govern-ment, the Coalition will introduce a 26-week scheme paying replacement wages or the minimum wage, which ever is greater and, importantly, it will include superannuation and two weeks additional use-it-or-lose-it for fathers.

The second-rate scheme passed through Parliament on 17 June is recognised as so inadequate that Labor has asked employers to ‘top up’ leave entitlements and extend the payments. Unfortunately, this perpetuates the current inequalities where higher paid women, especially public servants, currently enjoy paid parental leave entitle-ments and can expect top ups but low paid women, part-timers, self employed and contractors do not have access to a top up scheme. When they do their sums, many will find they are financially better off just staying with the baby bonus. This, of course, will mean no access to the critical leave.

Businesses have also been asked to act as paymaster for the gov-ernment, causing major complications and extra red tape. The Coali-tion’s scheme will use the Government Family Assistance Office for payment, removing this red-tape problem.

The Coalition will initially pay for its scheme with a temporary levy of up to 1.7 per cent on businesses with a taxable income over $5 mil-lion. This will apply to about 3200 of Australia’s 750,000 companies. When the Coalition has paid off Labor’s debt we will be able to revise this funding strategy.

The Coalition wants to try to normalise the notion that both par-ents should consider taking parental leave

in the best interests of baby bonding and sharing the career impacts usu-ally only incurred by the mother. Continuing superannuation pay-

ments to the parent on leave as well as paying replacement

salary capped at $150,000 is essential to ensure the worker can build adequate resources to stave off pov-erty in retirement. A

A landmark reform A second rate scheme


PARENTAL LEAVE

General/PACCT Staff – Looking for better careers T he Union’s 2009 National Council took a fresh look at general staff career and classification issues in universities and Vic-

torian TAFE, where the Union has coverage of general staff. After a good debate the Council decided to establish a Work-ing Party to look at new career options for general staff, with a view to improving these in future Collective Agreements.

AbitofhistoryIn TAFE, a state-wide classification structure has been in place, but this operates in conjunction with a ‘points system’ used to decide work value.

In universities, a new national 10-level classification structure for all general staff was negotiated in the early 1990s. This structure was put into enterprise agreements, and includes ‘descriptors’ which set out the type of work which can be expected at each level. In theory at least, each employee is entitled to be paid and classified according to those descriptors.

However, over the past decade, management at many institutions have made procedures for dealing with classifications less transpar-ent and less fair. Many employers use obscure computer-based clas-sification systems which mean that individual employees cannot tell how their job has been assessed. At some places, staff need the support of their supervisor to make an application, or have to wait months or years for a decision.

In Universities, many of these problems were made worse by the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs), which removed procedural protections for staff.

LackofcareeropportunitiesMany PACCT/General staff tell the NTEU that they are stuck in posi-tions which have little or no obvious career structure or opportunities to progress beyond the incremental range of their current position. Whether it is about current career structure, the way work is organ-ised, or simply bad procedures, these views are expressed by staff in many work areas, especially technical jobs and administrative jobs in teaching/academic units.

These problems are exacerbated by the reduction in staff develop-ment opportunities for general staff.

Management’sagendaEven the existing classification structures are not secure. Employers in many industries are trying to move away from objective measures of how much a job is worth – the skills and responsibilities of the job – to dubious performance measures decided by supervisors. It would be naïve to expect that employers in TAFE and universities will not at some stage try to also move in the same direction.

ThebestwayforwardA Working Party, made up of NTEU National Executive members who are general staff, is considering proposals about how the Union should approach classification and career progression issues, with an eye to future rounds of bargaining in universities and TAFE. This will need to bring together issues of fair process, gender equity in classification procedures, and rewarding staff development and the acquisition of skills.

The Working Party is keen to hear the views of general/PACCT staff. It is expected that in coming months the Working Party will be hold-ing meetings at selected campuses to hear the views of members and to test its ideas. NTEU members who have views on these issues can also email Ken McAlpine on [email protected] to make sure their comments will be received by the Working Party. A

Ken McAlpine, Senior Industrial OfficerPhoto: Lisa Roberts

NTEU ADVOCATE22

GENERAL STAFF

Simon Crean takes over the Education Revolution

T he new Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is familiar to the union movement and the public. Simon Crean is the member for the Division of

Hotham and his recent appointment to Prime Minister Gillard’s old portfolio is the latest in a long, and at times tumultuous, political history.

In addition to his various roles on the front bench and in opposi-tion, Simon Crean has served as leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Leader of the Opposition at the Federal level. He is the only person to have been a Cabinet minister under Prime Ministers Hawke, Keating, Rudd and Gillard. During his two decades as a Member of Parliament he has not spent a single day on the back bench. He was also one of the founding members of the ALP Unity faction.

Born in Melbourne, Simon is the son of Frank Crean (a Federal Labor MP from 1951 to 1977, who was at separate times Treasurer, Trade Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister in the Whitlam Govern-ment). His brother Dr David Crean, is a former State Labor Member of Parliament in Tasmania.

Simon Crean worked in a number of trade unions before he became General Secretary of the Storeman and Packers Union in 1979. In 1981, he became Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). In 1985 he was elected President of the ACTU a position he held until entering Parliament in 1990. As President of the ACTU, Simon played a key role in negotiating agreements on wages and other industrial issues, including the Accord, with the Hawke Government.

As an MP, Simon Crean has held a number of ministerial portfolios, including Science and Technology and Primary Industries and Energy. From 1993 to 1996, in the Keating Government, he was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and in this role instigated the Higher Education Management Review (also known as the Hoare Review) in 1995-96.

NTEU played an important role in the consultations over the review and had a productive working rela-tionship with the Minister, which resulted in a number of important recommendations on workforce reform and accountability in univer-sity governance. The review also identified the need for a commit-ment across the sector to redress gender imbalance, actively support equal employment opportunity, and noted that the so-called flexible (casual) forms of employment favoured by universities was often det-rimental to the careers of women.

After the ALP lost government in 1996, Crean served as front-bencher until 1998, when he was elected Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition for a short time. In November 2001, following Labor’s third consecutive election defeat and the resignation of Kim Beazley, he was elected unopposed as the Leader of the Opposition. However,

sliding popularity in the polls saw Crean’s resigna-tion from the leadership in November 2003 without having contested an elec-tion.

In the period of Opposi-tion, Crean served in various shadow portfolios, includ-ing Shadow Treasurer. Fol-lowing Labor’s victory in the 2007 election, Simon Crean was appointed Minis-ter for Trade in the Rudd Government. Now, following Julia Gillard’s recent ascension as Prime Minister in June 2010, Simon Crean has returned to the education sector.

Although the higher education sector is very different to what it was when Minister Crean last took charge of the portfolio, many of the issues identified in the Hoare Review almost 15 years ago not only remain, but have become amplified. Gender equity and casualisation

are still concerns, and there is the now urgent need for workforce renewal, driven largely by a combination of an ageing workforce and increased demand on university resources. However, other government policy initiatives also create challenges; for example, the Education Revo-lution objective of increasing the participation of low socio-economic status (SES) students is admirable, but requires the appropriate funding

and support if it is to succeed. Finally, while the university compacts are set for introduction in less

than 6 months time, the sector is yet to see what the performance indicators for the compacts will be. How the new regulatory body for the sector, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), will monitor these indicators is also a contentious issue.

In welcoming Minister Crean’s return to Education, NTEU notes that if our higher education sector is to maintain its reputation for quality and diversity much needs to be done. As such, the Union looks for-ward to once again having a close and cooperative working relation-ship with the Minister as the next phase of the Federal Government’s Education Revolution becomes a reality. A

Terri MacDonald, Policy & Research Officer

Although the higher education sector is very different to what it was when

Minister Crean last took charge of the portfolio, many of the issues identified

in the Hoare Review almost 15 years ago not only remain, but have become

amplified.


FEDERAL POLITICS

Serena O’MeleyBranch Industrial OrganiserNTEU La Trobe Branch

O n 24 May 2010, several hundred staff in the La Trobe University International College were told that management intended to sell the College to Navitas (an Australian-based multinational private education provider). Although the

University had a written undertaking that Navitas would assume the employment of existing staff, this commitment was not honoured and staff were subsequently told that they would have to compete with external applicants for their own jobs.

Union fills the gap after La Trobe management abandons International College staff

After a huge outcry from staff and NTEU, management went back to Navitas and secured an internal process for selecting most jobs. Even so, at least a third of the non-casual positions will disappear, and casual staff will be reduced by as much as two thirds. Vital services to students will be slashed and highly regarded teacher training programs and international partnerships will be discontinued.

CallousactionLa Trobe University management has acted with surprising callous-ness and lack of care towards staff in the College. It took three weeks from the time the announcement was made before anyone from employee relations arrived to answer individual questions about entitlements.

In a letter to management, NTEU delegate Caroline Wright Neville pleaded for help:

‘[I]t has been left up to union members and delegates to coordinate a response to the ...[incomplete change statement]. Union delegates have also been fielding questions from employees about basic day to day operations such as entitlements, financial options, classification, performance appraisal, contractual obligations with regard to finding other employment, long service leave, maternity leave, contract hours, student pathways and curriculum. In addition to this, students have been given no information on what is happening and the rumour mill has been left to run with teaching staff and admin staff expected to look after confused and worried students.’‘The abandonment of International College staff by the university is already having a detrimental effect on the health and welfare of all employees.’

Union members were dismayed to discover that every senior decision-maker responsible for the College was out of the country shortly after the announcement, including the Vice-Chancellor, the

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Interna-tional and Future Students) and the Director of the College. Their absence made genuine consul-tation over the decision close to impossible.

NTEU suspects that a firm deci-sion to sell the College was made well before management issued

the formal ‘change statement’ to staff. NTEU has notified a dispute over La Trobe University’s failure to properly apply the change man-agement procedures in the Collective Agreement. Recent court deci-sions have severely criticised such attempts by management to derail consultation processes in Agreements.

CollegialsupportUnion members have been brilliant. They immediately set up their own support network for each area of the College. They coordinated detailed feedback on the change statement, which led to important modifications to the proposal, and they have run weekly union meet-ings to fill the communication vacuum left by management. They have worked together to gather information and make joint claims for entitlements. Members have also made representations to Uni-versity Council through the NTEU.

Most recently union members voted to take industrial action, with one of the highest participation rates seen in a University ballot. Their actions have secured an offer of an additional two pay rises and a later expiry date in the Agreement that will be trans-ferred to Navitas. A

It took three weeks from the time the announcement was made before anyone

from employee relations arrived to answer individual questions about entitlements.

NTEU ADVOCATE24

PRIVATE PROVIDERS

Rod NobleNTEU University of Newcastle Branch Vice-President (Academic)

S taff at the University of Newcastle are alarmed to hear that employee numbers are to be slashed at La Trobe University by the same company preparing to set up shop on the Callaghan campus.

Private providers a cause for concern in the public education sector

The ASX-listed Navitas signed an agreement with University of New-castle management last February that aims to have the newly formed Newcastle International College operational at the University’s Cal-laghan campus in 2011.

That agreement will see international students accelerated through a program that combines English speaking and comprehension skills combined with undergraduate modules that will allow a student to move into an advanced stage of a degree program.

The implications for the University staff immediately impacted, as well as staff in the University as a whole, are now coming to light. That Navitas is a stock exchange listed company may have been the cause for the avoidance of the usual processes for adoption, changes and additions to academic programs at the University.

It appears that the University management has been able to throw up a ‘commercial-in-confidence’ curtain and adopt a non-consultative approach to change in the workplace that sits outside both the spirit and the wording contained in the current Enterprise Agreement between management and staff.

Even the elected Academic Senate was not informed of the Navi-tas deal until after the agreement was signed, and the Senate is sup-posed to be the body entrusted with overseeing all academic matters at the University.

LackoftransparencyThe secrecy surrounding the Navitas deal is a significant part of the problem and is a cause for great concern for anyone who believes that a fundamental cornerstone to democracy is that our publicly-owned institutions be required to operate in a transparent manner.

Perhaps the NSW Auditor-General should examine how public universities in this State are dealing with the private sector? This may assist in helping to ensure greater transparency in the current situa-tion we are faced with, as well as into the future.

There are also numerous concerns for employees and unions when a private and profit-focused company desires a relationship with a

publicly owned institution. NTEU Newcastle Branch has fielded ques-tions from staff about transfer of taxpayer-funded intellectual prop-erty, physical spaces being made available to a private company, future job security, possible erosion of hard-won employment con-ditions, re-training, redundancy, and the effect on other interactive parts of courses and programmes.

QualityassuranceAnother issue concerning staff relates to quality assurance. As recently as 2008 the Australian University Quality Agency noted in a report a range of quality control problems in a Navitas operation. This should make Universities very cautious.

Finally, there is the issue of ownership and control. In general terms, companies that offer shareholdings and trade shares depend on consistent profit results. When the rate of profit begins to fall companies can become exposed. What would happen if Navitas, was sold off to a bidder from another part of the world who may or may not already have educational services in their portfolio? Buying out a competitor is not uncommon in the business world and the ‘rationalisation’ or closing of services in certain areas in such a scenario is a possibility.

It has been demonstrated again and again, in many parts of the world, that during times of economic crisis private ‘for profit’ compa-nies cannot guarantee stability. The disturbing example at La Trobe University over the past week is ringing alarm bells for the staff at the University of Newcastle. NTEU is concerned that jobs at Newcastle may disappear just as quickly as they have at La Trobe.

Introducing an element of instability into the public education sector is fraught with danger and should be avoided. Where does the loyalty of the private sector lie? The current ‘in house’ pathway services have been doing a great job and are loyal to the university. Expanding their role and supporting them is the solution to ensuring the best outcomes for our international students, not hiving off their services to private enterprise. A


PRIVATE PROVIDERS

Dr Melissa GreggUniversity of Sydney T he State of the Industry conference was a unique national event held in

November 2009. Organised by a team of ‘early career’ scholars from a range of universities across the country, the two-day meeting at UNSW provided a plat-form to discuss the future for research in the University. It was the signature event for the ARC-funded Cultural Research Network (CRN).

State of the Industry

This cross-institutional network, headed by Professor Graeme Turner at the Univer-sity of Queensland (UQ), supported a range of research collaborations over the period 2005–9. Among these was a dedicated fund-ing node designed to support the initiatives of junior scholars through bursaries, publish-ing programs, research work and mentoring support.

A key objective of the conference was to address the working conditions for teach-ing and research staff in universities. It had

a particular interest in highlighting the expe-riences faced by the next generation of aca-demics entering the sector, with over 50% of teaching now being done by casual staff (The RED Report, 2008).

Conference convenors Clifton Evers (UNSW), Emily Potter (Deakin), Alison Huber (Melbourne), Graeme Turner (UQ) and myself designed an interactive program featuring position statements from invited guests and open microphones for audience participa-tion. Topics addressed included trends in

Discussing the future of university research

Photos: This page: Professor Margaret Sheil, Australian Research Council CEO, addressing the State of the Industry conference.Opposite: Graeme Turner, University of Queensland

NTEU ADVOCATE26

RESEARCH

academic employment, teaching with social difference, research beyond the capital city, and the pros and cons of tenure. Speakers also offered arguments regarding curricu-lum design, supervision, pastoral care – par-ticularly for international students – and the status of teaching in career reward structures.

A panel of students presented a manifesto, ‘10 things that graduate students want’, with a range of significant policy suggestions. Throughout the conference, personal reflec-tions mixed with other postgraduate students’ contributions from a range of social network-ing sites leading in to and during the event.

HistoricalperspectivesThe conference provided an increasingly rare opportunity in the university sector: it allowed young scholars to hear how present industry conditions compare with those encountered by senior colleagues decades prior. Debates that unfolded over the two days questioned the confidence with which Baby Boomer academics can continue to plead for young scholars’ patience in a fright-eningly competitive job landscape.

At the same time, veterans of institu-tional battles spoke frankly to aspiring aca-demics that their career prospects could be improved with a bit more perseverance and perspective. In each case, the confer-ence showed what benefits can arise when researchers work collaboratively for a larger good.

Close to 200 scholars from around the country came to UNSW for the event, alongside industry, union and professional

research advocates. Bursaries supplied by the CRN allowed over 30 interstate postgrad-uate students to attend – an important step in breaking down divisive silos in university resources and governance. But despite some NTEU involvement – NSW State Secretary Genevieve Kelly gave an opening plenary address – it is worth noting that few of the conference delegates were active union members. What follows are some thoughts on why this may be so.

Large numbers of today’s ‘junior’ research-ers are in their 30s and 40s. They are employed in a range of teaching and admin roles, sometimes across several campuses,

and often in addition to higher degree study. These multiple jobs, and the negotiations involved in keeping them, rarely register on the radar of tenured staff, understand-ably preoccupied with their own workloads. Likewise union membership presumes a steady relationship with a single employer once studying obligations have been met. But today’s PhD students as much as PhD graduates regularly patch together a range of non-continuing contracts in order to pay the rent.

FormingpartnershipsWhat I’m hoping, both in the wake of the conference, and in writing about it here, is that new partnerships may develop between union campaigns and current academic research into workplace culture. Not only would this help to delineate the incentives necessary to encourage large pools of casu-als to become NTEU members. It would also build scale and capacity for the Union itself to operate on multiple fronts and keep step with increasingly flexible organisations.

If the Baby Boomers are right, and our industry is on the brink of tumultuous change, we must get better at forming research and activist partnerships to fight for the rights accompanying a very different academic workplace. And we must ensure that our Union recruits enough paying mem-bers to lead these battles with strength. A

MovingtowardsaResearchWorkforceStrategy

U nder the supervision of the Department of Industry, Innovation, Sci-ence and Research (DIISR), the Research Workforce Taskforce released

the ‘Meeting Australia’s Research Workforce Needs’ consultation paper on 28 June 2010.

The Taskforce was established in the second half of 2009 to support the development of a Research Workforce Strategy (RWS), announced by the Federal Government in the ‘Pow-ering Ideas’ White Paper in May 2009. The Reference Group comprised representatives from across the university and business sector, including NTEU.

The consultation paper is a culmination of DIISR’s consultation and engagement with the sector around research workforce issues. Its purpose is to gather sectoral feedback on a proposed research workforce strategy that is due to be completed before the end of the year. The paper and its responses will be critical in formulating the Federal Government’s approach to research workforce issues over the course of the next decade.

NTEU is encouraging engagement and feedback from our members on these vital issues. Updates about the release of the consultation paper will be posted on our website at.www.nteu.org.au/campaigns/policy/research/rws. A


RESEARCH

Lavinia Emmett-GreyAAU President 2008-2009 Member of the South Australian Premier’s Council for Women

Us versus Them

I don’t repeat gossip, so listen carefully’ – thus is the statement emblazoned on the mug of a senior NTEU Branch official at the University of Adelaide. As President of the Adelaide University Union (AUU) for two years, it somehow symbolises for

me the two things that formed a beautiful relationship between the staff and student unions at the University of Adelaide: coffee and information-sharing.

When I became AUU President in early 2008, there wasn’t much of a relationship between NTEU and the AUU. In fact, the AUU didn’t have much of a relationship with anyone. The years following the Howard Government’s voluntary student unionism (VSU) legisla-tion were a catastrophic freefall for student organisations around the country. Unlike some, Adelaide was able to make it through, though we suffered the loss of over 100 staff, $3.5 million per annum and the ownership of our space and commercial outlets. Not to mention a lot of our legitimacy.

Becoming a key student representative in this environment was daunting. Student rep-resentative numbers had dwindled and, as a result, we had failed to meet many obliga-tions, including basic things like attendance at university committee meetings. We’d lost all research staff and honoraria for all but one student representative, so were simply un-able to make submissions to the University or government on student issues.

We were so internally focused on survival that our organisation’s interaction with stu-dents was at an all time low, diminishing our

relevance. Most university representatives treated us like children, acting either amused or irritated by our presence. At that point in time there seemed to be such an overwhelm-ing number of things to repair, including rela-tionships, that it seemed almost impossible.

GrowththroughengagementIt all started with a phone call. Bernadette Finnerty, NTEU Adelaide Branch Organiser, asked me to catch up for a coffee and have a chat about the upcoming Bradley Review submissions. On reflection, this was prob-ably a key turning point in my development as a student representative. Since VSU, peo-ple had stopped asking us what students thought about higher education issues, and we hadn’t the resources to discover them ourselves. But as we went through the dis-cussion paper, I realised not only did I have strong opinions on a lot of the areas, but that this was an opportunity for our organisation to reinvent itself.

As a result of this discussion, I decided to put in a submission to the Bradley Review. It

Strengthening the relationship between staff and student unions

NTEU ADVOCATE28

STUDENT UNIONS

‘

was the first paper that the AUU had submit-ted since VSU. Through the process of pre-paring it, as I discovered areas that I didn’t have the knowledge or expertise to respond to, I decided to approach various arms of the University and just ask questions.

With various sections of the report, we con-sulted students and researched issues. Berna-dette and others provided support, whether it was research on specific issues, or drafts of submissions so that we were able to learn how to write one. Student representatives started informing themselves and discuss-ing issues. The intent was to write a submis-sion, but along the way we started rebuilding bridges and reminding ourselves what stu-dent organisations were supposed to do.

A few months later, Bernadette invited me to speak as part of an NTEU forum on the Bra-dley Review. It was probably my first speak-ing engagement where I wasn’t begging for votes, funding or membership. Many organi-sations sent letters to the AUU inviting us to make submissions on student issues, but NTEU was probably the first to support and value our contribution. Students came along to the forum as well as staff. There was a sense of community and desire to test ideas.

In early 2009, the Adelaide University Un-ion took a lead role on the student income

support campaign. The National Union of Students media monitors indicated that our campus received the most media coverage throughout the campaign.

Through my relationship with the Union, I was able to issue a joint press release with the Branch President, Rod Crewther, and we were able to convince to the Vice-Chancellor to also come on board. The release gener-ated positive media for a vital student issue which is often reduced to nothing more than beer-swilling students trying to get a free ride. The relationships we fostered allowed the student union to demonstrate its legiti-macy to not only the university community, but the community at large.

ReturningsupportA few months later, I was able to return NTEU’s support in kind. Some clichés hold true – as a general rule students are not early risers. But on the freezing cold morning of the NTEU National Strike in September 2009, University of Adelaide students joined staff on the picket line.

As the media came around to ask the inevitable question of whether this action was detrimental to students, our representa-tives were able to respond that issues like

staff:student ratios and reasonable work-loads were as fundamental to students as to staff. It is a simple argument really; the qual-ity of our education is the direct result of the quality of the staff experience.

UnitedwestandMy time as AUU President is over, but the importance of building a relationship with the NTEU is not something I have forgotten. I am proud that it is a relationship that has continued past my term, with the new crop of student representatives finding common ground with the NTEU around the issues faced by postgraduate research students, who are also often casual staff.

In recent times I have been providing sup-port to Flinders and UniSA representatives. In every meeting I urge them to forge similar relationships with their NTEU Branches.

It is expedient for University management to foster a staff versus student mentality. More often than not, staff and student posi-tions on various issues are the same. For staff and student unions, the mission is also the same: to effectively represent and organise around the issues of our membership. That mission is easier when carried out together and over many, many cups of coffee. A

Lavinia Emmett-Grey with NTEU Adelaide Branch President Rod Crewther (left) and Vice-Chancellor Prof James McWha (right).


STUDENT UNIONS

Makki MarseillesUniversity World News Athens correspondent

U niversities and academic staff at all levels have been hard hit following the Greek Government’s unprecedented and severe austerity measures demanded by the Central European Bank and the European Commission in an effort to

establish fiscal discipline in the country.

Bleak prospects for universities in post-GFC Greece

Higher education institutions have been told to cut their academic and maintenance programme budgets by as much as 30%. This target was set by the Education Minis-try although the institutions themselves will decide where to make the economies.

With just 3% of GNP allocated to edu-cation, the lowest of the EU’s 27 nations, Greek universities were already suffering from severe under-funding that inevitably stunted their growth.

This year’s reduction, and further cuts expected next year, makes the future look bleak. Many universities will have to recon-sider their academic programmes, extra activities and possibly cancel plans for build-ing repairs and renewal of equipment.

The Government’s measures are placing an even greater burden on academics. They have not only seen their salaries reduced but are also suffering, like the rest of the people, an unprecedented barrage of rising prices in

basic goods: petrol up by 54%, cigarettes by 17%, drinks by almost 70% and all likely to go even higher from 1 July when VAT will rise from the present 21% to 23%, bringing infla-tion to 5.4%.

TeachersUnionprotestsAs early as January, when the Government’s intentions to cut wages, salaries and supple-mentary benefits in the public sector were announced, the Panhellenic Federation of University Teachers Associations attempted to protect academics from the worst impact of these measures.

In a letter to Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou, the Federation pointed out: ‘Although the salaries in other public sector branches during 2008-2009 rose by 25% to as much as 100% in some cases, such as army officers and judges, the basic sala-ries of academics had remained unchanged

Photo: Craig Wherlock, www.flickr.com/photos/teacherdudebbq2

NTEU ADVOCATE30

INTERNATIONAL

Staff at the UK’s University of Sussex prepare for a ‘Teach In’ a protest against the cuts in 2010 to academic staff, student support staff, security and other staff.

Photo: Tim Huitson, www.flickr.com/photos/timbrighton

since 2004. As a result, a magistrate receives a monthly salary of €2,027 and a lecturer €1,055.’

Current academic pay arrangements mean that only 50% of the total amount received is a basic salary. The rest is made up by a variety of supplements such as lesson preparation, conference attendance, travelling, library and research supplements.

The Federation said academics would suffer far more disproportionately than other public sector scientific staff and concluded: ‘We would like to remind you that academic salaries have remained unchanged for the last six years and therefore they have shown effectively a 15% reduction which does not by any means acts as an incentive for young people to pursue an academic career.’

SalariesshrinkingFederation spokesman Stavros Sfindour-akis, an assistant professor at the University of Patras with 10 years work experience, took home €1,900 per month but now, after cuts to his salary and Christmas and Easter bonuses, he receives less than €1,700.

‘It is very disheartening,’ Sfindourakis said. ‘They have better salaries in Portugal.’

Nikos Belavilas, associate professor at the National Technological University of Athens and his wife Vasso Trova also a lecturer at the University of Thessalia calculated they are losing around €6,000 a year between them: ‘The cost of our son’s education,’ he says wistfully.

In the same vein, a lecturer at the Univer-sity of Crete, Elefteria Argyropoulou, is mar-ried to a secondary school head teacher. She had waited for more than 20 years to be appointed to her current position and her salary is still in the lowest scale.

‘I don’t know exactly how much I am going to lose because I am not receiving all the supplements yet but between us we would probably be short between €4,000-5,000 a year,’ she says.

With a child at university she anticipates an increase in the family budget. ‘Fortunately we have some property out in the country inherited from our parents and we might have to sell in order to cope.’

This is perhaps one of the reasons why the effects of the recession are not as yet immediately obvious. Many people are using their savings or selling their assets in order to sustain their standard of living while the

universities themselves are looking at their investment portfolios in order to improve their income.

Sfindourakis said state universities could be forced to cooperate more closely with private enterprise and firms might become more willing to sponsor programmes at state universities.

He rejected suggestions this could be pri-vatisation through the back door: ‘The state university has nothing to fear from the pri-vate so-called colleges which will cater for people who will not be able to go to a state university for a variety of reasons and that is very healthy.’

Aresearchleadrecovery?One note of optimism in the general

gloom is in research which could provide a way out of the crisis. Financed with only 0.6% of GNP, the prospects of this rising to the pre-election promise of 2% are practi-cally non-existent. But research is supported by a large number of different European pro-

grammes that provide much needed relief for researchers.

In a recent executive decision, the Fed-eration accused the Government of lacking a plan for dealing with the crisis, claiming it remained anchored to policies of reduc-tions in spending on health, education and research, as well as wages and salaries, which did not provide enough added value to pay off the country’s debt.

The Federation demanded negotia-tions for a new salary structure with all the supplements in the basic salary and a fair and equitable tax system with exceptions for expenditure relating to professional activities such as subscriptions to scientific magazines, travelling to conferences and so forth.

The Education Ministry has indicated that a new legal framework for higher education would be brought before parliament in Sep-tember. Academics hope this will provide solutions for all the major outstanding prob-lems facing higher education in Greece. A

UWN c www.universityworldnews.com


INTERNATIONAL

SNAPSHOT BRIGHTON, UK, FEB 2010

The Macophobes stereotype the iPad as an overgrown iPhone which can’t make calls and/or a laptop lid which can’t take files from a data disk or memory stick because it has no USB port. Besides, the iPad has no camera (unlike the iPhone4) and, worst of all, it won’t run Adobe Flash, the most widespread engine for video clips.

However, the iPad has a YouTube app and a Videos app for movies rented or bought through the iTunes Store. The ABC has provided a free app to view such programs as Q&A, Lateline, 7.30 Report, etc – so Insiders and iView can’t be far off. The AFL has provided a free app to view match highlights and BigPond Sport News. So content providers seem happy to rewrite their software using Apple tools rather than the third-party Adobe tools, which Steve Jobs claims are buggy, but then he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Adobe has charged Apple with anti-competitive practices in the US courts, and could eventually win, but the longer Apple spins out the litigation the more developers will have switched to the Apple tools. Similarly, Apple and HTC of Taiwan are locked in suits and counter-suits in the courts over copy-right infringements, but Apple’s superb marketing has already taken it to 40 per cent of the US smart-phone market while the litigation rages.

While it is true that the iPad has no built-in USB port, it is possible to work around this deficiency with its Synchronising cable and a Reader app which can import a wide range of files, including PDF, music and video files. And the lack of a camera certainly doesn’t inhibit importing and displaying photos from one’s desktop computer or, with an optional attachment, from one’s digital camera.

The main thrust of the Macophobes army, then, is to criticise what the iPad doesn’t have or doesn’t do – there is very little criticism of the way it functions as an eReader, apart from the price, and perhaps the weight, but then you are paying, in dollars and grams, for much more than an eReader. Not that it’s all that heavy (at 680gm, com-pared with the Kindle DX at 536gm, which is an eReader only) or all that pricey (from $629, compared with the 6inch Kindle2 at $290 and 9.7inch Kindle DX at $543).

The iBooks app on the iPad works beautifully, but the iBooks Store

with which it connects has yet to negotiate prices with some publish-ers, so their range of eBooks is not as vast as Amazon.com with which the Kindle connects. However, there is a Kindle app for the iPad, so the vast Amazon.com library is available to the iPad, too. Similarly, there is a Borders app for the iPad which emulates their 6inch KoBo eReader (221gm and only $199, when new stocks arrive). Alterna-tively, one might consider the Australian ECO Reader from $449, a Pico eReader from $238, the DreamBook ePad 7 from $149, the Stash W950 from $129 or wait for the HP Slate.

For the ultimate eReading experience, however, it’s the soft-ware which makes the difference, and the free Stanza for iPad (and iPhone) from www.lexcycle.com is great, particularly when linked to the free Calibre eBook manage-ment software from www.calibre-ebook.com...

However, it is hardly fair to com-pare the iPad with mere eReaders, when it does so much more. For a start, most eReaders don’t have a colour screen, let alone a 9.7inch LED touch-screen. Perhaps a more valid comparison would be with a netbook or laptop, but that would almost overlook its superior port-ability and, more importantly, its

touch-screen mode of operation, which utterly changes the way that one relates to the device and therefore the way one relates to the con-tent, be it a book, a speech, a song, a picture, a dance, a sport, a movie or TV show, or some other cultural artefact. It is a source of information, analysis and entertainment of unprecedented convenience.

The iPad brings new meaning to ‘touch-typing’, ‘It’s so real you can almost touch it’ and ‘I have it all at the tips of my fingers’. To actually hold the Internet in one’s hands is an empowering experience, which incorporates, but is not limited to, reading books.

The only way one could get closer to the internet would be to have a Cochlear-style implant, much like the way we chip our pets... now there’s a thought! A

iPat MacWright is Director of the Centre for Labour Research at the University of Adelaide. email: [email protected]

eReading rEvolution

T he release of Apple’s iPad in Australia has caused a renewed outbreak of hostilities between the Macophiles and Macophobes in the Australian commentariat. Fans of the Apple Mac computer and all its offspring are ridiculed for

their sycophantic hyperbole by those who hate Apple founder, Steve Jobs, and all his works. Reasonable commentators are recruited or dragooned into one of the two opposed camps, both of which are quick to bring in the big guns, mostly from the US, to shore up their respective positions.

To actually hold the Internet in one’s hands is an empowering experience, which incorporates, but is not limited to, reading

books.

NTEU ADVOCATE32

UNIVERSITY BARGAININGNEWS FROM THE NET PAT WRIGHT

Gold diggers and rent seekers

T he debate about the Australian Government’s proposal to tax the profits of mining companies was disappointing in sev-eral ways. I was not surprised to see corporations twisting the truth and spending millions on advertising to persuade

people they shouldn’t pay more tax. Any change has costs and benefits and those who bear the costs will often squeal, especially if they have always had generous treatment in the past.

Those who benefit – in this case, the community as a whole – have both less reason to participate in the debate and less capacity to pay for misleading advertising. The inept defence of the proposal by former PM Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan was also dis-appointing, but also not surprising. After all, they had failed to per-suade the troglodytes in their own party of the need to respond to ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’, even though the Garnaut Report showed that a concerted response to climate change would be better socially and economically than the current approach of masterly inaction.

But the most disappointing aspect of the debate was the ridicu-lous emphasis on short-term economics. The overseas-owned mining companies obviously think we should be worried by a threat to slow down the rate of ‘developing’ our mineral resources. Such ‘devel-opment’ is an irreversible process. We start with a mineral deposit, then have a mine and finally an empty hole in the ground. We only have one opportunity to ‘develop’ any mineral deposit. Since minerals don’t decompose underground, it would only be logical to see extraction as urgent if there was good reason to believe they will be worth less in the future than they are worth now. That might be true for coal, since climate change means the world should be phasing out coal-fired electricity. It could also be true for uranium, if you agree with me that nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from the challenge of moving to clean energy. But it clearly is not true of most minerals. Iron, copper, gold, bauxite, tin and rare earth minerals are all likely to be more valu-able in fifty years time than they are now. So extracting those com-modities later rather than sooner is almost certainly in our long-term economic interest.

There are two points here. The first is that the contribution of the miners to our economy is just that – minor. Mining represents about

5 per cent of our economy and a smaller percentage of our workforce. So we should not behave as if it were a major contributor. The sector is minor. The more fundamental point is that we should not panic to maximise the rate of economic growth. The rapid growth economic growth of the last thirty years has not improved our quality of life, as shown by the recent Australian Conservation Foundation report Better than Growth. The things that Australians regularly say they want are more leisure time, vibrant communities, a sense of purpose and wellness in our lives, as well as maintenance of our unique natu-ral assets. These desirables do not flow automatically from a growing economy. On the contrary, some of these goals have been actually threatened by the style of economic growth promoted in recent

years. Discontent with those con-sequences was a significant cause of the change of government in 2007.

I am writing this column while attending a conference in Italy. It concentrated on the loss of bio-logical capacity resulting from our growing population and increas-ing consumption. I was the rap-porteur for one workshop which

agreed we should have two goals. We should try to ensure that the poorest people in the world have the basic services set out in the Mil-lennium Assessment: clean water, adequate nutrition, safe shelter, basic health care and access to education. Secondly, we need at the same time to reduce overall resource use so that it is less than the sustainable productivity of natural systems.

These two goals require us to see both the overall scale of the econ-omy and its emphasis as a means to agreed social ends. There is no reason to promote rapid expansion of the mining sector, especially if that involves eroding family life, ignoring environmental problems and trampling on the rights of Indigenous people. A

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

Iron, copper, gold, bauxite, tin and rare earth minerals are all likely to be more

valuable in fifty years time than they are now. So extracting those commodities later

rather than sooner is almost certainly in our long-term economic interest.


UNIVERSITY BARGAININGLOWERING THE BOOM IAN LOWE

Since the 1990s, and now with the departure of the baby-boomer generation, our universities and other workplaces are increasingly staffed by younger employees who have little understanding of what unions are, what they do, and why their membership is important.

Scholars have put forward a number of theories for the decline in membership globally which was greatest during the 1990s in Aus-tralia, and they mostly tend to focus on causal factors encapsulated by Andrew Leigh, an economist in the Research School of Social Sci-ences at the Australian National University in 2005.

The first of these are the changes made to industrial laws during the Howard Govern-ment’s 11-year tenure which were clearly aimed at break-ing the unions. When unionisa-tion became non-compulsory and vilified by the Government and employers, many workers opted out of union membership.

However, they didn’t consider that they would continue to benefit from the working conditions and pay scales which unions had won for them over previous decades; nor did they consider that those benefits would be threatened without a strong union membership to continue defending them.

Also, deregulation of numerous industries, including the higher education sector, meant greater competition and to meet that com-petition, industries cut jobs wherever they could, leading to fewer continuing positions and longer individual working hours.

Continuingemploymenthasbeenreplacedbyinsecure,under-employment

Continuing positions were replaced by outsourcing, for example to call centres – the sweatshops of the 21st century, increased numbers of part-time and underpaid staff – a development which led to the identification of a new group within the labour force, the under-employed, which had particularly negative effects for women who are over-represented within that group.

This subsequent change in the labour market also resulted in a much wider range of salary levels and because employees are more likely to identify with co-workers who enjoy equal stature and pay scales, it led to greater social divisions within the workplace, also breaking down solidarity between workers.

The NTEU has recognised this decline in solidarity among higher

education staff, and the accompanying decline in union membership, by focusing greater attention on organisation of the Union at Branch level and as a result, membership has been steadily gaining ground.

But one of the missing elements from the campaign has been the education of staff who truly believe the NTEU is a fee-for-service organisation, and who remain completely unaware of their own role within the Union to increase and maintain its strength within our uni-versities.

I know this from the countless phone calls the voluntary mem-bers of our Branch receive from staff members who matured to adulthood during the Howard Government’s culture of the individual, and whose requests usually begin, quite naively,

something like this: ‘I’m not a member of the Union but I’ve been summoned to a

meeting with the head of the faculty this afternoon, so could you give me some advice before then?’ or ‘I’m not a member of the NTEU, and the CPSU isn’t answering its phone, but I’m willing to join whichever union can help me.’

In 2008, Melbourne Institute Deputy Director Mark Wooden, was quoted in The.Age newspaper as saying that despite the Howard Gov-ernment’s WorkChoices policy, most people weren’t worried enough about losing their jobs to actually join a union.

Around the same time, the ACTU was focusing on the climate of fear in workplaces that had scared workers from joining.

However, workers proved to be extremely concerned about losing their jobs when they voted the Howard Government out of office in late 2007 and job security remains a greater concern today than it was in 2008.

There’s never been a more urgent time for the NTEU to put addi-tional resources into educating today’s population of university staff about the role of the Union, and the importance of solidarity.

And there’s never been a more important time for existing mem-bers to explain the benefits of a strong union and greater member-ship to all staff, particularly with a Federal election and the spectre of WorkChoices Mark II ahead of us. A

Jenny Austin is an NTEU National Councillor, NTEU SCUBranch Presidentand a regional commentator on social and political affairs

This is Jenny Austin’s final column for the Advocate. NTEU would like to thank her for the six years worth of thoughtful, challenging and entertaining columns.

Teaching Union Membership 101

T he decline in union membership over the past 20 years is a challenge yet to be met by Australian unions, including the NTEU, but I’m concerned that little attention has been paid to educating workers who have joined the workforce during

that time.

‘I’m not a member of the union but I’ve been summoned to a meeting with the head of

the faculty this afternoon, so could give me some advice before then?’

NTEU ADVOCATE34

REGIONAL FOCUS JENNY AUSTIN

The cause of this extraordinary announcement is the recent rush by universities to restrict the enrolments they will be taking next semes-ter and next year.

And the cause of all this is a cap placed on tertiary institutions two years ago that prevented them enrolling too many students. The cap was initially a response to an excess of competition between terti-ary institutions with many engaging in huge advertising and promo-tional efforts to lure each others students and potential students. The goal of the policy was that institutions stop trying to grow their rolls at the expense of others and put more effort into focusing on qual-ity – particularly an output of postgraduates and research. The result, within universities at least, seems to have been that the promotional and advertising competition has shifted its focus from recruiting fresh new first year students to attracting post graduate students as well as research funding.

Sadly the new policy also could not have come at a worse time. Just as it was introduced a demographic baby boom started leaving school and passing into tertiary education. Moreover, that pressure on rolls was further exacerbated by the global recession, which also is encourag-ing more people into study.

Suddenly the problem was not institutions competing with each other for a fixed number of stu-dents, but institutions overwhelmed by a rapidly expanded number of students.

University of Canterbury Vice-Chancellor Rod Carr says his univer-sity carried 500 enrolled full time students (EFTS) above its cap last year and was likely to carry a further 600 domestic students above its cap this year. By defying the Government’s EFTS cap last year, the University cost itself more than $3 million.

Dr Carr noted that the lack of Government funding had stretched University resources, with the student-to-staff ratio increasing from 19.3 (to one) to 20.3 in 2009. For staff, that represents a five per cent increase in much of the work they need to do, such as assessment, student support and administration.

The people who are carrying the burden of stretched resources and increased workload are staff. Simply put, if the University wants to have more students, it needs to hire more staff or better reward its current employees.

The University of Canterbury is not the only institution in this posi-tion. All around New Zealand rolls are up, while staff numbers remain static due to funding cuts the Government introduced last year. No wonder they are reluctant to take some of the many young people who want to begin study.

The move by universities across New Zealand to dramatically restrict entry to many of their courses is the result of government fail-ure to anticipate the combined pressure of demographic growth in student numbers and an increase in people looking to study during the recession.

The Government’s policy of capping the number of students it is willing to fund needs to be reviewed. It is hurting the produc-tivity of our economy. That policy made some sense when terti-ary institutions were competing amongst themselves for students and were more focused on growth than quality. But in an environment when there is real growth in stu-

dent numbers across the sector, the policy now is denying a rapidly growing number of young people the opportunity to get the skills and knowledge they are entitled to.

Most of those who face missing out on the chance to study are ordi-nary struggling New Zealanders. These are the very people who most need that opportunity to study, to contribute to the betterment of their families, the wider community, and our struggling economy. A

Dr Tom Ryan is National President/Te Tumu Whakarae,New Zealand Tertiary Education Union/Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa

TEU c www.teu.ac.nz

Missing out on the chance to learn

R ecently, New Zealand school principals announced that they were worried that pupils leaving their school would end up on the dole rather than in tertiary education study. ‘How do you tell someone who has worked really hard to give

themselves the chance of going to university that they might not get in?’ asked Chair of the Secondary Principals Associa-tion, Patrick Walsh. ‘It’s very disappointing when students capable of making a very good contribution to the economy for years to come are turned down. Instead, it could lead to more students being unemployed, which is not a good situation.’

Suddenly the problem was not institutions competing with each other

for a fixed number of students, but institutions overwhelmed by a rapidly

expanded number of students.


LETTER FROM NEW ZEALAND/AOTEAROA TOM RYAN, TEU

New staff in the Branches and Divisions

Q uite a few new faces are to be found in our Branch and Division offices in the last few months. To help you to get to know your local NTEU contact a bit better, we are pleased to present these brief profiles.

BelindaVisetBranch OrganiserUTS

Belinda has recently started work as Branch Organiser for the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) Branch. She is excited about her organising role at UTS and working with NTEU members for the betterment of their working conditions and advancement of their interests.

Belinda has worked for local government and has undertaken voluntary work at com-munity legal/legal aid organisations (in which there was a strong focus on discrimi-nation and employment issues). Belinda is originally from the South Coast and is a BA/LLB graduate from the University of Wollon-gong.

DavidSinghBranch OrganiserQUT

David Singh is the newly appointed organ-iser for QUT. David studied at the University of Warwick and the London School of Eco-nomics in the UK and received his doctorate from the University of Queensland (UQ) last year. He has also lectured at the University of London and UQ.

Outside the Academy, David has worked in the British NGO sector and as an Equity policy advisor in local and state government. Working as an organiser David feels he has come full circle, back to his early days as a community organiser in west London where he advocated on behalf of victims of racial and police violence.

Outside work and as befits a Londoner, David is a keen West Ham United fan. How-ever after many years in Australia he still cannot bring himself to call his beloved game of football ‘soccer’.

NaomiAnastasiBranch OrganiserGriffith University

Naomi Anastasi is the new NTEU Organiser at Griffith University. She brings to this role an enthusiasm for the university sector, respect for the work that is done by both academic and administrative staff at universities, and a belief that more is achieved when people work together.

Previous to working with the NTEU Naomi was an advocate for postgraduate and undergraduate students at both the University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology. Recently, she completed her Master of Philosophy in the area of research higher degree student writ-ing. All of this means that Naomi is passion-ate about the sector, and looks forward to meeting all Griffith members at some time in the future.

MareaWilsonIndustrial Officer NSW Division

Marea is working at the NTEU on a short term basis as an Industrial Officer. She is helping out with member cases as well as doing a record management project.

Marea was a delegate for the Federated Clerks Union when she worked as a teleph-onist at PhoneTAB. This was when her chil-dren were small and she was studying law at UNSW. Her experience as a delegate, and her law degree helped her get work at the Municipal Employees Union (now the USU), where she worked as an industrial officer for nine years.

Her children are adults now, and Marea is working on a Masters degree at the Univer-sity of Sydney.

JoshuaGavaIndustrial Officer NSW Division

Josh Gava has recently taken up an Industrial Officer position in the NSW Division. Josh has been allocated the University of Western Sydney and is also conducting bargaining at a number of university and college sites.

Living in Sydney with his partner Laura, Josh comes from Wollongong where he obtained degrees in Arts and Law. Josh’s background is diverse and he has spent time in the Australian Army and working as a political staffer. For the past three years Josh has practiced law, primarily as a litigator. A

The NTEU KeepCupNo waste. Great style.

Just $9.00buy online now @

www.nteu.org.au/shop

NTEU ADVOCATE36

YOUR UNION

NTEU elections underway

E very two years, elections are held in the NTEU for hun-dreds of important positions in the Union. This year,

elections are being held for all positions, including the three full-time National Officer positions – President, General Sec-retary and National Assistant Secretary. Elections are also conducted for Secretaries of NTEU’s State/Territory Divi-sions (except in NSW, where the election is in 2012).

Just as importantly, elections are conducted for hundreds of posi-tions in local NTEU Branches. Filling these positions makes sure that members have full control of the Union’s direction and policies.

Of particular interest to many members are the elections for National Officers. Neither Carolyn Allport (National President) nor Ted Murphy (National Assistant Secretary) are seeking re-election.

Jeannie Rea, from Victoria University, has been elected unopposed to the position of National President, while Grahame McCulloch has been re-elected unopposed as General Secretary.

For National Assistant Secretary, there is a contest between Matt McGowan (currently Victorian Division Secretary) and Len Palmer (currently NSW Division President).

This national contest means that all members should receive at least one ballot paper through the post (at the same address to which your copy of The Advocate is sent) soon after 4 August.

Ballot papers will need to be returned to the Australian Electoral Commission by 10am on Wednesday 25 August 2010.

All members are asked to vote in the elections – it is an important part of having your say. A

NewQueenslandDivisionofficeopenedinTaringa

P roviding financial security is an important step forward in building our Union’, said Margaret Lee,

NTEU Queensland Division Secretary, as she opened the new Division Office in the Brisbane suburb of Taringa on 18 June.

Members and supporters gathered to listen to Turrbal Song-Woman Maroochy Barambah as she officially welcomed the NTEU to country and cleansed the building.

Queensland Division President, Andrew Bonnell affirmed from the Union a strong and lasting support for Indigenous rights as he welcomed all present and officially declared the new office open.

Local political satirists and songsters, Absolutely Scandalous delighted us all with a performance that is now so polished that they are sure to be getting gigs on national television before too long – move over John Clarke and Brian Doyle! A

Ross Gwyther, Qld Division Organiser

LegislativequirkmeansnewestunionmembersaredisenfranchisedUnder amendments to electoral law passed a few years ago, the only people entitled to vote in Union elections are those who were members as at the date nominations opened.

For the NTEU in 2010, this date was 26 May. This means that hundreds of members who joined since that date will not receive a ballot paper and are denied a vote. NTEU regrets this, but it imposed upon us by law. A

‘

GO WITH NTEU SOFT DELIVERY.Did you know you can opt-out of receiving this magazine by mail? Instead, you’ll receive a notfication email when the latest issue is available online, for you to read as a fully functional e-mag or PDF.

l Login to www.nteu.org.aul Click on ‘Your Details’l Click on ‘Publications & Communication Preferences’l Select ‘Email notification (Soft delivery)’.


YOUR UNION

GREEN

Recent human rights actions by NTEU

N TEU National Office regularly sends letters to foreign governments and companies in support of imprisoned or victim-ised educators and workers, upon the request of education and human rights organisations.

For more information, please visit the organisations’ websites:Amnesty International c www.amnesty.org Labour Start c labourstart.org

Education International c www.ei-ie.org APHEDA c apheda.org.au

CYPRUS

TURKEY

SAUDI ARABIA

UK

IRAN CHINA

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

HONDURAS COLOMBIA

HondurasAction.request: Amnesty International

Addressee: President Roberto Micheletti

Action: Letter requesting investiga-tion into threats made against Rafael Caceres (Deputy Director, School of Fine Arts, Tegucigalpa).

Action.request: Amnesty International

Addressee: Attorney General

Action: Letter requesting investigation into death threats and intimida-tion against teacher and political commentator Rosa Vargas.

Cyprus&TurkeyAction.request: Amnesty International

Addressee: President of the Republic of Cyprus and Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey

Action: Letters sent regarding violence used by police and authorities against members of the Cyprus Turkish Teachers’ Trade Union, in response to peaceful protests against unilateral Government decisions affecting public educa-tion in North Cyprus.

IranAction.request: Amnesty International

Addressee: .Ayatollah Sadeqh Larijani, Head of Judiciary

Action:.Letter re detention and sentencing of student leader Majid Tavakkoli following peaceful dem-onstration in Dec 2009. Prisoner of conscience.

Action.request: Labour Start

Addressee: .President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Action:.Message condemning the sham trial, torture and execution of Farzad Kamangar who was hanged (without his family being informed) on 9 May 2010. He was accused of ‘endangering national security’ and ‘enmity against God’.

CanadaAction.request: Education International

Addressee: Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs

Action: Letter re decision by Canadian Government to remove funding for the First Nations University.

UKAction.request: Andrew Bonnell,

UQ Branch President

Addressee: Principal KCL

Action: Letter re the impact of the ‘reor-ganisation’ plans for the humani-ties at Kings College London.

AustraliaAction.request: APHEDA/ACTU

Addressee: Prime Minsiter Kevin Rudd

Action: Opposition to decision to suspend processing of all new asylum claims from Afghan and Sri Lankan nationals.

SaudiArabiaAction.request: Amnesty International

Addressee: His Majesty King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud

Action: Letter re incommu-nicado detention of student activist Thamer Abdulkar-eem al-Kather. Pris-oner of conscience.

ChinaAction.request: Amnesty International

Addressee: Director of the Qinghai Pro-vincial Department of Justice

Action: Letter seeking immediate and unconditional release of detained Tibetan scholar, Tagyal, detained on 23 April 2010 under suspicion of ‘inciting separatism’.

ColombiaAction.request: Len Palmer,

NSW Division President

Addressee: President Alvaro Uribe Velez

Action:.Letter seeking fair trial with inde-pendent observers for Colom-bian academic, Dr Miguel Angel Beltran, charged with rebellion and associating with terrorists following his research into politi-cal environment in Colombia.

NTEU ADVOCATE38

YOUR UNION

NTEU ONLINE MEMBERSHIP DATABASEUpdate your details: In order for NTEU to keep you in touch, it is important we have your latest details.

If any of the following points apply to you, please change your details online or contact us immediately.

MEMBERSHIP DETAILSHave you moved house recently?

Î IF yOU HAVE NOMINATED yOUR HOME ADDRESS AS yOUR NTEU CONTACT ADDRESS, yOU MUST UPDATE IT.

Has your family name changed?

Have your workplace details changed?

Has your Dept/School had a name change or merged with another?

Are you moving to a different institution? Î TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP FROM ONE INSTITUTION

TO ANOTHER IS NOT AUTOMATIC.

Have your employment details changed? Î PLEASE NOTIFy US TO ENSURE yOU ARE PAyING THE

CORRECT FEES.

For any of the above membership enquiries, please contact: Melinda Valsorda, Membership Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email [email protected]

CREDIT CARD/DIRECT DEBIT PAYMENTSHave your credit card (ie expiry date) or direct debit account details changed?

Î PLEASE NOTIFy US IMMEDIATELy.

Are you leaving university employment? Î IF yOU ARE NO LONGER AN NTEU MEMBER, DEDUCTIONS

WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE NATIONAL OFFICE IS NOTIFIED.

For all credit card and direct debit enquiries, please contact: Tamara Labadze, Finance Officer ph (03) 9254 1910 email [email protected]

PAYROLL DEDUCTION PAYMENTSHave your payroll deductions suddenly stopped without your authority?

Î CONTACT yOUR PAyROLL DEPT URGENTLy.

Payroll deduction queries should be directed to your Branch or Division office.

Annual tax statement: Available for download after 1 July. Statements will not be posted out.

How to check your membership details or download your tax statement online

1: Click on ‘Member Login’

ID = Your NTEU membership number

Password = Your surname in CAPITALS

2: Go to ‘My Home’

3: Select ‘Your Profile’

4: Select ‘View Details’ (to change personal details) or ‘Print Tax Statement’ (after 1 July)

www.nteu.org.au / version 3.0BloggingontheupgradedNTEUwebsite

A fter receiving a top-to-tail overhaul, the Union’s website was relaunched in July. The new site’s architecture will be familiar to regular users of blogs and

online services, with the main activity centred around blogs from the National Office, as well as from Divisions, Branches, campaigns and special interest.

The site is designed to better interact with members and improve access to the Union’s vast array of services and information.

We are hopeful that these changes will better assist the Union in interacting with members, responding to members’ needs, and running campaigns.

A ‘super menu’, which will appear at the top of all NTEU sites, provides easier access to any of the Union’s special campaign web-sites; to your local Branch and special inter-est homepages; or membership tools.

Quicker pathways and better search func-tions have been developed to help you locate relevant working condition informa-tions; discover NTEU policy and research

activities; or to simply get in contact with the right person in the Union.

Answers to simple questions about your membership and getting involved with the Union are provided in our new FAQ page (www.nteu.org.au/join/faq). Various common questions about your workplace rights can be found in our Advice and Assistance page (www.nteu.org.au/rights/advice).

MoreactiveBranchsitesEach NTEU Branch homepage is now centred around its own blog featuring local, state and national news.

The Branch site is also the place to find

information on local issues and campaigns; the Agreement at your workplace; your local Branch Committee member details; and any current and past local publications.

NewonlineLibraryThe new NTEU online Library is packed full of booklets, journals, fact sheets, submissions, discussion papers and much more.

This information, which was previously dif-ficult to locate, is now all contained within our fully searchable online Library.

c www.nteu.org.au


YOUR UNION

WA Division

PO Box 3114, Broadway LPO Nedlands, WA 6009

(08) 6365 4188 (08) 9354 1629 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/wa

. . . . . office . . . . . phone . . . . . fax . . . . . email . . . . . website

NT Division

PO Box U371, CDU, Darwin, NT 0815 (08) 8946 7231 (08) 8927 9410 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/nt

SA Division

Ground Floor, Palais Apartment Complex, 281 North Tce, Adelaide SA 5000 (08) 8227 2384 (08) 8227 0997 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/sa

Queensland Division

4 Briggs Street, Taringa, QLD 4068 (07) 3362 8200 (07) 3371 7817 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/qld

NSW Division

Level 1, 55 Holt St, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 (02) 9212 5433 (02) 9212 4090 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/nsw

ACT Division

G Block, Old Admin Area, McDonald Place, ANU, Acton, ACT 0200 (02) 6125 2043 ANU/ADFA/ACU

(02) 6201 5355 UC (02) 6125 8137 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/act

Victorian Division

1st Fl, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006 (03) 9254 1930 (03) 9254 1935 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/vic

Tasmanian Division

Private Bag 101, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001 (03) 6226 7575 (03) 6226 2172 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au/tasmania

National Office

1st Fl, 120 Clarendon St, Southbank, VIC 3006

PO Box 1323, South Melbourne, VIC 3205

(03) 9254 1910 (03) 9254 1915 [email protected]. www.nteu.org.au

ContactingNTEU

NATIONAL EXECUTIVENational.President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carolyn Allport

Vice-President.(Academic) . . . . . . . . . . Gregory McCarthy SA DivVice-President.(General) . . . . . . . . . . . . Jo Hibbert UWS

General.Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grahame McCullochNational.Assistant.Secretary . . . . . . . . Ted Murphy

Executive.MembersSusan Bandias NT Div Lyn Bloom WA Div Andrew Bonnell UQ Margaret Botterill La TrobeDerek Corrigan ANU James Doughney VUGabrielle Gooding UWA Ian Hunt FlindersGenevieve Kelly NSW Div Margaret Lee Qld Div Matthew McGowan Vic Div Kelvin Michael Tas DivLen Palmer CSU Kate Patrick RMITMichael Thomson Sydney

Indigenous.Executive.Member . . . . . . Terry Mason UWS

NATIONAL OFFICE STAFFOfficers & Central Resources UnitExecutive Officer – President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrea SauvarinExecutive Officer – General Secretary . . . . . . . . Anastasia KotaidisIT Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael RileyICT System Administrator/Help Desk . . . . . . . . . Tam VuongNational Indigenous Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam FrogleyAdministrative Officer – Resources . . . . . . . . . . . Tracey CosterAdministrative Officer – Reception . . . . . . . . . . . Renee Veal

Industrial UnitIndustrial Unit Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eleanor FloydSenior Industrial Officer (Strategy & Policy) . . . Ken McAlpineIndustrial Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michelle Rangott, Peter SummersIndustrial Support Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Liebhaber

Policy & Research UnitPolicy & Research Unit Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . Paul KniestPolicy & Research Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terri MacDonald, Jen Tsen-Kwok

Recruitment & Training UnitNational Organiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael EvansNational Publications Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . Paul CliftonMembership Records Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Melinda ValsordaAdministrative Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julie-Ann Veal

Finance UnitFinance Unit Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jenny Savage Finance Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joanne Dunn, Jayne van Dalen, Gracia Ho, Alex Ghvaladze, Tamara Labadze

NTEU ADVOCATE40

.0

I wa

nt to

join

NTE

U

I her

eby a

pply

for m

embe

rship

of N

TEU,

any B

ranc

h and

any a

ssocia

ted b

ody‡ es

tabli

shed

at m

y wor

kplac

e.

I

am cu

rren

tly a

mem

ber a

nd w

ish to

upda

te m

y det

ails

TiTl

e Su

rnam

e

g

iven

nam

eS

Hom

e add

reSS

poST

code

Hom

e pHo

ne IN

clUd

E arE

a co

dE

Wor

K pH

one

INcl

UdE a

rEa

codE

m

obil

e pHo

ne

emai

l add

reSS

da

Te o

F bir

TH

are y

ou a

n au

STra

lian

abo

rigi

nal o

r Tor

reS S

Trai

T iSl

ande

r?

yeS

Have

you

prev

iouS

ly b

een

an n

Teu

mem

ber?

y

eS: a

T WHi

cH in

STiT

uTio

n?

curr

enT i

nSTi

TuTi

on/e

mpl

oyer

cam

puS

Facu

lTy

depT

/ScH

ool

m

ail/

bldg

code

poSi

Tion

cl

aSSi

Fica

Tion

leve

l ST

ep/in

crem

enT

annu

al Sa

lary

ne

xT in

crem

enT d

ue

E.g. l

EcTB

, HEW

4 If

kNoW

N If

kNoW

N M

oNTH

, If kN

oWN

WHa

T iS y

our

empl

oym

enT g

roup

?

aca

dem

ic

g

ener

al

o

THer

:

WHa

T iS y

our

empl

oym

enT c

aTeg

ory?

Ful

l Tim

e

par

T Tim

e

WHa

T iS y

our

empl

oym

enT T

erm

?

con

Tinu

ing/

perm

anen

T

Fix

ed Te

rm co

nTra

cT

m

ale

F

emal

e

dire

ct d

ebit

requ

est S

ervic

e agr

eem

ent:

1.

This

is an

agre

emen

t betw

een

you

and

NTEU

. 2.

Und

er th

is Ag

reeme

nt, y

ou a

rrang

e to

have

de

ducte

d fro

m yo

ur ac

coun

t, on

the

15th

day

in

each

calen

dar m

onth

(work

ing da

y), th

e app

ropri-

ate am

ount

of du

es an

d lev

ies, p

ayab

le un

der N

TEU’s

Ru

les, to

NTE

U (th

e deb

it use

r). If

you a

re un

certa

in as

to w

hen t

he de

bit w

ill be

proc

esse

d plea

se co

n-tac

t NTE

U on (

03) 9

254 1

910.

Thes

e arra

ngem

ents

will n

ot ch

ange

, alth

ough

the a

moun

t may

vary

in ac

corda

nce

with

dec

ision

s of

your

electe

d NT

EU

Coun

cils a

nd Co

mmitt

ees.

You

will b

e noti

fied,

in wr

iting,

of an

y cha

nges

at le

ast f

ourte

en (1

4) da

ys

prior

to th

eir im

pleme

ntatio

n. 3

. For

all m

atters

rel

ating

to th

e Dire

ct De

bit ar

range

ments

, inclu

ding

defer

ments

and

altera

tions

, you

will

need

to se

nd

writt

en co

rresp

onde

nce t

o PO

Box 1

323,

Sth M

el-bo

urne V

IC 32

05 an

d allo

w 10

days

for t

he am

end-

ments

to ta

ke ef

fect.

4. Y

ou m

ay st

op an

y Deb

it ite

m or

canc

el a D

DR w

ith NT

EU at

any t

ime i

n writ

-ing

. All c

orres

pond

ence

is to

be ad

dresse

d to N

TEU

Gene

ral Se

cretar

y, PO

Box 1

323,

Sth M

elbou

rne V

IC

3205

. 5.

Shou

ld an

y disp

ute ev

er ari

se b

etwee

n yo

u and

the N

TEU a

bout

your

paym

ents

you s

hould

ad

vise

NTEU

Gen

eral S

ecret

ary in

writ

ing o

r by

email

in th

e firs

t ins

tance

and,

if ne

cessa

ry, N

TEU

will t

ake a

dvice

from

your

finan

cial in

stitut

ion. 6

. It i

s you

r resp

onsib

ility t

o hav

e suff

icien

t clea

r fund

s to

meet

the co

sts of

paym

ent u

nder

this A

greem

ent.

NTEU

, how

ever,

does

not h

ave a

polic

y of re

cove

ring

any p

enalt

y fee

s from

mem

bers

if de

bit it

ems a

re ret

urned

unpa

id by

the l

edge

r fina

ncial

insti

tution

. 7.

Dire

ct de

biting

throu

gh BE

CS is

not a

vaila

ble on

all ty

pes o

f acco

unts;

and

acco

unt d

etails

shou

ld be

chec

ked

again

st a

recen

t stat

emen

t from

your

finan

cial i

nstit

ution

. If u

ncert

ain, c

heck

with

you

r led

ger f

inanc

ial in

stitut

ion b

efore

comp

leting

the

DDR.

8. N

TEU

does

not

use y

our f

inanc

ial re

cords

an

d acco

unt d

etails

for a

ny pu

rpose

exce

pt th

e col-

lectio

n of

union

due

s and

the i

nform

ation

is o

nly

avail

able

to a

small

num

ber o

f NTE

U em

ploye

es.

The d

etails

may

be pr

ovide

d to y

our fi

nanc

ial in

sti-

tution

if a c

laim

was m

ade a

gains

t tha

t insti

tution

of

an al

leged

inco

rrect

or wr

ongfu

l deb

it.Yo

u may

resig

n by w

ritten

notic

e to t

he D

ivisio

n or B

ranch

Secre

tary.

Whe

re yo

u ce

ase t

o be e

ligibl

e to b

ecom

e a m

embe

r, res

ignati

on sh

all ta

ke ef

fect o

n the

date

the n

otice

is re

ceive

d or

on th

e day

spec

ified

in yo

ur no

tice,

which

ever

is lat

er.

In an

y oth

er ca

se, y

ou m

ust g

ive at

leas

t two

wee

ks no

tice.

Mem

bers

are re

quire

d to p

ay du

es an

d lev

ies as

set b

y the

Unio

n from

time t

o tim

e in

acco

rdanc

e with

NTE

U rul

es. F

urth

er inf

ormati

on on

finan

cial o

bliga

tions

, inclu

ding a

copy

of th

e rule

s, is a

vaila

ble fro

m yo

ur Br

anch

.

‡ass

ociat

ed b

odies

: NTE

U (N

SW);

Unive

rsity

of Qu

eens

land

Acad

emic

Staff

Asso

ciatio

n (U

nion

of Em

ploye

es)

at Un

iversi

ty of

Quee

nslan

d; Un

ion o

f Au

strali

an Co

llege

Aca

demi

cs (W

A Br

anch

) Ind

ustri

al Un

ion of

Work

ers at

Edith

Cowa

n Un

iversi

ty &

Curti

n Un

iversi

ty; C

urtin

Univ

ersity

Staf

f Asso

ciatio

n (In

c.)

at Cu

rtin

Unive

rsity;

Staff

Asso

ciatio

n of

Edith

Cowa

n Un

iversi

ty (In

c.) at

Edith

Cowa

n Univ

ersity

.

The i

nform

ation

on th

is form

is ne

eded

for a

numb

er of

areas

of N

TEU’s

work

and w

ill be

treate

d as c

onfid

entia

l.

Plea

se co

mpl

ete y

our p

erso

nal d

etai

ls...

NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION – MEMBERSHIP FORM

...an

d cho

ose O

NE of

the f

ollo

win

g pay

men

t opt

ions

Sign

aTur

eda

Te

nam

e on

card

card

num

ber

— —

— —

—

— —

—

— —

— —

—

— —

—

pl

eaSe

acce

pT m

y cHe

que/

mon

ey o

rder

OR

cred

iT ca

rd:

maS

Terc

ard

vi

Sa

nam

e on

card

a

mou

nT

$

card

num

ber

exp

iry

— —

— —

—

— —

—

— —

— —

— —

— —

—

— —

—

expi

ry

—

—

— —

plea

Se d

eTer

min

e you

r Fe

e am

ounT

and

Ti

cK TH

e app

ropr

iaTe

box

:

Estim

atEd

sala

ry ra

ngE

6 m

onth

fEE

annu

al fE

E

$10,

000 a

nd u

nder

$27

.50

$55

$10,

001 –

$20,

000

$

38.5

0

$77

over

$20,

000

$

55

$

110

pay b

y cHe

que,

mon

ey o

rder

or

cred

iT ca

rd

i IN

SERT

YOUR

NAM

E

ST

aFF p

ayro

ll n

umbe

r IF

KNOW

N

oF

YOUR

ADD

RESS

Her

eby a

uTHo

riSe

INST

ITUTIO

N

I IN

SERT

YOUR

NAM

E

Fina

ncal

inST

iTuT

ion

bra

ncH

nam

e & a

ddre

SS

acco

unT n

ame

bSb

num

ber

acco

unT n

umbe

r

Sign

aTur

e

Sign

aTur

e

Sign

aTur

e

Sign

aTur

e

daTe

daTe

daTe

daTe

O

PTIO

N 2:

CRED

IT CA

RD p

roce

SSed

on

THe 1

6TH

oF TH

e mon

TH o

r Fo

lloW

ing

Wor

King

day

O

PTIO

N 4:

CASU

AL/S

ESSI

ONAL

STAF

F RAT

ES

pay b

y cHe

que,

mon

ey o

rder

or

cred

iT ca

rd

O

PTIO

N 3:

DIR

ECT D

EBIT

pro

ceSS

ed o

n TH

e 15T

H oF

THe m

onTH

or

Foll

oWin

g W

orKi

ng d

ay

O

PTIO

N 1:

PAYR

OLL D

EDUC

TION

AUTH

ORIT

Y

card

Type

:

maS

Terc

ard

viS

a

paym

enT:

m

onTH

ly

q

uarT

erly

Hal

F-ye

arly

ann

uall

y

paym

enT:

m

onTH

ly

q

uarT

erly

Hal

F-ye

arly

ann

uall

y*

*5%

diS

coun

T For

ann

ual d

irec

T deb

iT

auth

orise

the

Natio

nal T

ertiar

y Ed

ucati

on U

nion

(NTE

U) A

PCA

User

ID No

.0626

04 to

arran

ge fo

r fund

s to b

e deb

ited f

rom m

y/ou

r acco

unt a

t the

finan

cial in

stitut

ion id

entifi

ed b

elow

and

in ac

corda

nce w

ith th

e term

s de

scribe

d in t

he Di

rect D

ebit R

eque

st (D

DR) S

ervice

Agree

ment.

or its

duly

auth

orise

d serv

ants

and a

gents

to de

duct

from

my sa

lary b

y reg

ular in

stalm

ents,

dues

and

levies

(as d

eterm

ined f

rom tim

e to t

ime b

y the

Unio

n), to

NTE

U or

its au

thori

sed a

gents

. All p

ayme

nts

on m

y beh

alf an

d in a

ccorda

nce w

ith th

is au

thori

ty sh

all be

deem

ed to

be

paym

ents

by m

e pers

onall

y. This

auth

ority

shall

rema

in in

force

until

revok

ed by

me i

n writ

ing. I

also c

onse

nt to

my em

ploye

r sup

plying

NTEU

wi

th up

dated

infor

matio

n rela

ting t

o my e

mploy

ment

status

.

I here

by au

thori

se th

e Merc

hant

to de

bit m

y Card

acco

unt w

ith th

e amo

unt a

nd at

inter

vals

spec

ified

abov

e and

in th

e eve

nt of

any c

hang

e in

the c

harge

s for

thes

e goo

ds/se

rvice

s to

alter

the a

moun

t fro

m th

e app

ropria

te da

te in

acco

rdanc

e with

such

chan

ge. T

his au

thori

ty sh

all st

and,

in res

pect

of th

e ab

ove

spec

ified

Card

and

in res

pect

of an

y Card

issu

ed to

me

in ren

ewal

or rep

lacem

ent t

hereo

f, unti

l I no

tify th

e Merc

hant

in wr

iting

of its

canc

ellati

on. S

tandin

g Au

thori

ty for

Rec

urren

t Peri

odic

Paym

ent

by Cr

edit C

ard.

Plea

se po

st or

fax t

his f

orm

to N

TEU

Natio

nal O

ffice

P

lEAS

E USE

MY h

OME A

DDRE

SS FO

R All

MAI

lING

hRS P

ER W

K

DATE

OF E

xPIRY

rEcr

UITE

d BY

:

Fees

for t

his b

ranc

h =1%

of gr

oss a

nnua

l sal

ary

Descr

iption

of go

ods/s

ervice

s: NTE

U Mem

bersh

ip Du

es.

To: N

TEU,

PO Bo

x 132

3, So

uth M

elbou

rne VI

C 320

5

Offic

e use

only:

Mem

bersh

ip no

.

Offic

e use

only:

% of

salar

y ded

ucted

S

eSSi

onal

aca

dem

ic

g

ener

al ST

aFF c

aSua

l

PlEA

SE N

OTE O

UR SP

ECIA

l RAT

ES FO

R CA

SUAl

/SES

SIONA

l STA

FF.

➔ u

Se pa

ymen

T opT

ion

1, 2

or 3

➔ u

Se pa

ymen

T opT

ion

4

NTEU

Nat

iona

l Offi

ce, P

o Bo

x 132

3, So

uth M

elbou

rne V

Ic 32

05

T (0

3) 92

54 19

10

F

(03)

9254

1915

E na

tiona

l@nt

eu.or

g.au

E w

ww.nt

eu.or

g.au

Prepared and issued by UniSuper Management Pty Ltd (ABN 91 006 961 799), ASFL 235907. Level 37, 385 Bourke Street, Melbourne VIC 3000. 1300 331 685. This information is general information only and is not intended to be financial advice. It has been prepared without taking account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before deciding to acquire or hold an interest in any financial product, you should speak to a financial adviser to consider whether it is appropriate for you and consider the relevant product disclosure document. Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.

ADVICE

Fine tune your financesStart your new financial year on the right note with UniSuper Advice.

From simple to comprehensive advice, covering short or longer-term goals, our financial advice team can help you:

• buildwealthandpayoffdebtfaster

• investbothnon-superandsuperassets

• protectyourwealthwithadequateinsurance

• planforretirement,andmuchmore!

Advice for any goal – great or smallOur advisers will spend time assessing your financial goals and objectives to ensure they deliver personalised strategies to suit your needs and desired lifestyle.

They will analyse and research a wide range of products from various providers and work closely with you to identify the best products and/or solutions for your situation.

No commissions = greater value for youOur advisers are salaried and do not receive commissions.

Wherever possible, they will only recommend financial products or services that have no commissions. Where this is not possible, and UniSuper Advice does receive commissions, we will rebate those commissions directly to you.

Your initial consultation is freeTo find out more about this member-exclusive service, contact us for a complimentary initial consultation.

Find out more www.unisuper.com.au/advice [email protected] 1300 331 685 (local call cost)

Documents

Advocate July 2010