Lot's Wife Special Edition, 2013

LOT’SWIFE

SPECIAL EDITION 2013

LOT’S WIFE SPECIAL EDITION • 20132

MONASH is my store?

Watch the video:

http://bit.ly/12xgTnmor

Facebook.com/LotsWifeMagazine

MONASH is my store?

LOT’S WIFE SPECIAL EDITION • 2013 5LOT’S WIFE SPECIAL EDITION • 2013

CONTENTS

Lot’s Wife Student Newspaper est. 1964. Monash University Clayton, VIC.

Lot’s Wife does not condone the publishing of racist, sexist, militaristic or queerphobic material. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or

the MSA. Submitted articles may be altered. All writing and artwork remains the property of the producers and may not be reproduced without their written consent.

T: 03 9905 8174

W: lotswife.com.au

@lotswifemag

www.facebook/lotswifemagazine

[email protected]

© 2013 Monash Student Association. All Rights Reserved.don’t look back.

8. Why give a Gonski? 10. Students and staff lose faculty control 12. The corporatisation of Monash University 14. Workplace Democracy: “Improper governance”? 16. Why University of Sydney staff went on strike... 18. Party for you right to Enlight 20. Monash: A Global Empire

22. Staff and students: We’re in this together 23. Staff casualisation: How it affects YOU 24. Under Funded University?

27. Suspend Menzies Lawn and ‘Campus South Walk’ Works

28. A Student General Meeting? What’s that?

29. Proposed Motions

30. What you can do to help

31. To heck with HECS: An open discussion about free education

As you read this paper you are on Aboriginal land. We at Lot’s Wife recognise the Wurundjeri and Boon Wurrung peoples of the Kulin Nations as the historical and rightful owners and custodians of the lands and waters on which this newspaper is produced. The land was stolen and sovereignty was never ceded.


Our initial intent behind the publication of this special edition of Lot’s Wife was a full-frontal attack on the way the University Administration is run-

ning our university, like a business, not an institution for the public good. Recent actions, such as the removal of elected staff and student representa-

tives from University Council and the transfer of the ‘unprofitable’ Gippsland Campus to the University of Ballarat have prompted us to question the

motivations of our Chancellor, Alan Finkel, Vice Chancellor, Ed Byrne and the rest of the University Administration.

So when the Federal government announced just recently that they would be cutting $2.8 billion from the university sector to fund the Gonski

education reforms - implicating Monash by $48 million in the process - we became unsure of how best to approach this project. Surely, we thought, if

Monash stands to lose $48 million through Federal government initiatives it would be utterly tasteless to then run this special edition along the lines

we had intended: putting to doubt the people who are charged with dealing with this mess. Why kick our own university while it’s down, so to speak?

We felt directionless, with content that seemed unfit for print due to the nature of its timing. Suddenly the 2-headed monster with the heads of Finkel

and Byrne had become a 4-headed monster with the heads of Julia Gillard and Craig Emerson; to most recently Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott; the

coalition coming out against the Gonski reforms, promising they would be scrapped come September if they were to come into power, but not to repeal

the University funding cuts. Certainly this coincided with a more general question of how a monthly student magazine is meant to cover, in a timely

and up-to-date fashion, the issues we want to see in print each month; a question that becomes more troubling when we’re forced to reject content on

these grounds or get the writer to change their work in light of the ever continuous news cycle.

It took a speak out on Menzies lawn to validate our initial motivations. Among the speakers were president of the Monash Branch of the National

Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), Phil Andrews, Monash Brach organiser Emily Struck, MSA President Freya Logan, MSA Academic Affairs Officer

John Jordan and student activist Sarah Garnham. While the speak out was largely a means of building momentum in the fight against the actions taken

by the Federal government, one message stood out more than any other, and made what we were doing feel all the more relevant; the importance of

keeping the administration at our university accountable for their actions, especially in light of funding cuts.

In the following days the Vice Chancellor, Ed Byrne, confirmed our ill doubts, saying that in light of funding cuts he “could not rule out job losses”;

more bad news for an already over-strained and insecure academic workforce. Take a moment to consider that while tens of millions of dollars are be-

ing spent beautifying and landscaping our campus, 50% of undergraduate teaching staff across Australia are working on casual contracts, and now, at

Monash many face being fired.

Running a university can’t be easy, and in situations like this it can be all too easy to think it best to leave it to the people who ‘know what they are

doing’. However, this attitude is disempowering. For a community as complex as Monash University to function effectively, students and staff as the

university’s biggest stakeholders ought to warrant a say in how our community runs.

This edition includes many thought provoking and eye opening pieces, but also practical ways you can get involved and the next steps we can take.

Anthony Taylor reflects on how universities are increasingly being run on corporate business models; Mali Rea on how the en mass casualisation of

staff and how it affects all of us. James Muldoon discusses workplace democracy and pieces from Seb Tonkin and Professor Raewyn Connell from the

University of Adelaide and the University of Sydney respectively show us that the issues we are currently facing are not restricted to Monash, they are

being experienced across Australia and indeed the world.

In our third edition editorial we suggested that this special edition is ‘the red pill’ which will open your eyes to the matrix that is Monash University.

Read it, and we hope you will at least not be able to look at the University in the same way.

-Matthew Campbell and Florence Roney

INTRODUCTION

7

Ours is the age of constraints,Where minds are locked behind bars.Ours is the age of treachery,Where education is the tool for slavery.

Defunding and privatization, like a two-headed serpent,Has become the new order for the masters and their servants.We are trapped inside the cycle of debt,Where we pay for their follies until our death.

We feel the noose tighten around our throatsAnd yet, the minds sing the songs of hope.Everyday our brains are decayed from mental slaveryWhile the thoughts are controlled for profit, for money.

They say they want relevant expertise,But that means nothing but an empty promise.They demand we show competitive edge,But we think the bricks are laid for the cage.

They want efficiency in universities for the market,As students and academics become their target.We think it is another aberration;Let’s break free from this dissolution.We pose this question to the free minds:Has our education succumbed to might?Let us sing in praise of freethinking, aloud.We will never bow to the powerful who form dark clouds.

IN PRAISE OF FREE THINKING

MD. Roysul Islam

“It’s ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. What kind of freedom is there inside a corporation? They’re totalitarian institutions - you take orders from above and maybe give them to people below you. There’s about as much freedom as under Stalinism.”

-Noam Chomsky

“We are grown-up people, we know universities have financial problems, we too want to work out solutions – and we know there are many ways for

institutions to handle financial pressure.”

“I think the most difficult thing, for your generation of university administrators, is

remembering that you are running a billion-dollar institution that is not a corporation. Our staff, both academic and general, are proud to work here precisely because it’s a university. It’s concerned with the making of highly sophisticated knowledge and with the most advanced and demanding forms of education. These are the public interests for which Australian society puts resources into

the university system.”

-Raewyn Connell

-Raewyn Connell

“In my first conversation with the Chancellor Alan Finkel on January 30, Alan explained that just as the

retail corporation Myer did not have a customer representative on its

board, it was similarly inappropriate for Monash University Council to

have a student representative”- Ali Majokah

8

The Gonski Reforms – What are they and why should we like them?

According to the official website, igiveagonski.com.au, The Gonski

Review “was the most comprehensive investigation of the way schools

are funded in Australia in almost 40 years”. It was commissioned in 2012

by the Federal Government, in an effort to work out a base line funding

amount needed to give each Australian child a “world class education” .

It was conducted by an expert panel, headed by senior businessman David

Gonski.

The report found that Australia is investing far too little in educa-

tion and, in particular, in public schools – and that, as a consequence, too

many students are missing out on the resources they need. It also high-

lighted the concerning “growing gaps” in the achievements of students

from different backgrounds.

Gonski recommended a $5 billion a year injection of funding into

public and private schools - with 75 per cent to public schools - and an

overhaul in the way the money is distributed to ensure it is going where

it is most needed. This included funding to encourage effective learning;

such as smaller class sizes, extra specialist teachers in areas such as literacy

and numeracy, greater support for students with higher needs such as

those with disabilities, and additional training and classroom support for

teachers.

The reviews were endorsed by the Federal Government and last

week Julia Gillard announced Labor’s $14.5 billion dollar education plan,

utilising many of the reforms the Gonski reviews suggested. However,

the money to fund these vital reforms was taken from Higher Education -

with $2.8 Billion cuts to the university sector announced.

The Gonski Review provides strategy for a much-needed invest-

ment into the schooling system in Australia, but the fact that reforming

the primary and secondary sectors would come at the expense of higher

education is an absolute disgrace. As cartoonist Matt Golding most per-

tinantly pointed out, the government are “making drastic cuts to tertiary

education to help give our kids the best chance of getting a tertiary educa-

tion”. It is completely illogical to take money from one sector of educa-

tion in order to fund another, and it also undermines the strength of the

tertiary sector, which is vital to our society.

Federal Funding Cuts – Why should we hate them?

The recently announced $2.8 billion cuts to higher education funding

will take the form of efficiency dividends, the conversion of start-up

scholarships to loans, and the removal of the 10% discount for students

who pay their fees upfront.

Two major impacts.

Firstly, it increases the financial pressure that universities face. universi-

ties are public institutions that, despite their often neo-liberal agendas,

exist for students. Their purpose is to educate students, and to develop

the critical thinking skills that are needed to continually change society

- hopefully for the better. Most universities achieve these goals, trying

to walk the precarious tightrope that exists between a lack of Federal

funding and providing students and society with a wide range of schools

of thought and as many opportunities as possible. However, when fund-

ing levels become so dire, and universities aren’t able to trim any more

fat from their systems, staff and courses are cut. This is not to say that

Monash doesn’t have room to trim fat from its system before attacking

staff and courses (the $90 Million budgeted for “renovations” in 2013

begs to differ). However, losing $48 million from the Monash budget will

most likely result in many staff finishing up at the end of this semester and

never coming back.

Secondly, these cuts are directly antithetical to this government’s

stated objective of 40% of 25-35 year olds having a bachelor degree

by 2025. Monash has done well to increase and attract many students

who are the first in their family to go to university or who are from low

socio-economic-status (SES) backgrounds. These types of developments

speak volumes to the importance of education for every young person in

Australia and the changing nature of our society into a more educated

and ultimately wealthier community. In order to achieve the govern-

ments stated aims, more students, many from low SES backgrounds would

have to attend university. Start up scholarships are key to facilitating the

transition to university, particularly for those who are first in their family,

from rural or regional areas, migrant backgrounds or any other margin-

alised background. Its removal makes their dreams of becoming tertiary

educated harder to achieve. Converting the scholarships into loans will

only add to the already high HECs burden faced by students. For those

who are already risk adverse, more debt is not going to make university an

attractive option.

Come September?

The Opposition have come out against the Gonski reforms, calling

Labor’s plan unnessary and overly exorbitant. If elected come September,

they would scrap the reforms. But where does that leave the tertiary sector

and our funding cuts? “I don’t think anyone should expect those changes

to be reversed” Mr Abbott has said. Thus higher education is being hit by

both sides of politics.

The Monash Student Association stands against these Federal cuts,

and has called a rally in protest. It will be held on the Menzies Lawn on

Tuesday the 30th of April at 2pm. Come along to support the effort at

Monash against the cuts, and help us remind the Federal Government,

and Monash University Administration, that we will not stand idly by

whilst the quality of our education is jeopardised.

Additionally, if you want to be involved with the campaign at

Monash, send an email to: [email protected]

WHY GIVE A GONSKI?John Jordan MSA Education (Public Affairs) Officer


LOT’S WIFE SPECIAL EDITION • 2013 9


For the last decade, Universities have resembled profit-maximising

machines, focused on turning over large surpluses without proper

consideration as to whether this comes at the expense of its students.

Monash University, for example, made a surplus of $82m in 2011, and

$96.6m in 2012. Students are likely to be aware of the current education

cuts occurring at education institutions within Victoria in the form of

significant course cuts at both La Trobe and Melbourne Universities, not

to mention the state government’s gutting of TAFE funding. However,

many students at Monash are oblivious to many changes specifically

affecting Monash. In January this year, the University Council effectively

cut ties with the Gippsland campus, paving the way for a merger with the

University of Ballarat, yet cleverly managed to arrive at this conclusion

without meaningful consultation with the university’s largest stakeholder

- students. This is an appalling practice for an education institution, but it

sadly is expected to be merely the start of a number of major cuts.

While most students can collectively agree that University

bureaucracy – affectionately labelled ‘admonashstration’ by student

representatives – is far from ideal, with layers of red tape and procedural

hurdles galore, the only area which Monash attempted to reform its style

of administration has come once again at the expense of students. In

late 2012, Monash took significant steps to remove power from elected

representatives and started to disestablish layers of accountability in

core decision-making bodies. A number of academic committees were

removed and many checks and balances that existed in the formulation

of university policy were taken away. These changes ended with a

crescendo in December of last year, with the legislation that removed

the guaranteed positions for elected student and staff representatives on

University Council – the highest governing body of the University. The

plethora of changes made over the course of the last twelve months raises

the chilling question: is there much hope for the student movement?

Chancellor Alan Finkel, consumed by the hunger of financial efficacy

and single bottom line figures, yet completely indifferent to student

concerns, has likened HECS to communism, and the University Council

to the board of directors of a retail outlet. While Monash proudly alleges

that their values are predicated on the notion that students come first,

they rarely consider the actual implications of their actions on the student

body, or consult effectively with students. This demonstrates their actual

desire – not to see students thrive, but rather to see them complacent with

their own disenfranchisement.

At the last University Council, Vice-Chancellor Ed Byrne, who

likes to appear in favour of student services and a high quality of teaching,

made clear the senior administration’s intention to remove all decision-

making power of Faculty Boards at Monash – diminishing them to merely

advisory bodies. The power to recommend establishing or cutting units

and courses, as well as making modifications to policies surrounding

assessment and course curriculum, responsibilities that currently sit with

faculty boards, would rest solely with Faculty Deans – who would have

executive delegation from the Vice Chancellor to unilaterally make

recommendations on behalf of the faculty. Cleverly concealed as a move,

again, to remove layers of bureaucracy and increase efficiencies within

the administration, the University’s proposal would significantly limit the

ability of both students and staff to contribute to key decisions, allowing the

University free to make controversial and detrimental changes, without

the endorsement of a large number of their stakeholders. Ironically, Byrne

even highlighted the ability to cut units and increase the profit margins

of the University with greater ease as a benefit of the proposed changes.

Ben Knight - Education Academic Affairs Officer

STUDENTS AND STAFF

LOSE FACULTY CONTROL:

Your units under the axe “In late 2012, Monash took significant steps to remove power from elected representatives and started to

disestablish layers of accountability in core decision-making bodies. A number of academic committees were removed and many checks and balances that existed in the formulation of university policy were taken away.”


While the University’s rhetoric might differ, it is clear from proposals

such as these that the value the University places upon academics and

students has slipped from being the top priority, to that of an obstacle

standing in the way of the mighty Monash degree machine.

To those who say that Deans are in the best position to make such

decisions – wrong. They may be best placed, but they are certainly not

best informed. Do Deans know what it is like to live like a student in

today’s age? Do they know of the ambitions of students? Do they know

that a unit with only 6 people attending may be crucial to a student’s

future? No. Not without the input and advice of students, and the wider

academic community. This is where the dissonance steps in – should the

University really be influenced by students’ voices?

On numerous occasions Byrne has expressed his dislike for

students on senior management committees – commenting that it

is inappropriate for students to be involved in high-level decision

making. In his report, Byrne stated that University administration was

responsible for managing the University, and so, they should have the

ultimate power to decide what is taught. These decisions will be made

with little or no thought about the ramifications of students, staff, and

the wider community – but hey, at least they’ll be made with maximum

efficiency!

With the disturbing combination of this ‘money first, students needs

later’ mind-set and the reformed bureaucratic structure to support it, we can

expect to see large cuts to courses and units over the next few months. This

is where the price of such ‘efficiency’ will become clear: reduced student

opportunities and a blow to the quality of education.

After Tertiary Education Minister Craig Emerson’s recent

announcement, to cut government funding from Universities, the

government is leaving a hefty $900 million gap for Universities to plug, by

implementing an efficiency dividend in the coming two years. This leaves

universities such as Monash, who will need to find an extra $48 million to

counteract government cuts with the burden of finding cuts in areas they

desire – whether it results in larger class sizes, or unit cuts. These government

cuts add to the mounting list of danger to the quality of our education.

Ben Knight is the current Education (Academic Affairs) Officer of the

Monash Student Association, and one of the two democratically elected

undergraduate student members on Academic Board.


Over the last 25 years the process of corporati-

sation has decreased the autonomy of Monash

University as an education provider, and has

decreased the opportunities for students and

staff to meaningfully participate in the univer-

sity.

‘Corporatisation’ in this context refers to

the process of introducing business manage-

ment techniques, organisational structure,

strategy and profit-focused rationale to public

institutions. Corporatisation of universities

THE CORPORATISATION OF MONASH UNIVERSITY:

Anthony Taylor

I’m not buying what you’re selling

“The issues of governance, investments, funding and students-as-customers are

interrelated and feed off each other in the process of corpo-ratisation. Without the com-bination of top-down manage-ment structure, government

reforms and passive customer-students, the process would

not be possible.”

started in Australia with the Dawkins reforms

of the late 1980’s. These reforms involved

the introduction of HECS, the conversion of

colleges into universities, and the introduction

of corporate managerial strategies for deciding

how universities would be run. Since then,

we know that HECS has been periodically

changed and increased, generally becoming less

regulated and dearer for the student. The past

and continuing success of the corporatisation

of universities relied on the close coordination

and interaction of these reforms

Changes to university governance,

investment in questionable infrastructure

projects, funding with strings attached, and the

treatment of students as customers; these are

four examples of the corporatisation trend that

is undermining the central academic and edu-

cational purpose for which Monash University

exists.

University Governance

In October last year, the Victorian state govern-

ment passed legislation making democratically

elected student and staff representatives on

university council non-mandatory; removing

the last vestiges of democracy from university

governance. Since then, Monash University

Chancellor, Alan Finkel, has refused to appoint

elected representatives to university council.

Instead, council will appoint representatives

based on an interview process. This is not only

undemocratic; it undermines the intelligence

and trustworthiness of students to decide who

can best represent them.

Senior management have turned the

screw again with a recent proposal to change

University statute regarding Faculty Boards.

Faculty Boards are the governing bodies for

Faculties, made up largely of academics as well

as some students. Presently, Deans are required

to report to and are directed by Faculty Boards.

Under the changes, Deans are to be made into

‘Executive Deans’ with the members of Boards

reduced to advisory status.

Thus, at the time of writing, the transi-

tion to a top-down model of organisation is all

but complete. Apparently, there is little or no

room for staff or student input in the formal

decision-making process at any level.

However lamentable such a situation

would be for an employee of a corporation,

it is that much worse for students and staff of

a university that had hitherto maintained a

tradition of limited democracy. We are now

in a situation where senior management at

Monash enjoy all the decision-making power

of their corporate counterparts, but without the

accountability mechanisms which have been

built into corporate governance. Put simply, the

new, undemocratic top-down organisational

structure is inappropriate at Monash because it

allows for the unbridled pursuit of the interests

of managers and government.

Questionable Investments

The extremely urgent and vital work being

undertaken on the facade of the law building is

an example of a questionable recent investment

at Monash University. The rationale behind

the project demonstrates how the interests of

management do not intersect with educational

or research interests. Law is a prestigious course

and attracts desirable students to the university.

From the manager’s point of view, when pro-

spective students come on open day, they will

be shopping for the best university. One way to

convince them that the Law Faculty at sunny

Clayton is the right choice for them is to make

the building look nice. Of course, it is question-

able to what extent this will actually work to

increase enrolments. More importantly, the

boob job on the law building will not improve

the quality of education at Monash for current

or prospective students. It is an attempt to


“build the Monash brand”. What it will surely

mean is that there is less money for teaching

and research. For the (exorbitantly) renumerat-

ed manager whose job security revolves around

the bottom line, the end result of a building

investment is (hopefully) an increase in student

numbers and corresponding revenue.

Funding With Strings Attached

In the past, autonomy of the university was

preserved because funding was almost entirely

from the Commonwealth government at arm’s

length. At present, a large percentage of univer-

sity funding is contingent on student enrolment

and retention numbers. To supplement existing

funding, Monash has looked without discretion

for further funding. Two current examples are

the Microsoft lounge, and grants for clean coal

research. The millions of dollars of government

funding for clean coal requires academics to

work with CSIRO and the power generation

industry to make Victorian coal power more sus-

tainable. Instead of researching the best possible

solutions, academics must narrow the scope of

their work to suit a self-interested industry.

With the present situation of volatile

funding and the subsequent turn to industry-

funded or related research, staff and students

have less autonomy as to the direction of

research and curricula.

Students-as-Customers

Since the Dawkins reforms the student has

been reformulated as a customer who must

directly take on the cost of education through

HECS. Management is obsessed with increasing

“customer satisfaction”. For example, a 2010

presentation given to management entitled

‘The Customer Focus’ advocates the role of

customers in “evaluating and improving service

quality and value”.

The surveys we fill out at the end of

semester are an attempt to work out if the cus-

tomers are happy. Imagine you give the subject

a bad rating simply because you found it was a

lot of hard work. If enough people respond in

this way, it is likely the university will come

down hard on the academics involved and seek

to dumb down the course. This is because the

highest priority is volume of students who enrol

and stay in courses.

The obsession with retaining customers

has also seen a trend to soft marking which

gives the appearance of better pass rates and

results, but is often only achieved by lowering

the real standard. A law lecturer who I will not

name mentioned this in a lecture one day, tell-

ing us that getting an HD did not mean what

it used to, given the faculty must give a certain

percentage of students this grade. In the Arts

Faculty, the staff are not required to follow the

grading curve, but if they choose to ignore the

curve, they must justify their decision at a spe-

cial meeting. Clearly the message to staff is keep

your head down, keep the customers satisfied.

All this masks and subverts what should be the

real question for students: how much we have

objectively learnt.

The issues of governance, investments,

funding and students-as-customers are inter-

related and feed off each other in the process of

corporatisation. Without the combination of

top-down management structure, government

reforms and passive customer-students, the

process would not be possible.

So where to from here? In the spirit of

Lot’s Wife, we cannot look back, we need to

look forward from the situation we find our-

selves in now. As students we need to see the

economic rationale of corporatisation has left

us paying more for less education. A lot of that

money pays university bureaucrats who have

contributed little, if anything, to academia. If

universities can be changed by government and

managers, then universities can be changed

again by students and staff.

MONASHismystore

MONASH

There’s no other store like...


It would be “improper governance” to have

democratically elected student and staff repre-

sentatives on the Monash University Council.

No statement better encapsulates the mentality

of Monash’s administration and the current

democratic deficit than this statement by Dr

Alan Finkel, University Chancellor.

Take another look at it. We can’t have

democracy because we need governance. Who

has decided? Alan has decided. Why has Alan

decided? Because that is what Alan does; he

governs. The sharp distinction between democ-

racy and governance brings into focus precisely

what contemporary forms of governance repre-

sent. There is a large difference between these

two different mindsets that corresponds to two

very different styles of organisation.

Governance is about control. To govern

is to engage in a calculated means of directing

how others behave and act. Governors adopt

a variety of techniques and strategies of social

control. One must be able to manage institu-

tional structures, the distribution of goods and

benefits, systems of knowledge, and flows of

information.

To govern is to disempower a group of

people by making decisions on their behalf that

structure the field of possibilities for them so

that their capacity to make meaningful choices

in their lives is limited. It is also about render-

ing the target of power “governable” – passive,

docile, and unlikely or unable to resist. This is

an essential aspect of good governance.

On the other hand, we have democracy.

Firstly, democracy entails the interruption of

any natural claim to govern through the asser-

tion of the radical principle of equality. Because

we are all equal, nobody has a greater right to

direct and control my life than me. In mak-

ing decisions that will affect large numbers of

people, all voices should be heard.

Democracy prevents people from abusing

power by ensuring that those who are affected

by decisions have a say in how those decisions

are made. Democracy taken in this sense is

empowering, liberating and works toward the

free and equal flourishing of a collective.

It is important to remember that democ-

racy is not just practiced at the ballot box every

three years — it’s a fundamental principle of

how the basic institutions of our society should

function. Democracy is necessary everywhere:

in the state, in the workplace and at universi-

ties.

The flow-on effects of this form of democ-

racy are enormous: individuals develop moral

and intellectual capacities, communities benefit

from greater social capital, and studies have

found that democratic bodies generally produce

better outcomes in decision-making. Democ-

racy also ensures that people’s actions can

be autonomous and self-directed rather than

manipulated and controlled by elites.

Taking away a group’s power of decision-

making and reducing their access to informa-

tion about how decisions are being made has

always been a first step towards more oppressive

and unjust actions. If we look at the trend

across Australian universities it’s evident that

large cuts in courses and a defunding of student

services is on the horizon. The Monash admin-

istration want to eliminate student and staff

representation on Council to reduce awareness

of these changes and manage dissent.

Students have already been transformed

from active participants in university life to pas-

sive consumers of the Monash product. We are

moving towards a world in which we will soon

be the faceless “governed,” given no reason why

our voices ought to be considered (Dr Finkel

quipped that Myer does not have a customer

representative on its board, so why should

Monash have a student representative on its

Council. Why indeed!).

All of these transformations mirror a

broader trend in neoliberal societies of increas-

ing asymmetrical relationships of power and

impositions of structures of governance at local,

national and international levels.

So what would be the alternative? How

could we organise our university to be more

democratic?

The first step is greater student participa-

tion and involvement at universities. The ad-

ministration gets away with its brazen disregard

for student and staff voices because there has

WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY:

James Muldoon

“To govern is to disempower a group of people by making decisions on their behalf that structure the field of possibilities for them so that their

capacity to make meaningful choices in their lives is limited.”

“Improper governance”?


“Imptoper Governance”. Is this how the Chancellor thinks a University Council with elected student and staff representatives would look?

been a long track record of little to no resist-

ance to their actions.

Without a strong grassroots movement,

any form of democracy will eventually lead

to governance. Think no further than the sad

image of a tiny cluster of wannabe student poli-

ticians squabbling over access to the resources

of the student association during student elec-

tions.

We need a new collective body to stand

up and refuse the passive position that has been

assigned to us. Social struggles are defined by

a delicate balance of forces on the ground at

any particular historical moment. Currently,

students and staff are being outmaneuvered

because they are divided and disorganised. A

campaign of education to grow support against

the current wave of cuts to Australian universi-

ties could galvanize opposition.

Next, we would need to challenge the

power of the current administration. The strike

and picket at the University of Sydney this se-

mester is a good example. Staff and students are

fighting restructuring of their university around

performance management and a casualisation

of the workforce. Collective action that hits

the University where it hurts (such as at Open

Days, in media campaigns, and through other

tactics that tarnish the University’s precious

“The first step is greater student participation and

involvement at universities. The administration gets away with its brazen disregard for student and staff voices be-cause there has been a long track record of little to no

resistance to their actions.”

global reputation) is a good starting point.

At the same time we must make the case

for why a body such as the University Council

should be composed of a majority of staff and

students. Even a modest proposal of one-third

students, one-third staff and one-third admin-

istration, would go a long way towards a more

democratic university.

Such a change would be particularly

important for staff so that they could have a

greater say in how their workplace is organised.

Democratic principles are extremely impor-

tant in the workplace environment as it gives

workers a feeling of empowerment and control

over the conditions of their work. We have all

experienced the alienation of being ordered

around and forced to work in a way that is tedi-

ous, inefficient and mind-numbing.

Worker controlled workplaces make for

happy and productive workers who enjoy what

they do and take pleasure in a job well done.

Think of the great environment created at

the Monash Wholefoods restaurant, which is

a strong example of the benefits of collective

organising and student run institutions. If only

the same principles of direct democratic control

over the organisation could be applied to the

Monash Council.

As a side note, I wonder whether such a

democratically elected body would choose to

reimburse the Vice-Chancellor $1.1 million

dollars as an annual salary (over twice as much

as the VC at Swinburne and thirteen times as

much as a lecturer at Monash)? or if it would

find that this money could be better spent on

student services.

The decision of whether we have govern-

ance or democracy at Monash University is a

practical question that will be decided by those

involved in the struggle over the next decade

or so. If you are a student or staff member at

Monash University, you are involved. The

choice is between a passive acceptance of less

control over our universities or an active strug-

gle for a more democratic form of education. I

choose resistance.

16 LOT’S WIFE SPECIAL EDITION • 2013

7 March 2013

The Vice-Chancellor

University of Sydney

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your emails of 12 and 20 February, and Stephen Garton’s of 1 March, and Boyd Williams’ of 5 March, giving me the management’s

views about the enterprise bargaining and our industrial action. In return, I will try to help you understand why a significant part of your staff are on the

picket line today. I’m one of the oldest inhabitants of the village – my first job at the University of Sydney started in 1971 - I care a lot for this place,

and for the people I work with.

University staff don’t take industrial action lightly. As you may know, a strike rarely has a single cause. It generally grows from a build-up of

frustrations, setbacks and conflicts that result in a loss of trust in management. That is the case at the University of Sydney. It is the same in much of

the Australian university system, which has become more troubled, and more tense and distrustful, than in previous generations.

Universities as employers have not made it their priority to have a secure, committed workforce. Over time, university managers have responded

to funding pressures by making job insecurity grow – through outsourcing of general staff work, erosion of tenure, and above all, casualization. Our

glossy brochures don’t admit this, but around half the undergraduate teaching in Australia is now done by temporary staff.

To management, this looks like flexibility. To many of my younger colleagues, it looks like a life of precarious labour, scrabbling for short-term,

part-time and totally insecure appointments. These are poor conditions for building an intellectual workforce. From an educational point of view, it

means a mass of teaching done by staff who can’t build up the experience, depth of knowledge, or confident relationship with students that are needed

for the very best teaching.

The full-time staff too have been under growing stress. You will be very familiar with the worsening student/staff ratios in the last generation. No

pretence that we can work smarter can reduce this pressure, on both academic and general staff. The industrial relations colleagues call this “labour

intensification”, and it’s a reality at the chalk face in this university.

At the same time there has been more micro-management and surveillance of how we do our jobs. The staff of this university are increasingly

enmeshed in a thicket of anonymous online control systems - to document our courses, get permission to travel or to do our research, get our “perfor-

mance” managed, and many other things - taking increasing slices of our time and energy. In other ways too, we have been losing autonomy in our

day-to-day work. Have we agreed to these changes? In most cases we were never asked; they have simply been imposed on us.

That’s part of a broader decline of organizational democracy and self-management in the university. We don’t have any forum, or set of forums,

where the problems of this university can be debated in a participatory way, with some prospect of influencing outcomes. The nearest we have is the

Academic Board, where good discussions do occur, but most academic staff aren’t invited and of course non-academic staff aren’t represented. What

we do have in abundance are media releases, “staff news” (comprising PR and commercial “offers”), all-staff emails from you and Stephen, threatening

messages from the HR Director, even videos that you send us - in short, announcements from the management. It’s not a good substitute.

With performance management, online surveillance systems, and closed decision-making, it appears that the university authorities these days

don’t really trust the staff - to know our trades, to act responsibly, or to share in running the place.

WHY UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY STAFF WENT ON STRIKE...

That’s an important reason for the depth of anger about the redundancies issue in 2011-12. We are grown-up people, we know universities have

financial problems, we too want to work out solutions – and we know there are many ways for institutions to handle financial pressure. Instead of

an invitation to work on the problems together, we saw colleagues threatened, tenure weakened, arbitrary rules imposed, and mysterious exemptions

granted. And then a further round of redundancies was mishandled too. I don’t know what your original intention was; but as these events unfolded,

staff saw the management behaving unpredictably, wrecking the livelihoods of valued colleagues, and undermining security for all the staff.

It’s not encouraging to see university managers across the country increasingly resembling the executives of big corporations – in pay and condi-

tions, in language, in techniques of running an organization, and in hard-handed approaches to the workforce. Corporate managers are an increasingly

powerful, rich and selfish group in Australian society. The more that university managers integrate with them, the bigger the gulf that will open with

the staff of the universities.

When it came to the enterprise bargaining, then, there was a big question: would you and your colleagues recognize these growing concerns and

use the enterprise bargaining to build a positive relationship with the staff, or treat it as an occasion to beat the staff and the union back? Unfortu-

nately it was the second, and that’s basically why this strike has happened.

I’m not on the bargaining team; I follow what is happening from union report-backs, management announcements (including Ann Brewer’s

welcome visit to my Faculty), and the documents. Some things have been obvious. Management wasn’t trying for a prompt agreement. When man-

agement did put proposals on the table, they weren’t proposals for improved staff conditions – they offered weakened rights and less security. I know

that management contest the NTEU’s statements about this, but I’ve looked at the documents, compared management proposals with the previous

enterprise agreement, and the union is right. On some points management proposed startling increases in managerial prerogative, and weakened ac-

countability by management to staff. On a number of points the proposal erodes existing protections for staff. What management did in writing this

offer was moving in exactly the wrong direction.

On the pay issue, I’m not a specialist but I do have common sense. To suggest that one of the richest universities in Australia, which you tell us

in other ways is prospering, which can afford major new building works and salaries for senior staff (including me) on the current scale, will be driven

broke by more than a 2% wage deal for the staff – well, like Alice, I may be urged to believe six impossible things before breakfast but I can’t believe

that.

I’m glad you have recognized that to drop the guarantee of intellectual freedom from the enforceable industrial agreement was a wrong move.

Thank you for changing approach on that. Please look at the other issues in the same spirit.

Since the Dawkins ‘reforms’ twenty-five years ago, Australian governments have tried to get an expanded university system on the cheap. The

decline of public sector funding, and the bizarre doctrine that intensifying competitive pressures will make under-resourced education systems work bet-

ter, are background problems we all have to cope with. But there is room for manoeuvre.

I think the most difficult thing, for your generation of university administrators, is remembering that you are running a billion-dollar institu-

tion that is not a corporation. Our staff, both academic and general, are proud to work here precisely because it’s a university. It’s concerned with the

making of highly sophisticated knowledge and with the most advanced and demanding forms of education. These are the public interests for which

Australian society puts resources into the university system. The staff are trying to make this happen, and a good personnel policy for a university will

respect and support them. The very last thing a university needs is an intimidated and conformist workforce.

Most of us would welcome a more cooperative and respectful relationship with the university management. There are benefits for you – including

benefits from a better relationship with our unions. The unions will tell you the tough stuff, the hard truths about working life in the university; and

it’s in union forums that the best thinking about higher education in Australia is currently happening. It’s a funny thing, which you won’t hear from

corporate advisors: for navigating the next stages of university life in this country, the unions are your best friends.

In the next few years, especially if we have an Abbott government, university managements might try to weaken the unions and casualize the

workforce more. It seems some Vice-Chancellors and their advisors would like to try this - but not all. I hope that Sydney’s managerial group will

follow a more intelligent path, because there is something at stake here beyond staff morale and a particular log of claims. The future character of our

university system is involved.

The staff on the picket line here are the people involved in building universities for the twenty-first century, in practice as well as in imagination.

We’d rather do this with your cooperation.

With best wishes,

Raewyn Connell


Raewyn Connell is a prominent Australian sociologist, professor and University Chair at the University of Sydney. This open letter was originally

a part of a larger set of letters by University of Sydney staff about working conditions and the industrial action which took place in March.

Sections also made up the script for the video “Dear Michael” which can be viewed at www.bit.ly/15wRTzl


I can’t be the only one who’s smirked at the giant lettering on the window

above the south east entrance to Hub Central.

‘I carried a dream,‘ says first Australian spaceman Andy Thomas. So

far so good. ‘I was able to turn that dream into a realistic ambition which

ultimately took me to space.’ Lost it.

Let’s be real – the only reason an awkward and oddly pragmatic

quote like that wound up on our wall is because the guy literally went to

space and happened to attend our university before he did that. ‘Realistic

PARTY FOR YOUR RIGHT TO ENLIGHT:

The situation at the University of Adelaide Seb Tonkin

This article was originally published in this year’s first edition of the University of Adelaide student magazine, On Dit. It is a well-rounded and thought-provoking

meditation on some of the rhetoric that is employed by university administration to create the impression that the institution is always on a high-minded pursuit for

“enlightenment”. At what cost is this enlightenment sought after? Could the “dream” for some come at the expense of others? We decided to run this piece to illus-

trate the fact that the issues you have been reading about in this special edition are not exclusve to Monash, they are of consequence to other universities nation-wide

(and even worldwide). Hopefully it will help you peel back some of the language used by our own university leaders in the public eye and question whether they

have your interests and the interests of your community at heart.

“The Plan almost sheepishly admits that the University doesn’t actually have enough money for all of those

things – but as al-ways they’ve got some

plans.”

ambitions’ aren’t usually the stuff of fairytales.

The new University strategic plan has a neater

title – ‘Beacon of Enlightenment’ – but, like our gradu-

ate hero Andy, it finds itself in an uncomfortable place

between dreams and reality. Put together after compre-

hensive consultation last year, it aims to outline the

next decade for the University of Adelaide.

It is, as you’d expect, a classic document-by-

committee, full of flowery language and spin. Phrases

like ‘reanimate our quest for the resources we need’ and

‘rekindle our importance to the community’ mean, more or less, things

like ‘find more money’ and ‘get better PR’.

But peeling a little bit of that back, there’s a dream, some realistic

ambitions, and a change or two that might worry a few people. Also, a

lack of detail sufficient to properly assess any of the above – but that’s a

strategic plan for you.

Discussing the Plan in the Adelaidean, Vice-Chancellor Bebbington

was pretty frank. In short, he said that it was time to draw a ‘line in the

sand’. The University as it stands (in an expensive spot with no adjoining

vacant land) can’t really sustain continued growth in student numbers

without sacrificing educational integrity. This seems almost like a no-

brainer, but in terms of policy it’s a turn-around.

The last plan, from 2008, encouraged an increase in full-time

student loads from around 16 000 to 20 000, which has been more or less

borne-out. Rather than succumbing to overcrowding or dumbing down

programs like other universities, the VC publicly advocates a return to

the ideals of old – an environment where research is inseparable from

learning, and where small groups of students engage in dialogue and

collaborative discovery with professors at the top of their fields. At least,

that’s the dream.

Small groups obviously sound great. To be honest,

though, it’s a little surprising to hear them so stridently

advocated by the University, who for several years have

been taking the opposite approach.

In 2011, many humanities tutorials were cut as

a cost-saving measure, and last year, some philosophy

courses did away with small groups entirely in favour of

mammoth weekly whole-class sessions.

Senior University staff, like Deputy VC Pascale

Quester, have in the past played down the correlation

between levels of teaching and levels of learning. I’ve also heard uncon-

firmed rumblings that humanities tutorial cuts will return this year.

In short, small groups require more teaching staff, and staff are

expensive – which is probably why the Plan stops short of actually

promising smaller tutorials, seminars, and labs. Instead, revealingly, it

refers to ‘simulating the small cohort experience’.

‘Simulating’ that small-group experience means a couple of poten-

tially troubling changes in course offerings and delivery.

The Plan flags that smaller courses, based on lecturers’ ‘specialised

research interests’, will be cut, in favour of research projects within

larger undergraduate core courses. Other subjects, which ‘flourish effec-

tively without a research basis’ might be given up as well, left to ‘other


institutions with different missions’.

Meanwhile, trebled spending on IT and e-learning goes towards

shunting as much content online as possible: essentially anything the

University believes can survive the transition with ‘pedagogical integrity’

– certainly lectures (I’d posit), but possibly more.

The University hopes that these measures will free up staff to make

small group learning possible, but – and there’s no way to read around

this – that will come at the expense of subject diversity and traditional

physical lectures.

Beyond class sizes and delivery, other changes to undergraduate pro-

grams are planned. The Plan commits to every student in every program

experiencing research (in the pure sense – i.e. discovery or creation of

new knowledge in a field).

Mostly this will take the form of major individual projects in final

year, but more exclusive Advanced Bachelor programs will introduce

research projects from the very beginning.

As well as some introductory research, the Plan promises that every

undergraduate student will complete one of the following: graduate work

experience, an overseas exchange, or hosting an international student.

This focus on extra-academic experience and career-readiness is

probably an effort to distinguish Adelaide from its competitors, and it also

goes to improving relations with business and government, another aim

of the Plan.

Finally, the University will double the number of scholarships for

disadvantaged students and prospective PhDs, which is, probably non-

controversially, a Pretty Good thing to do.

Other things in the Plan are a little less directly related to the aver-

age student. The University’s looking to take on at least 10 international

high-class, high-citation, top 1 per cent research staff, and engage in

worldwide research partnerships.

This seems directed at moving the University up the research

ranking tables (a game which the University appears to begrudgingly but

dedicatedly play) – but undergraduates may benefit from contact with

those high-profile staff.

Research funding will come from a central, cross-discipline fund

that will focus on areas of importance to business and government, and

be heavily reliant on partnerships and grants. Not exactly a bastion in

the intellectually pure quest for truth, perhaps, but you gotta pay the bills

somehow.

Probably the biggest questions hanging around are ones of resourc-

ing. Beyond the things above like scholarships and high-profile interna-

tional staff and e-learning and exchange programs and research funds,

there’s also a new medical school needed to meet the new Royal Adelaide

Hospital, and more development planned on and off the existing cam-

puses.

The Plan almost sheepishly admits that the University doesn’t actu-

ally have enough money for all of those things – but as always they’ve got

some plans.

The first is simple fundraising. The new VC has a good record on

this; in his time at Melbourne uni, he more than quadrupled their $11

million yearly fundraising intake. Certainly it’s worth keeping alumni on

board – businessman Graham Tuckwell just dropped $50 million onto an

unwitting ANU, and a few of those would pay for more e-learning than

you could shake a virtual stick at.

Expect a major philanthropic campaign for the 140th anniversary

next year, and redoubled efforts at ‘engaging stakeholders’ in the com-

munity, business, and government.

The University will campaign harder on higher education policy,

seeking to ‘remove the constraints that prevent leading universities in

Australia competing with their peers abroad’, and rebrand and market

itself in line with the rest of the coming changes.

And then there’s a sneaky reference to ‘redirecting’ resources from

unspecified ‘less strategic uses’, so keep an eye out for cuts too.

As a whole, the Beacon of Enlightenment proposes some radical

changes. Putting a halt on enrolment growth is something that entails

both risk and potential reward. Smaller classes, the pursuit of research,

and demographic accessibility are welcome things that recall the ideals of

older, sandstone-ier institutions.

Other aspects of the Plan, though, are less traditionally academic,

looking to cater to a demographic who work full-time, and want a path to

a career with as much flexibility and as little fuss as possible.

Despite the nostalgic rhetoric, the picture painted of the University

of Adelaide in 2023 represents a break with the past as well as the pre-

sent. It outlines a new kind of 21st-century institution – one at once more

research-focused and more vocational. One with smaller class sizes, but

also with a smaller selection of classes. One without lectures in theatres

at all.

It’s pragmatic – rather than improving teaching through better

resourcing, the Plan does it at the expense of, well, other teaching. Every

benefit students will see comes at a cost that will largely be borne by

students. Just how great that cost will need to be we’ll see eventually.

The dream is of a Beacon of Enlightenment. The challenges are

manifest and many. As a dream, it might be okay. It remains to be seen

what’s lost in the transition to realistic ambition.

Seb Tonkin is a student at the University of Adelaide and former editor

of On Dit, the universities official student publication.


BY the late nineteenth century, British imperialists in London were

frequently referring to British India as the ‘jewel in the Crown of the

British Empire’ due to the enormous profits in resources and labour

that the British were reaping. The reputation of the British Empire

was paramount in an age of competing empires jostling over the

few remaining non-colonised peoples. So too are the reputations of

universities jostling for limited positions in the ‘World Reputation

Rankings’ put together by the British Times Higher Education.

It was with much fanfare that Monash Vice-Chancellor Ed Byrne

announced last month that Monash University had finally made it into

the Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings Top 100,

somewhere between ‘91-100’.

Professor Byrne said on the Monash webpage that earning such

a high place in the World Reputation Rankings is confirmation that

MONASH:A GLOBAL EMPIRE

Glen Haywood

“While Professor Byrne refers to Monash’s South Africa campus as “the jewel in the Monash

crown” as he told The Age in 2009, this ‘jewel’ is bleeding money away from Monash’s staff and students at a time when staffing and subjects are regularly on the chopping

block.”

Monash is “rapidly becoming a serious

contender in the sphere of global education.”

Phil Baty, Editor of the World Reputation

Rankings, said that “Monash’s entry into this

elite group this year is a major achievement –

and another clear indication of the institution’s

arrival as a global university.”

Professor Byrne could do nothing but

gleefully agree that Monash is now a ‘global’

university. He credited Monash’s entry into the

global ‘elite group’ to Monash’s ‘international

strategy.’

Monash’s dogged pursuit of an

‘international strategy’ is now “paying off if

only because our brand is becoming much more

widely known,” said Professor Byrne.

Monash’s ‘international strategy’ - responsible for the move into the

top 100 universities worldwide, according to Professor Byrne - refers to

Monash’s continued expansion overseas.

In 1998 Monash opened a campus in Malaysia; in 2001, another

campus in South Africa and a centre in Italy; in 2008, Monash partnered

with BHP and Shell among others, to create a graduate research school

in India; and in 2012, Monash opened a joint graduate school in China.

Currently, there are plans to open another campus in Indonesia.

The initial plans for a global Monash empire of sorts came from

disgraced former Monash Vice-Chancellor David Robinson in the

late 1990s, when he drove plans to set up a Monash outpost ‘on every

continent’ by 2020.

At the opening of Monash’s first overseas outpost in Malaysia,

Professor Robinson said that “no other university in Australia has made

such a strong commitment to the globalisation of education.”

“We believe it is our duty to produce citizens of the world, not just

citizens of Australia,” said Professor Robinson back in 1998.

Today, Professor Byrne has similar aspirations to use the global

Monash empire to influence the world. Byrne said of the South African

campus that “South Africa will train many of the African leaders of the

future and it may well turn out to be the most important thing Australia

has done as far as education is concerned for the African continent.”

The South Africa campus has thus far been the most controversial

of all of Monash’s global exploits. In its 12 years of operation, the South

Africa campus has lost what some insiders suggest is nearing $200 million.

Far from being a campus that serves the

public good, Monash’s South Africa campus is

a private university that charges 59,000 South

African Rand per year for its Bachelor of Social

Sciences course, the equivalent to the average

yearly income for black South Africans.

Students who attend Monash’s South Africa

campus are either from wealthy families or

compete for a small number of scholarships.

Sources close to the University Council

suggest that the South Africa campus may well

be on its last legs, partly due to the Council’s

decision to revisit the level of funding the

campus receives, and to abstain from building

expensive science and engineering facilities in

South Africa.

While Professor Byrne refers to Monash’s South Africa campus as

“the jewel in the Monash crown” as he told The Age in 2009, this ‘jewel’

is bleeding money away from Monash’s staff and students at a time when

staffing and subjects are regularly on the chopping block.

It seems that just like the British Empire accelerated its rapid

decline when its ‘jewel’, India, gained its independence, so too may the

failure of Monash’s South Africa campus cause the decline of Monash’s

imperial ambitions.

Such is the cost of Professor Byrne’s desire to be seen as a competitor

on the international stage of university rankings.

22 LOT’S WIFE SPECIAL EDITION • 2013

The union representing Monash staff would like to take this opportunity

to ask you, the students of Monash, where you would like your tuition fees

to go towards? Seriously, think about it, how do you want your money

spent?

Even before the announcement of the federal government funding

cuts to the higher education sector, senior management at Monash

University had announced cuts to staff. While management like to call

it “Strengthening” the university, in reality it means job losses for staff

across the board, including academic staff – your lecturers, researchers,

tutors – and professional staff; the staff that help you in the library, with

IT, student services, technicians, etc.

Your choices cut

In response to the federal funding cuts announced on the 13th of April,

Monash Vice Chancellor Ed Byrne, in his email to staff and students,

announced “I am afraid I cannot rule out job losses, but I would hope to

keep any such losses to a minimum”. It must be understood that while these

job cuts are carried out, the work to teach your classes carries on. Already

over-burdened staff will be left to pick up where their former colleagues

left off. The uncapping of student places by the federal government should

have seen a surge in new units offered, and a demand for an increase in

staff to teach these units. However, the university management have

taken the opposite approach; maximising revenue by stretching already

overloaded staff. Cutting jobs, keeping staff in insecure work and failing to

pay staff properly for the work they do should not be the University’s first

response to the government’s cuts. For Monash to keep and attract the

best academics and professional staff they need to pay competitive salaries

and provide competitive and secure working conditions – otherwise staff

move on.

Staff cuts directly affect students

The number of students studying at Monash has increased by 7% in recent

years without an equivalent increase in staff. This becomes evident with

tutorials becoming ‘seminars’ filled with five times the number of students

in each class. You would think an increase in student numbers should

equal an increase - not a decrease - in staff; unfortunately this is not

the case. Instead, face-to-face contact with the people in your faculties

is being replaced with a computer screen and a link. NTEU members

understand you travelled to campus to see a person - you did not choose to

be an off-campus student for a reason.

Job security affects students

More than 50% of undergraduate teaching in Australia is done by academic

staff who have no job security. They are as committed to students as their

full-time staff counterparts – but they are not paid for full-time hours. Paid

on an hourly wage for only three hours for a basic lecture or tutorial, they

are forced to work beyond their paid hours to ensure students have access

to the fair and adequate support. These staff should have job security so

the only thing they focus on is providing you with your quality education.

We want lecturers, not landscaping!

The government funding cuts are predicted to cost the University $48m

over the next two years – but the University has budgeted almost double

this for spending on buildings for this year alone! According to the 2013

budget, $90 million has been set aside for “new buildings and major

projects” not only for this year, but next year and the one after as well.

We know there are plans to re-landscape the Menzies lawn, estimated

to cost $20 million. This is almost half the amount that the announced

government cuts will cost the university.

We’d like to know if Monash management has considered any other budget

cuts before continuing their attack on your lecturers and professional

staff. We want lecturers not new landscaping. We want courses not new

campuses. Buildings and other such costly projects should be delayed or

even abandoned ahead of any staff, course or unit cuts.

Quality education requires quality conditions of employment. The

NTEU negotiating claim is about ensuring that staff are recognized for

their irreplaceable work. We are asking the University for job security,

manageable workloads, fair remuneration and a safe workplace. With

these conditions in place, the highest quality education will follow. Staff

and students deserve this, and nothing less.

To Sign the petition supporting the NTEU’s campaign for Quality

Education at Monash University go to www. bit.ly/13jX7u8

STAFF AND STUDENTS: WE’RE IN THIS

TOGETHER


Casual staff make up 40% of the total academic staff in Australian uni-

versities. According to statistics given to the Australian Government by

Monash in 2011, there are over 5,000 ‘full time equivalent’ staff members

and anywhere between 8,000 and 13,000 Monash staff (depending on

who you ask and when). A ‘full time equivalent’ staff position can be

made up by multiple people, working to make up the hours of a full time

staff member. As casual employees, they lose many of the benefits that full

time staff are entitled to; they are not paid if they can’t come to work due

to illness or when their tutorial or lecture is not run because of a public

holiday. These conditions are much like those of hospitality and retail

jobs which many students are forced to tolerate, but expect to change

once they graduate. In addition, casual teaching staff are not paid during

university holidays and therefore have to find other work at these times.

Casual staff tend to work on ‘rolling contracts’, regardless of perfor-

mance. This means that they are employed on a year to year basis. This

insecure employment allows the University complete discretion whether

or not a staff person has a job next term. Often, academics are assigned

their new course for the semester with minimal time to prepare, as during

the summer break they were unemployed and unsure if they would have

work come first semester. This means they must do the course prepara-

tion in their own time, unpaid, to ensure they are fully prepared for their

subjects and able to provide the best quality education for students.

More than 50% of undergraduate teaching in Australia is done by

academic staff with no job security, according to the Monash branch of

the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union). This forces many of the

casually employed lecturers and tutors to work at multiple universities,

undertaking various subjects. Consequently they are not always on cam-

pus for students to enquire after. While they can be reached via email, the

time they take to respond is usually unpaid. Casually employed teaching

staff are paid on an hourly rate which is only three hours pay (one hour

of delivery, two hours of preparation) for a basic lecture or tutorial. This

is according to unicasual.com, a website set up by the NTEU and CAPA

(Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations) to assist increasing

amounts of casual staff in knowing their rights and to share experiences.

In reality, face-to-face assistance should be an option for all students as it

is usually more effective than email correspondence.

The NTEU national president Jeannie Rea has commented that

“Casual academics spend limited time on campus and can’t often be avail-

able for students seeking advice or feedback. Many do not have an office

or a phone; they don’t get paid to spend time giving students support”.

This not only affects us students in that we do not get enough time

with our tutors and lecturers, but if we want to pursue an academic career,

we are likely to be employed under these precarious and unfair conditions.

A further discouraging factor is the fact that at many universities, after

finishing postgraduate study, tutors will continue to be casually employed.

This lacking of younger people joining the academic workforce is a

concern as the average age of full time staff is increasing. This could lead

to an increasing age gap between students and staff, a whole generation

missing in the university teaching and research sector.

The university is trying to replace face-to-face teaching with online

tutorials and forums, which can be helpful in addition to face-to-face

teaching, but cannot replace it completely. If students wanted to study

out of the classroom they would choose to study though an online course.

However, it is evident that students who choose on-campus learning,

prefer to be on campus with their teachers and fellow students.

With the Monash University Council’s cooperation with the

state government’s legislation to remove elected students and staff from

University Council and the recent federal tertiary education cuts, we can

expect this situation to get much worse. , University Management has

reduced their accountability to the Monash community ,making business

decisions without being accountable to the students, or rather, “custom-

ers”. They understand that having the complete authority to dismiss staff

is in their best financial interests. We are paying high tuition fees for

quality education, not to subsidise poorly planned short-term business

initiatives.

The NTEU at Monash have been in negotiations with the uni-

versity management since August 2012 for a new industrial agreement,

including secure jobs and reasonable workloads. The union says that

without an agreement they will be forced to take industrial action. This

action may have an impact on our classes; however the working rights of

our teaching and administrative staff need to be supported, especially by

us students.

STAFF CASUALISATION:HOW IT AFFECTS

Mali Rea

YOU!


Politicians and University officials use funding concerns so the public

accepts that changing the role of universities from a social benefit model

to a market-driven corporate model is a natural and inevitable course of

action.

However, a critical assessment of Monash University’s budget

reveals that the improper use of funding, not underfunding, is the reason

behind purported financial shortfalls.

With students and staff representatives being removed from Uni-

versity Council, Faculty Boards being made into ‘advisory boards’, and

student unions being offered hush money, it is worth questioning why the

University Administration is so determined to exclude students and staff

from decision making and to silence dissent.

This article presents an overview of some of the skewed funding

priorities of the current Administration, whereby senior Administrators

have secured ever increasing exorbitant wages for themselves and are

happy to prioritise landscaping lawns over student services, welfare and

quality education.

Where is the money coming from?

Student fees are the single biggest source of funding for the University,

constituting 36% of total revenue or over $600 million dollars.

Who decides where the money is spent?

University Council is the governing body of the University, and as such is

responsible for approving the University’s budget and setting the overall

direction of the University. With elected student and staff representatives

removed from Council this year, the University community no longer has

any formal way of having meaningful input in this process.

*In 2012, the University Council voted to reduce the number of elected

staff reps from 3 to 2 and elected student reps from 2 to 1.

Where is the money going?

A large portion of the money is being used responsibly, however unfortu-

nately tens of millions of dollars are being squandered by the University

Administration.

Some of the questionable expenditure includes the Vice Chancel-

lor being paid twice the wage of the Australian Prime Minister as well as

exorbitant wages for other University Executives, $20 million budgeted

to be spent on re-landscaping of the Menizes Lawn, around two million

to be spent landscaping the gardens and paths near the medicine building

and one million having already been spent redeveloping the Law building

“to reflect the prestige of the faculty”. $90 million in total has been sched-

uled for Capital Works at Monash this year alone.

In 2005, Monash University Council adopted the following state-

ment, known as the Statement of Purpose, as the University’s guiding

statement for all its decisions:

“Monash University seeks to improve the human condition by

advancing knowledge and fostering creativity. It does so through research and

education and a commitment to social justice, human rights and a sustainable

environment”

With decreasing mechanisms for staff and students to hold adminis-

tration to account, Administration decisions regularly breach the above

Statement of Purpose without any consequences. For example, growing

UNDERFUNDED UNIVERSITY?

Ali Majokah


up in a world in which more than a billion people live on less than dollar

a day and studying at a University, at which thousands of students live on

less than $30 dollars a day, it is difficult to understand to how paying the

Vice Chancellor $4000 dollars a day (or $1.1m per year) could be in line

with the University’s commitment to social justice.

Reduce the Vice Chancellor’s wage to the same level as a Professor

Professors are the most senior and highest paid academic staff at Monash

University. It requires years of work, often decades, before an academic is

able to become a professor.

The highest possible wage a professor can currently receive at

Monash is $156 000 per annum. In comparison, the Vice Chancellor’s an-

nual salary is $1.1 million, that is seven times as much as a Professor and

more than ten times a lecturer!

Despite the fact they are paid much less than the current VC,

Professors still earn around $600 dollars for every day that they work and

so reducing the VC’s pay to the same level as a professor would in no way

make Ed Byrne a poor man!

In comparison to other universities’ Vice Chancellor’s, Byrne’s salary

is the highest in Victoria.

But what is it exactly that the Vice Chancellor does that is so

difficult and so much more important than the work performed by an

academic?

While I recognise that administrative work is important, I reject

that it is in any way more important than teaching or research. The core

purpose of universities is teaching, learning and research and that the

value and respect for this should be reflected in the pay scales for staff,

with administrators not being paid amounts greater than academics.

Universities have traditionally been managed in line with principals

of workplace democracy, universities are run on a collegial basis, that is,

the responsibility is collectively shared. The university is a community of

scholars and that maintaining this sense of community and the respect

that this entails, requires a collaborative approach to decision-making

whereby all students and staff have a real say in the managing and run-

ning of the University.

Excluding those who are affected by decisions from the decision-

making process leads to mismanagement and inappropriate decisions

being made.

What could we do with $944 000 saved from the VC’s wage?

Rather than padding the Vice Chancellor’s pockets, student and taxpayer

money could instead be spent on student welfare and helping the thou-

sands of students across all Monash campuses who skip meals on a regular

basis because they do not have enough money for food.

The Monasg Student Association currently runs ‘Free Food Mon-

days’, a welfare program that provides a free dinner every Monday night

to financially struggling students. All are welcome and so far between one

to two hundred people have been coming weekly and enjoying a healthy,

free meal, served at the Wholefoods Restaurant at the Clayton campus.

With more funding, the program could be expanded so that free food can

be served every night, helping ensure that no student goes to sleep hungry

because they can’t afford to buy food.

The MSA is currently able to budget around $7 000 for Free Food

Mondays, with an extra $28 000 dollars in funding the program could be

extended to run every day of the week during the academic year.

In addition to above, with adequate funding, free lunch and break-

fast programs could also be run by the MSA.

Using costings for Free Food Mondays as the basis, we can extrapo-

late that a lunch and breakfast program together would cost around $70

000. And so meaning that all the programs together would cost approxi-

mately $100 000 dollars to run at Clayton campus for the duration of the

year.

We can further extrapolate these figures to include other Monash

campuses. Other campuses have smaller student populations and so run-

ning the free food programs is likely to cost less, however for the purposes

of our calculations we’ll assume the cost is the same so as to minimise the

risk of under-costing.

With no more than $700 000, the free food programs could be run

across all seven Monash campuses and provide free healthy meals to


thousands of struggling students allowing everyone, regardless of their

economic circumstances, to be able to meet their basic requirements and

in turn be able to study and contribute to the community more effec-

tively, in under $700 000.

Executives at Monash paid more than Professors!

As per Monash University’s 2011 Annual Report, 64 University Admin-

istration officials are paid more than a professor’s wage, that is, more than

$156 000 per year. By reducing these executives’ salaries down to that of

a professor, we could save $11 million annually.

Chancellor Alan Finkel, has emphasised that Monash is a ‘commu-

nity-focused’ organisation. Similarly, The Vice Chancellor, in his message

printed in the MSA’s Club Guide 2013 said that “By choosing to study

at Monash University you are part of one of the world’s great learning

communities”, encouraging students to become involved with clubs and

societies at Monash.

As many studies have shown, and as attested to by both the Chan-

cellor and the Vice Chancellor, having a sense of community on-campus

is essential for not only social and emotional wellbeing and development

of students and staff but to also help build the social support networks

necessary for academic success.

Student-run clubs by far engage more students and make a greater

contribution to the building of community on-campus than any other

groups or programs supported by the university or student unions.

As highlighted in the Clubs & Societies Guide 2013, at Clayton

campus alone student clubs engage over 10 000 students as members and

many more through activities and events.

For thousands of students, any sense of community on-campus is

created through the friendships they form and the activities they take part

in as club members.

Despite the Vice Chancellor acknowledging the vital role clubs

play in the Monash community, they remain underfunded and without

adequate support.

A simple measure that could provide a substantial boost to clubs

and go a long way in terms of creating a thriving community on-campus,

would be to use some of the money saved from reducing exorbitant Ex-

ecutive wages to provide modest honorariums to Presidents of all student

clubs.

The purpose of the honorariums would be to provide monetary sup-

port to Presidents so that they do not need to spend as much time in part-

time or casual work to support themselves, and thus be able to devote

more of their time to helping the club grow, support their committee and

members and help organise more events and activities on-campus.

How much is the MSA President paid?

Monash Student Association is the largest student union at Monash,

representing over 20 000 undergraduate students at Clayton. It has an

annual operating budget of around two million dollars and is managed by

the Monash Student Council, a body made up of student representatives,

elected annually.

The MSA President works for the MSA on a full-time basis, work-

ing 40 hours a week and is paid an honourarium of approximately $400 a

week dollars.

What could be a reasonable amount for Club Presidents to be paid?

Club Presidents generally don’t need to work 40 hours per week and are

also not responsible for helping coordinate and act on behalf of an organi-

sation as big as the MSA.

Other MSA officebearers on the other hand are primarily responsi-

ble for coordinating just one department of the MSA (most departments

have a committee/collective as the managing body, similar to clubs) and

usually work around 20 hours a week, subsequently having an annual

honourarium of around $10 000 for the year.

Like MSA office bearers, it seems reasonable for Club Presidents to

be given honouraria of around $10 000 per annum. This would in turn

eliminate or reduce the need for most Presidents to work as much in part-

time jobs and would allow them to focus more of their time and energy on

developing their clubs, helping build the capacity of clubs to engage with

a greater number of students, hold more events and build a greater sense

of community on campus.

There are approximately 244 clubs and societies across all Monash

campuses, with all Presidents being paid an honourarium of $10 000 per

annum (or $200 per week), the total cost would be approximately $2.5

million.

If by reducing the executive wages we save $11 million, this would

leave $8.5 spare. What’s important to you?

Should we campaign to make Monash Sports affordable? or even

make it free? Reduce the rent at Halls of Res?

Do you have other ideas? Where would you like money spent?

Join the discussion at: Facebook.com/lotswifemagazine

27LOT’S WIFE SPECIAL EDITION • 2013

University Administration has allocated around two million dollars to be

spent on the creation of the ‘Campus Walk South’. The project seeks to

create “high quality” spaces next to the Faculty of Medicine.

The project seems to be driven by a desire to make the Faculty

of Medicine appear more prestigious, with an uncanny resemblance to

the million dollar ‘boob job’ done on Law Building. Both projects are

a by-product of Monash’s recent obsession with the outward and the

superficial.

Similarly $20 million dollars has been set aside to relandscape

the Menzies lawn, even though the lawns are perfectly functional and

pleasant as they currently are.

Let’s come together and let the University Administration know

that providing good working conditions and fair wages for staff, decreasing

class sizes and offering a breadth of units and courses is what is critical

to retaining and growing Monash’s reputation as a quality educator, not

unnecessary building renovations and million dollar lawns.

I am not suggesting that we should halt carrying out capital works

altogether, rather that non-essential capital works should be delayed

or cancelled given the difficult financial circumstances that Monash

University is currently experiencing. The Vice Chancellor has indicated

SUSPEND MENZIES LAWN AND ‘CAMPUS

SOUTH WALK’ WORKSAli Majokah

Image: Clayton campus master plan

that he cannot rule out job cuts in response to the Federal funding cuts

to the university sector. With increasing student numbers and increasing

class sizes, the University needs to be hiring, not cutting staff. The Vice

Chancellor should prioritise the retention and hiring staff over the

relandscaping of the Menzies Lawn or the construction of the ‘Campus

Walk South’.

It is predominantly student fees that are being used to fund these

capital works and as students constitute the majority of the University

population, we will be most greatly affected by the works, in this sense,

student approval ought to be sought before any further money is spent or

work undertaken on either of these projects.

In the scenario that student wishes are not respected and work on

the projects permitted to continue, we should assert our right to not have

our money wasted and to be able to enjoy a quality education. In this

manner, I propose students taking non-violent direct action, if necessary,

to prevent the works from going ahead without approval being given

through a referendum.

28

A STUDENT GENERAL MEETING?

WHAT’S THAT?Ali Majokah

Student General Meetings (SGMs) are a way of practicing direct

democracy at Monash, allowing all students to have a say in how their

student union and university runs. Meetings are open to the public, and

all Clayton students have the right to speak and vote. Students from

accross Monash’s campuses are also encouraged to attend.

A Student General Meeting is the highest decision making forum

of the Monash Student Association. The MSA is constitutionally

obliged to follow any decision made at an SGM if 1% or more of the

Clayton student population - at least 300 students - are in attendance

and vote at the meeting when the decision is made.

SGMs may only be held from 1:05pm -1:55pm on any academic

day, being widely advertised at least six academic days in advance. Any

Clayton student may present proposals for discussion at a meeting,

however all proposals/motions need to be submitted to the MSA

Secretary before 5pm on the last academic day before the meeting.

From the university’s inception until seven years ago, they were the

primary means for students to collectively make important decisions and

decide on actions they would take to address educational issues as well as

broader social and political concerns.

In the past, the inclusive and open nature of the meetings resulted

in thousands of students becoming engaged in and having ownership

over the political process and being able to work cooperatively and

effectively fight attacks on education by both University Administration

and Government.

These mass meetings and subsequent student mobilisations played

a key role in winning the fight for and instituting free education in

Australia in the early 1970s, as well as bringing about broader social and

political change such as the abolition of the death penalty and the end

of the Vietnam war.

The Student General Meeting, which has been called for May

1, will be the first meeting in seven years. It will be an invaluable

opportunity for us all to come together and voice our opinions and

discuss and vote on proposals for how we will respond to current attacks

on our education.

The following page lays out some proposals that will be brought up

and discussed at the SGM, you are of course also welcome to write your

own and submit them to the MSA Secretary for consideration at the

SGM.

In the lead up to the SGM, I encourage you to discuss the

important issues raised in this magazine with your friends as well as

sharing your thoughts and ideas at facebook.com/lotswifemagazine

Our education is under attack through funding cuts by the Federal

Government and looming widespread course and staff cuts from the

University Administration. It is once again time for students to come

together, organise and let those in authority know that no changes will

be made to our university or to our education, without our approval.

Let’s organise, let’s come together and make change!

Looking forward to seeing you at the SGM from 1pm – 2pm on

Wednesday May 1 on Menzies Lawn!

Appointment of elected representatives to University Council

That the University Council appoint the democratically elected student and staff representatives (Ali Majokah, Carol Williams and Jeffrey Bender) to

University Council as observers with full speaking rights and access to all agenda papers, similar to what University of Melbourne has done.

Monash – business or community?

We reject the idea that Monash is a business and endorse the idea that it is a community organisation.

Reinstate Faculty Boards as managing bodies of Faculties

We reaffirm the idea that universities function best when students and staff have formal decision making power at all levels of university management.

At its next meeting on May 8, we ask University Council to rescind its decision on March 20 seeking to reduce Faculty Boards to advisory bodies and

instead commit to working in consultation with all Monash student unions, as well as the NTEU, to reform the University Statutes so as to allow

students and staff to have a greater say in how our university is run.

Reduce Vice Chancellor’s pay, prioritise student welfare

We understand that there are only a finite amount of resources in the world and if some people take more than they need, then it reduces the pool of

resources from which others can benefit, leading to poverty, hunger and starvation. Further we do not consider administrative work to be of greater

importance than academic work and hence reject the idea of Administrators having higher wages than academics. In light of this, we consider the

awarding of a $1.1 million annual salary to the Vice Chancellor to be not only inappropriate and wasteful but in breach of the University’s commit-

ment to social justice. To this end, we call on University Council at its meeting on 25 June to make a commitment to reduce the Vice Chancellor’s so

that it is no greater than that of a professor, before the end of the year 2014.

Further we suggest that the money saved be used fund free food programs for financially struggling students across all Monash campuses, as well as as-

sisting student welfare initiatives in order to help alleviate student poverty.

Reduce wages of senior Administrators, prioritise community building

For similar reasons as outlined for the reduction in the Vice Chancellor’s pay, we ask University Council at its meeting on 25 June to make a commit-

ment to reduce the wages of all relevant senior Administrators so that no Administration official has a wage greater than that of a professor, before the

end of the year 2014.

Further we suggest that a portion of the money saved be used to provide honorariums to Presidents of all student clubs and societies as financial support

so that they are able to dedicate more of their time to helping create a vibrant and close-knit community on-campus.

Suspend Menzies Lawn and ‘Campus South Walk’ capital works, prioritise staff and quality education

We understand that with increasing student numbers and increasing class sizes, the University needs to be hiring, not cutting staff. To this end, we call

on the Vice Chancellor to prioritise the retention and hiring staff over the re-landscaping of the Menzies Lawn and the construction of the ‘Campus

Walk South’.

We require that work on both these projects be suspended immediately and only recommenced if authorisation is given to do so by a majority vote in a

student referendum held at the Clayton campus.

We stress to the Vice Chancellor that it is predominantly our fees that are being used to fund these capital works and as we constitute the majority of

the University population, we will be most greatly affected by the works, as such we require that our approval be sought before any further money is

spent or work undertaken.

In the scenario that our wishes are not respected and work on the projects permitted to continue, we are more than willing to assert our right to not

have our money wasted and to be able to enjoy a quality education, as such we endorse students taking non-violent direct action, if necessary, to pre-

vent the works from going ahead without approval being given through a referendum.

PROPOSED MOTIONS The following motions will be submitted for debate and voting at the student general meeting on May 1.

Any student may submit a motion for debate by contacting the MSA secretary at [email protected]



WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

Watch and share the ‘MONASH is my store’ video http://bit.ly/12xgTnm

Help recreate this scene!

Come to the Student General Meeting 1-2pm, May 1 Menzies Lawn

Join the Facebook Event

http://on.fb.me/11tyWtv

Join the campaign for a democratic university

email [email protected]

Talk about these issues Spreading the word is key - make sure everyone you know, knows about

what is facing us.


Education is the backbone of our society. In order to meet our aspirations to some level of employment, we under-stand that we must get an education first.

Employment means overall benefit to our communities. Ed-ucation is acquired not just for personal means, but for this fundamental social end as well.

Does it really make sense, then, that students are required to pay exorbitant fees for their education? If the community is the greatest benefactor of our labour, shouldn’t the path to employment be as hassle free as possible?

Dozens of countries are thriving on free education models, including Finland, Germany, Cuba, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

Come down to Wholefoods on Tuesday April 30th 5pm-6pm for a forum on what free education means and whether it could be worth striving for in Australia.

With guest speaker, President of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) Phil Andrews.

TO HECK WITH HECS: An open discussion about free education

LET’S RECREATE THIS SCENE!

STUDENT GENERAL MEETINGWednesday May 1st

1pm - 2pmMenzies Lawn

Clayton Campus

w

Lot's Wife Special Edition, 2013

Documents

Transcript of Lot's Wife Special Edition, 2013