| |
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC
COMMISSIONER JOHNS
s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards
Four yearly review of modern awards
(AM2015/6)
Educational Services Award
Melbourne
10.04 AM, FRIDAY, 29 JULY 2016
Continued from 28/07/2016
PN2573
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Thank you, Ms Gale?
PN2574
MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour. I will start by advising that today we intend to deal with the following witnesses: Honorary Associate Professor Anne Junor, who is in Sydney; Professor Phil Andrews, who will be here in Melbourne; Karen Ford, who will be in Sydney; and Dr Linda Kirkman, who will be here in Melbourne.
PN2575
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Thank you.
PN2576
MS GALE: I also wish to tender a revised hours of work clause for the academic award which is updated from the exhibits J and K yesterday and this incorporates the one further change that was discussed while Mr McAlpine was on the stand.
PN2577
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Thank you.
PN2578
MS GALE: I think this was also sent by email, your Honour.
PN2579
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Are we happy to swap out J and K then?
PN2580
MS GALE: We would be very content with that.
PN2581
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Rather than just have another re-numbering. So these will now become the new J and K.
PN2582
MS GALE: Thank you, your Honour. And with that housekeeping out of the way, your Honour, we would now like to call Honorary Associate Professor Anne Junor.
PN2583
THE ASSOCIATE: Please state your full name and address.
MS JUNOR: Anne Merilyn Junor (address supplied).
<ANNE MERILYN JUNOR, AFFIRMED [10.07 AM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE [10.07 AM]
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XN MS GALE
PN2585
MS GALE: Thank you, Professor Junor. Could you please restate your name and address for the record?‑‑‑Anne Merilyn Junor (address supplied).
PN2586
Thank you. And have you prepared a statement in the form of an expert report for these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I have.
PN2587
Do you have a copy of that report with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN2588
Are there any corrections or updates that you wish to make to that report?‑‑‑Well, the first thing I'd like to say is that I'm suffering from poor eyesight at the moment and I'm really embarrassed to see that I have left a number of typos in the report. I don't think they affect the meaning, so I won't take the Commission's time by going through them. Just to register how embarrassed I am as a journal editor that I have submitted a document with typos in it. And there is just one further correction that I would like to make, which is in section 3 on page 8. The heading, My Own Research, could we insert the word "empirical" before "research" because in fact that material refers only to theoretical research. It doesn't refer to other relevant research I've undertaken on professional skills on literature reviews of other's people work, and a synthesis of original and secondary data.
PN2589
So that would be to amend the heading of section 3 to read, "My Own Empirical Research"?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2590
Thank you. And with that change do you say that the statement is true and correct?‑‑‑I would, yes.
PN2591
And do you adopt it as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN2592
Thank you.
PN2593
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: That will be exhibit O. Any objections, Mr Pill, Ms Pugsley?
PN2594
MR PILL: No.
MS PUGSLEY: No, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #O WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANNE MERILYN JUNOR
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XN MS GALE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL [10.10 AM]
PN2596
MR PILL: Good morning Dr Junor. My name is Mr Pill and I'm in the middle of the Bar table there?‑‑‑Right.
PN2597
I appreciate it might be difficult. It's difficult at the best of times to see on these video conferences. I'm representing a number of universities today, including the University of New South Wales, your former employer, and I'd just like to ask you some questions about your statement and a number of matters in it. Now, before I do that can I just confirm you ceased employment as a teaching and research academic at the end of 2010; is that right?‑‑‑Yes, I ceased employment. I've continued as an unpaid adjunct and deputy director of a research centre.
PN2598
And you're currently an Honorary Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2599
Yes. And in the lead up to the cessation of your employment you entered into a pre-retirement contract with the university; is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2600
Now, as I read your bio in the period from 1995 to 2013 you supervised eight PhD students to completion?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2601
And were you the sole supervisor of those students?‑‑‑For some I was. For others I was a either a joint mainly a chief supervisor rather than a joint supervisor. Yes. A lead supervisor for yes, for all of them.
PN2602
Thank you. Thank you. I should check, can you hear me okay?‑‑‑I beg your pardon?
PN2603
I was actually just checking, Dr Junor, that you could hear me okay?‑‑‑Yes, I can. Yes.
PN2604
Thank you. And how did it come to be that you came to be the PhD supervisor of those students? Did they approach you and seek that you take on that role?‑‑‑It was normally an academic supervisor rather than the student, but it was a process of discussion and negotiation in the school.
PN2605
So one of your colleagues would seek you out and see whether you were prepared to be a PhD supervisor for that student?‑‑‑Do you know, my memory is hazy about the process.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2606
All right?‑‑‑Yes. It was, I guess, a process of discussion, of collegial discussion.
PN2607
And did you take on any PhD students that you didn't want to take on?‑‑‑No.
PN2608
Now, in terms of this statement and these proceedings, do you understand that the statement is given in support of two claims for allowances in relation to the casual staff; one for reading university policies, and the other for discipline currency or maintaining discipline currency?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2609
Yes. And can I ask when did you prepare your statement? It's not dated and it's not signed?‑‑‑Earlier this year and again I'd have to check. My memory is hazy. But it was I can't remember the month, I'm sorry.
PN2610
All right?‑‑‑But it was earlier this year.
PN2611
Thank you. Are you aware, Dr Junor, that expert reports are required to be signed?‑‑‑Sorry, I didn't hear the question.
PN2612
I was checking, as I read your bio, you've been a witness in a number of proceedings in the past. Are you aware that expert reports are required to be signed?‑‑‑I find that hard to answer because ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2613
You're not sure?‑‑‑I'm not sure.
PN2614
All right. Now, your statement has a number of sections. The first is entitled My Personal Experience?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2615
Now, you indicated in response to Ms Gale's questions, that you're adopting this expert report. It's been indicated in this Commission process previously but that section is not relied upon as being expert evidence. Do you accept that the evidence there is based upon, as its title suggests, based on your personal experience?‑‑‑Yes. Yes. Yes, I've included both personal experience and expert experience as a researcher and that first part is my personal experience as an academic supervisor.
PN2616
And section 4, which is on page 23, is entitled Expert Report?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2617
Are sections 2 and 3 part of your expert report?‑‑‑Are we on sorry, what page are we on?
PN2618
I'm sorry, Dr Junor, I'll take you back. Page 23?‑‑‑Page 23.
PN2619
And there's a heading up the top that says Section 4 Expert Report, and then there's some subsections. The first one of which is Personal Details?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2620
And then on page 29 there's another subsection 4.2 Literature Review?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2621
And my question is, given that heading, are sections 2 and 3 of your report also being put forward as part of your evidence as an expert?‑‑‑Section 2 being a list of really a summary of the let me say that section 2 is answered in the other sections. In sections 3 and 4, and so that sections 3 and 4 constitute the responses to the specific statements in section 2 which are statements. Section 3, My Own Empirical Research, is clearly my research, and obviously My Personal Details, 4.1 are not my research, but section 4.2, The Literature Review, is my research. It's my review of the literature because obviously research is not just empirical, it is the analysis of secondary data and the cross-referencing of empirical and secondary data.
PN2622
Now, you mentioned, as part of that response, that section 2 statements, and the section 2 is entitled to claim for a disciplinary currency payment, where did those statements come from? Did you write those?‑‑‑I responded to a set of questions from the NTEU and wrote them up as like a way of organising the material in the rest of my submission. So they're partly my wording as I, if you like, adapted the questions that I used to organise my thoughts, and in fact what I have I think they're a convenient way of organising thinking about a disciplinary currency payment, and I've cross-referenced those questions to specific pages in my statement in sections 3 and 4.2, which I'm hoping to be able to sort of take you through point by point today.
PN2623
Well, we'll come to that. Do you accept that on the face of the document nowhere does it indicate that the NTEU contributed to your content?‑‑‑Well, I wouldn't call that content. I would call that a list of headings or topics to be addressed by content.
PN2624
Just to be clear, Dr Junor, you're referring to all of the numbered paragraphs in section 2?‑‑‑I'm saying that they are conclusions that can be drawn from my research, and that based on my academic research and my own experience, so it's both research and experience, I agree with those propositions.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2625
Right. So they're the propositions that have been put to you that you're agreed with based on your research and experience?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2626
All right. So with respect to your previous answer they're not lists of topics or lists of headings?‑‑‑Well, lists of proposition to be addressed.
PN2627
Indeed. All right. Do we have anywhere in your report the request for your expert report or the propositions that were put to you?‑‑‑No.
PN2628
All right. Are you aware that section 2 presented as part of your expert report is in virtually identical terms to part of an expert report submitted by Dr May in these proceedings?‑‑‑Well, I'm not aware of it, but I'm not surprised because I guess it sets out the basis of the claim for the disciplinary currency allowance, and obviously there would be a brief of issues to be addressed.
PN2629
Yes. Did the NTEU speak to you about the fact that the same evidence verbatim was effectively going to be given by Dr May?‑‑‑I'm well, I find that difficult to answer because I don't know that it's the same verbatim.
PN2630
Well, can you assume for the purpose of my question was not whether it was verbatim. I asked you whether the NTEU spoke to you about the fact that it was submitting a report that was effectively verbatim in that section to that being submitted by Dr May?‑‑‑Well, I guess the operative word is verbatim, and I don't believe that I understood that it was verbatim. And, in fact, it probably wasn't completely verbatim in that there's something haywire with the numbering but, what can I say? I was aware that various witnesses would be addressing the same set of issues.
PN2631
Yes. Just a minor point, perhaps I can indicate to you that it's not so much the numbering is astray, this Commission, through its process, has struck part of the first paragraph, which is why it appears as it does. All right.
PN2632
COMMISSIONER JOHNS: Mr Pill, has this witness been provided with MFI1? That might assist her.
PN2633
MR PILL: No, Commissioner.
PN2634
COMMISSIONER JOHNS: Is that something we should arrange, or would that be useful? It's a matter for you.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2635
MR PILL: Can I move I will move to another point. Now, can I just start with your section 1 and your personal experience?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2636
And you start by telling us a story about switching on your computer and accessing the University of New South Wales IT network, and there's a, what I think is commonly referred to as, a splash screen. They're my words, not yours; a splash screen with a statement that by logging in to this machine:
PN2637
I acknowledge and agree that I have read and understood the UNSW acceptable use of UNSW ICT resources policy and acceptable use of UNSW ICT procedures.
PN2638
Is that the first time you'd ever seen that log in?‑‑‑No. Every time I turn on the computer I would see that log in.
PN2639
And you were at UNSW as an academic employee for 10 years; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2640
And during that time how many times had you read the ICT resources policy and acceptable use policy?‑‑‑Well, a number of times, because I'm it's part of my role, particularly as deputy director of a research centre, to be across university policies.
PN2641
So you read it a number of times over a 10 year period; is that your evidence?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2642
And students also have to comply with such policies about IT use on the university's system?‑‑‑I can't answer that because I've never logged on as a student.
PN2643
Well, you've just given evidence that you've read the policy a number of times?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2644
But you don't recall whether the policy deals with students or not?‑‑‑No, I don't no, the question you asked me was what do students see when they log on to the system.
PN2645
Yes?‑‑‑That's what I'm sorry, that's not what you asked, it's what I thought you asked. And I don't know what students see when they log on to the system.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2646
Yes. The question I asked was that students have to comply with such policies?‑‑‑Yes. Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
PN2647
Now, in terms of time spent reading policies is there any published quantitative research on the time spent reading policies?‑‑‑I don't know.
PN2648
So not that you're aware of?‑‑‑Well, that's a different slightly different wording. I don't know. That's a more open-ended than "not that I'm aware of", which implies no, unless otherwise indicated.
PN2649
All right. Dr Juno, are you aware of any?‑‑‑No.
PN2650
Now, on page 3, you give evidence of your personal experience in working as a casual academic?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2651
Is this correct, if I've understood your statement, that's pre-1995 when you were working as a casual academic?‑‑‑Sorry, which paragraph are we at?
PN2652
It's a combination of the first two paragraphs. And my question is just to confirm the general point which is to the extent that you've been a casual academic it was prior to 1995?‑‑‑My own experience as a casual academic, yes.
PN2653
And based on that experience you had a personal view about casual academic work?‑‑‑I had a view. If you're implying that it influenced my later research in the area I think that's an inference that can't be drawn. I had actually experience of the time demands of building professional expertise as a casual.
PN2654
Now, at the last two paragraphs on that page you attest to a couple of circumstances where a casual academic lecturer or tutor has performed very poorly?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2655
And as a consequence you have not offered them subsequent casual academic work?‑‑‑That's correct. There was not the means at my disposal to provide the professional development that would have been needed in order to get him to do the disciplinary currency work that would've been required, and that I mean, it's draconian, it's regrettable. With a non-casual academic you would presumably put performance development processes into place had they been available.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2656
Yes. Well, you accept, Dr Junor, that this person was not a continuing academic. They were a casual academic engaged for a particular purpose and unfortunately, if I shorthand it, they weren't up to it. You described two slightly different circumstances?‑‑‑No. No, I'm not saying they weren't up to it. I'm saying they did not undertake disciplinary updating.
PN2657
Yes?‑‑‑They were not they did not exhibit disciplinary currency which is not a judgement on them. It's a statement about a situation of exercising disciplinary currency, doing the work required while employed to maintain disciplinary currency.
PN2658
Yes. So if I break them into two, your evidence is that the first person, and I'll read the sentence:
PN2659
I can attest to the damage to student morale that occurred on the fortunately one-off occasion when a tutor tried to run his own tried and true (actually tired and untrue) alternative lectures in tutorials that I had designed as interactive. He was acting in good faith but was not up-to-date with student incentives for small group learning methodologies. He clearly had not read the new addition to the text book assignment for the course, had not followed up the extensive list of reference materials available online in the library special reserve. He did not seek to read and think his way into the objectives and design of the course and develop the students in the exploration of ideas and debates.
PN2660
Now, part of what's being described there, do you accept, is that there were materials that you had set, and he didn't use the materials in the relevant reading guide?‑‑‑I provided some guides, and I see what you're saying, that that could be classed as necessary preparation rather than as maintaining disciplinary currency, so the way I have worded it, I agree, is ambiguous. But certainly his not reading and thinking his way into the objectives and designs of the course it would not have been possible for him to do so without maintaining disciplinary currency, being across new techniques, new technologies, new methodologies, for example, a living case methodology. So I have worded that badly. It is a mixture there of preparation from materials that I provided but more than that, it is exercising the imagination that could only be provided by being current in the discipline.
PN2661
All right. Now, over the page, you say:
PN2662
Fortunately these cases were the exception and I was able to rescue the quality of both sessions' courses but only by the most rigorous weekly oversight and by redoing many of the assessments. The tutors in question were not, however, paid for participating in this work of getting up to speed.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2663
?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2664
Now, as a non-casual academic engaging these casual tutors, do you provide them with any guidance?‑‑‑Yes, I did. But at that time there were not the tools and techniques available, or I wasn't aware of them, to help the casuals maintain disciplinary currency. Later on, from 2007 onwards, I did participate in methodology at UNSW to provide disciplinary currency guidance to casual academics and I was, in fact, a member of the reference group for the benchmarking project carried out between 2011 and 2013 which set standards for guiding casual academics in disciplinary currency maintenance. But that was really subsequent, so in a way it was unfortunate that guidance wasn't available, and the awareness wasn't available at the time, but it certainly is now, and there are much stronger expectations, I believe, on casual academics; that they do maintain disciplinary currency. I guess I was pointing to the consequences of the absence of such benchmarks and tools for encouraging the maintenance of disciplinary currency. I must say that there's still not the payment for doing so.
PN2665
And, Dr Juno, can I ask you how did you decide to engage these two people in the first place?‑‑‑Do you know that the first one, it was custom and practice. He had been engaged previously and he was sort of available when I was fairly new. In fact, I think it might've been my first year at the University of Canberra. The second, again, it was my first year at UNSW, and I basically inherited a course.
PN2666
So, Dr Junor, I didn't ask you when in your employment, I asked you on what basis? Do I take it from your answer that they'd previously done some tutoring or lecturing at the university?‑‑‑Yes, I walked into a situation where they'd been engaged.
PN2667
All right?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2668
Did you engage other sessional staff during the course of your continuing academic career?‑‑‑Indeed.
PN2669
And how did you decide who to engage?‑‑‑I'm just I'm really trying to think back. The recruitment process was somewhat ad hoc. There was a pool of people who indicated availability. They provided CVs, and I spoke with the applicants. It was again much more ad hoc than it should have been.
PN2670
And when you looked at their CVs and decided to offer them some casual work, did you take into account their qualifications and experience?‑‑‑Yes, of course.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2671
And did so having regard to what you were going to engage them to teach or to tutor in?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2672
Now, can I turn to your research. So I'm on page 8. It's headed section 3 My Own Research. You have that, Dr Junor?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2673
Yes. And you identified that the section covers two aspects of your research into casual academic work. There's a more substantive aspect, which is a survey that was undertaken in 2001/2002, and early into 2003 and findings were published in 2004/5. And I'll come back to that. And secondly, there is a, what you call, a coding analysis done in 2008 on data generated by a 2007 NTEU survey, focusing here on the 2012 publication of a selection of qualitative findings. Can I take you to page 18. I just want to ask you some questions about that first?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2674
That section starts with the number 2, 2012 update?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2675
Is that what's being referred to in the second dot point that I just took you to?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2676
Yes. And so, as I understand it, and perhaps you can confirm, there was a survey undertaken by the NTEU at some stage prior to 2008?‑‑‑Yes, 2007.
PN2677
In 2007. Thank you. And did you conduct that survey?‑‑‑No, but it was based on published the published questionnaire that I had used in the 2002/2003 survey, so that there was an element of replication, very desirable thing in surveys. But it was the open-ended comments that I coded, and of course anonymised.
PN2678
So if I've understood that, the NTEU conducted a survey based on, and using parts of, a questionnaire that you used back in 2001/2 which generated some open-ended comments that you then looked at?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2679
Yes?‑‑‑Sorry, which I'm sorry, the wording of your question has me a little confused. Both surveys had quantitative as well as open-ended questions. So it had highly structured questions.
PN2680
Yes?‑‑‑Leading to quantitative analysis, and they had open-ended questions which needed to be analysis using qualitative methodology.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2681
And in terms of your role in the 2007 NTEU survey what was your role?‑‑‑I had no role in administering it. I had access to the open-ended questions because there was really just so much data generated in open-ended statements that they need that expertise was needed in order to do qualitative data coding.
PN2682
All right. And so you've looked at those open-ended questions and, to use your words, you've looked at data coding and, that's in my language, you've grouped them under different types; you accept that, that that's what you did?‑‑‑No, coding means that you look for patterns.
PN2683
Yes?‑‑‑You look for common themes. You look for evidence requiring explanation. I'm not quite sure what you mean by types. I didn't do a ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2684
Okay. So perhaps you can turn the page to page 19, and you reference this on page 18. It says:
PN2685
The seven tables that follow indicate a strong continuity of experience between the two surveys.
PN2686
And then there's some tables with headings, and they start with "Type"; Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and they're essentially thematically grouped?‑‑‑Yes, that ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2687
Do you accept that that's what they do?‑‑‑It's thematically grouped. Yes, that's the standard typology if insecurity of Guy Standing.
PN2688
Yes?‑‑‑It wasn't what I did with the data until 2012. I just went back to the material and drew out a very small amount from a large body of material.
PN2689
Right?‑‑‑Using the Standing typology.
PN2690
So in 2012 you go back and look at some open-ended answers from the 2007 survey and you thematically group some of them into the types that then appear at pages 19 and following?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2691
Okay. And then ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑And compare them with statements from the open-ended question in 2002/3.
PN2692
Yes. And as I understand your evidence you say well, your evidence is there's a strong continuity of experience?‑‑‑Yes.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2693
So there's some similarity between the comments in 2007 and 2002?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2694
Yes. Thank you. Can I take you back to your research on page 8, and you undertook a survey pursuant to an ARC grant that you had obtained; is that right?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2695
And as I understand your evidence that occurred over late 2001 through to early 2003, and then you published your findings in 2004 and 5?‑‑‑Yes. Started to publish the findings, yes.
PN2696
Yes, all right. I'm just reading your statement, findings published in 2004 and 20055?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Yes, yes.
PN2697
Now, can I take you to and, sorry, the bottom of page 8 you talk about methodology, and you talk about the purposes?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2698
And one of the purposes at the last dot point under that section where it appears at the top of page 9 is development typology of casual university employment?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2699
And then just whilst we're there under research questions, Casual Academic Survey, you say that:
PN2700
The questions were designed to provide answers to the following questions.
PN2701
And those in italics are relevant to this submission?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2702
I'll come back to that. And essentially you conducted a mail based survey, as I read your methodology; is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2703
And across 19 universities?‑‑‑No, it was a complete population of casuals in five universities.
PN2704
I'm sorry?‑‑‑Went for depth not breadth.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2705
I see?‑‑‑Five universities did the mail out for me. I didn't do the mail out. And they did a mail out to all casuals on their payroll at the time of the mail out, and that amounted, incidentally, to 10,000 approximately 10,000 envelopes mailed out.
PN2706
Yes. And 29.1 per cent response rate, as I read it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2707
Yes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2708
And are you able to say which five universities they are?‑‑‑I this is awkward, because there was a confidentiality agreement.
PN2709
I see?‑‑‑What I've I've given a typology on page 10. There were all types. There was a technology or ATN university. There was a post 1987 university. There was a sandstone, et cetera. So there ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2710
I won't press you for the names?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2711
Can I just ask you were there a group of eight universities in your red brick/sandstone?‑‑‑I'm just trying to think what they were now. Sorry, can I come back to that. I just need to write down for myself what they were.
PN2712
Yes, of course?‑‑‑There was yes, there was one. Yes.
PN2713
So one group of eight. Was there also then a red brick?‑‑‑Yes, there was a red brick. There was a sandstone which was a GO8. There was a pre 1987. There was a technology.
AUDIO MALFUNCTION [10.50 AM]
PN2714
And there was a post 1987 university. They were the five.
PN2715
COMMISSIONER JOHNS: Sorry, Mr Pill, just for my own benefit, I know what a sandstone is. I'm struggling with a red brick, and I don't know what a gumtree is.
PN2716
MR PILL: Okay. Look, I'm happy to guide you unless Dr Junor can ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Gumtree is the older perhaps rural or suburban but pre 1987 universities, i.e., not - ex CAEs. They were set up as universities.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2717
COMMISSIONER JOHNS: Right. Yes?‑‑‑An example would be Macquarie but that wasn't the one where the survey was distributed.
PN2718
And then what's a red brick?‑‑‑A red brick and I've got red brick/sandstone. A red brick is, well, UNSW would be a red brick as opposed to Sydney which would be sandstone.
PN2719
Okay. That clarified it for me. Thank you.
PN2720
MR PILL: It's building material.
PN2721
COMMISSIONER JOHNS: But I didn't think that any of them were made out of gumtree.
PN2722
MR PILL: Maybe what they study perhaps?‑‑‑I think it's based on Simon Marginson's typology.
PN2723
And to be fair it's not actually a typology that's used widely in the sector, is it?‑‑‑No.
PN2724
No?‑‑‑No. It was current back in when I did the surveys. I think then superseded by more felicitous descriptions.
PN2725
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC: We now go for concrete universities.
PN2726
MR PILL: In the Cloud I think it is. Now, you produced a paper as a result of this; Casual University Work Choice Risk Inequity and the Case for Regulation?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2727
And it's fair to say, isn't it, that what you've produced here in section 3 is effectively a subset of that paper?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2728
And do you accept that paper heavily references the NTEU and what the NTEU did in various award cases in relation to regulation of academic staff in the higher education sector?‑‑‑If you go to page count, it's not my memory of it, that it would heavily reference.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2729
All right?‑‑‑It would obviously reference because that's what regulation consists of.
PN2730
Yes. No, Dr Junor, I have not done a page count?‑‑‑I'd certainly accept that it references. I'm not sure about the heavily part.
PN2731
All right. Thank you. Can I take you to page 11? So based on the survey, so this says, Typology of Casual Academic Survey Respondents?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2732
And we have here that typology down the left-hand side, the shorthand term?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2733
And a definition down the right-hand side?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2734
And then we have percentages, and they're percentages of those who responded, some 1300-odd?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2735
Who fell within that typology?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2736
And it's fair to say, based upon your research and your published article, that the first seven rows, so all but the last two, the first seven rows, that there's little overlap between those seven rows?‑‑‑That's right. There's overlap between that's there's certainly overlap between multiple part-time casual job holders and self-employed.
PN2737
Yes. I'll come to that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2738
Park the last two rows for the moment?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2739
As I understand your research there's very little overlap amongst the first seven rows?‑‑‑There's no overlap let me see. Let's say there's little overlap.
PN2740
Yes. And then if I look to the last two rows, those two categories, whilst ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes. Do overlap, yes.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2741
‑ ‑ ‑ mutually exclusive to each other are essentially spread across the other seven rows in the table? Because the percentages from top to bottom don't add up to 100 per cent. They add up to more than 100 per cent?‑‑‑No, they don't, because there's overlap. Yes, it was hard to draw out completely separate categories, and I discussed that methodology in the article. But, yes, exactly, they don't add up to 100 and they're not meant to because of the overlap.
PN2742
No. So based upon the discussion we've just had and the answers that you've given, if I ignore the last two rows for the moment, we essentially have separate percentages of people who fall into those categories with perhaps little overlap, I think was the term you used?‑‑‑Okay. Yes.
PN2743
And then the last two, whilst you're either a multiple part-time casual job holder or a casual academic only, they essentially are spread across the other categories? Dr Junor, I'll assist you, your paper ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Maybe not. Look, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to think back to I wish I had the documentation in front of me how it was done. There may have been further overlap. I just can't remember how I produced those. It was meant to be a typology not a type classification system.
PN2744
All right. Your paper references that the last two were distributed across the seven typology groups?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2745
Now, based upon that, is this right: that we have an academic apprentice, so there's someone who is enrolled in a post-graduate degree whilst they're doing their casual work, and they are seeking an academic career?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2746
So they're generally post-graduate students, or they are post-graduate students?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2747
And the second group, the industry professional practice, are also post-graduate students but their indication is they're seeking a career outside education?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2748
And so if I add those two together to start with, we have slightly in excess of 27 per cent as post-graduate students under those first two categories?‑‑‑Sorry, what was I didn't understand.
PN2749
That's all right. I'll withdraw the question. And then we have the next category, which is the third row, qualified academic job seeker. So this is someone who holds a higher degree already. They've done their PhD, and they have a preference to work full time or part time in academia. And there's 12 per cent of those?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2750
And then our next category outside industry experts, so these are persons who hold positions in industries other than education and they provide practitioner expertise?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2751
And so that's another 18.5 per cent. And then we have the next category cross-sectorial non-casual education worker. And, as their definition says, they hold a full-time position in a non-university education sector, mainly TAFE?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2752
And provide some university teaching as a sideline?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2753
So these are TAFE teachers by and large who are doing some academic casual work for a university; is that right?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2754
And there's about 6.2 per cent of those?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2755
And then we have the last two categories, persons who own their own business as a main or further source of income, and that's in addition to the casual job that they do for the university?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2756
And then lastly we have some retirees, unfortunately aged only over 54, but retirees aged over 54 and agree that as a retiree I like this work?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2757
All right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2758
And so if I exclude those last two categories for the moment and I exclude the 12 per cent, do you accept that we have 16.6 per cent academic apprentices, 10.6 per cent industry professional apprentices. They're all doing PhDs. We've got another 18 and-a-half per cent who are essentially industry experts, and I'll ignore the TAFE teachers for the moment. That all of those persons through their PhD and through their outside industry expertise would also be engaged in reviewing and reading articles?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2759
And keeping up-to-date in relation to areas in which they're doing their PhD or acting in their employment?‑‑‑Yes. The ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2760
Is that a yes, Dr Junor?‑‑‑Could you ask that question again, because it seems to have an implied assumption that they're teaching in the area where they're doing their PhD?
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2761
There was no implied assumption in my question. It was a very straight forward question?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2762
And that was that those persons would be keeping up-to-date in relation to the area in which they're doing their PhD or the area in which they're working as an outside industry expert?‑‑‑Well, I assume they're keeping up-to-date within their the area that they're doing their PhD. I can't be sure that they would be keeping up-to-date with industry developments.
PN2763
All right. You'd accept that the outside industry experts perhaps are keeping up with the industry developments?‑‑‑Well, one would certainly hope so because one would think that that was why they were brought into the university.
PN2764
Yes?‑‑‑But, I mean, it's an inference and an assumption that they're keeping up-to-date. I've got no basis for agreeing with you that they're keeping up-to-date.
PN2765
All right. Thank you. Now, over the page, can I go to page 12, and under the tables you give evidence that, and I'm reading the second sentence:
PN2766
Casual academics who wanted to have academic jobs in five years' time were evenly divided between a preference for ongoing casual academic work.
PN2767
And that's 30 per cent. And a non-casual university career 32 per cent?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN2768
So as I understand that approximately half of the casual academics who wanted to still be in academic jobs in five years' time had a preference for not being a casual, and approximately half of them had a preference for remaining, or undertaking ongoing casual academic work?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2769
Is that a fair short summary? All right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2770
Now, can I take you to page 15?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2771
And it's got some bar graphs there?‑‑‑Mm.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2772
And the heading is Figure 2 Casual Academic's Employment Duration in Current University. Do you recall what the survey question was that generated this information?‑‑‑The survey question was, "How long you have worked as a casual in your current university?" And it gave it actually gave the distributions that are listed in the key, so they nominated.
PN2773
So they had boxes to tick?‑‑‑One of those yes, yes, it was tick box.
PN2774
And that question, "How long have you worked as a casual in your current university?", how did it distinguish between whether that was continuous employment, or whether a respondent answering that question would simply reference when they first worked at the university until the current day?‑‑‑It didn't.
PN2775
All right. Now, over the page at 16, there's some evidence about estimates of casual academic earnings per semester. How long was a semester for the purposes of this calculation?‑‑‑It was 13 weeks and they listed all the activities that they did well, it was a session and it was all the activities performed during a period of engagement, a sessional period of engagement.
PN2776
Yes. In determining the figures did you take into account earnings such as PhD, stipends or scholarships?‑‑‑No.
PN2777
Did you take into account earnings from other employment?‑‑‑No.
PN2778
Now, over the page at table 8. I'm on page 17, table 8 and there's it's entitled Academic Survey Response Experiences of Integration and Skills Development?‑‑‑Mm.
PN2779
Can I just confirm, this is data from 2002 predominantly?‑‑‑Yes, 2002/3. Yes.
PN2780
And the integration there of well, withdraw that. The percentages that appear for casual academics were they similar to those for casual general staff members?‑‑‑Can you rephrase that question, please.
PN2781
I will repeat the question. The percentages that you see there for casual academics, were they similar to the percentages for general staff?‑‑‑I can't remember.
PN2782
All right. Now, as I read your biography some of your consultancy work has included making written submissions to this Commission in the equal remuneration case and into the insecure work in Australia, and that appears on page 24?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2783
And have been a witness on behalf of the ASU; is that right? In the Fair Work Commission equal rem case?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN2784
Yes. Now, can I take you to 4.2, and there's an introduction and overview, and about half-way through it says:
PN2785
It provides a conceptual basis for the argument that the proposal for a discipline currency allowance is a necessary but not sufficient safeguard of the professional quality and sustainability of casual academic teaching.
PN2786
?‑‑‑Could you please tell me the page number?
PN2787
I'm sorry, Dr Junor. Page 29?‑‑‑And which paragraph, sorry?
PN2788
I was starting at the first paragraph, mid-way through. It starts with the words, "It provides a conceptual basis"?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2789
Now, it's fair to say, isn't it, that this paper provides an argument that it's necessary to provide a discipline currency allowance to ensure the professional quality of casual academic teaching and standards of work in universities?‑‑‑Could I take you to pages 30 particularly page 37.
PN2790
I'm happy to go there. Before we do ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑The bottom of page 36 and 37, because that is, in fact, what the argument is leading to which is a slightly different wording from the wording that you just put to me, and I felt uncomfortable with that wording because it seemed to be re-interpreting what I've actually argued.
PN2791
Well, Dr Junor, that's why I was putting it to you as question to give you the opportunity to either agree with me or disagree with me ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes, sure.
PN2792
‑ ‑ ‑ that what your literature review does is seek to put an argument that it's necessary to provide a discipline currency allowance to ensure the professional quality of casual academic teaching and standards of work in universities?‑‑‑Yes, it provides a conceptual basis for making that argument. Yes.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2793
Well, and it goes further, doesn't it? It makes the argument?‑‑‑No, no, it provides a conceptual basis for it, and the argument that's actually made is on pages 36 and 37 quoting from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council benchmarking report which defined as unsustainable a situation in which professional development for sessional staff is absent or ad hoc and unpaid.
PN2794
Yes?‑‑‑And then on page 37 and over on to page 38 it argues that the lack of provision of disciplinary currency for what is now a majority of university teaching staff is - really puts at risk the whole process of the role of universities in creating communities of professional practice and accrediting them. And I guess what I'm the argument that I'm making is the argument that is the last two paragraphs of page 37 and over on to page 38.
PN2795
Yes. And the argument that you're making is effectively an argument to support a discipline currency payment?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2796
Yes. Would you accept that the document, whilst called literature review, and has elements of literature review, is actually in the form of an argument or a submission to support the claim that's been put by the NTEU?‑‑‑No. I would say it's a conceptual basis for making that argument.
PN2797
So your references in your previous two answers too, where you argue for it, would you like to reconsider those responses?‑‑‑I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
PN2798
It's all right. I'll withdraw the ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑What are putting to me?
PN2799
I'll withdraw the question. Now, professional discipline currency, we obviously have a number of professions and your paper references it goes back to 1933. I'm pleased to say that one of the five original learned professions was law. The others were medicine, academia, sometimes architecture and sometimes the clergy. And then at and I'm sorry, I'm on page 30. And then at the bottom of page 30 you talk about extending the professional status to a wider range of occupations?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2800
And you mention a number there. And will you accept that the concept of being current in your discipline also applies to other professions and professionals, so nurses. They need to maintain currency in their discipline?‑‑‑Yes. And I would further say that one of the ways in which that's done is the role of universities in contributing to the establishment of communities of professional practice, and accrediting such professional practice.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR XXN MR PILL
PN2801
Would those same comments also be true of teachers; they need to maintain professional discipline, currency and universities also play a role in that?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2802
And IT professionals?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2803
HR, human resources professionals?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2804
Other health workers?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2805
Psychologists?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2806
Early childhood education providers?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2807
Just bear with me one moment, Dr Junor. I have no further questions for this witness.
PN2808
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Thank you. Anything, Ms Pugsley?
PN2809
MS PUGSLEY: No, your Honour.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Ms Gale, re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE [11.18 AM]
PN2811
MS GALE: Professor Junor, can you hear me clearly?‑‑‑Yes, I can.
PN2812
You were taken to section 2 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2813
Which is pages 6 and 7?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2814
And you were asked how those statements fit within or related to the expert evidence that you've given?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2815
Could you explain how you say that this is part of your expert evidence?‑‑‑Certainly. Shall I work through them? For example, point 1, it is highly probable that the majority of academic staff employed under the award are casual hourly paid staff. So if you could refer to 4.2 ‑ ‑ ‑
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR RXN MS GALE
PN2816
I think, Dr Junor, that that sentence has been removed from your statement. You'll recall where were some redactions made?‑‑‑Okay. It's ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2817
The copy you're working from has not been redacted?‑‑‑No, it hasn't.
PN2818
If I can clarify quickly what is gone from section 2. The first sentence of paragraph 1 is no longer there?‑‑‑Right. That's a pity because I had quite a lot of evidence on that. Okay. So the second sentence is still there?
PN2819
Yes, casual employment plays a ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑A central role in university teaching and a key role.
PN2820
Yes?‑‑‑If you could okay. So if you could go to page 31.
PN2821
Yes. And that comes from - point comes from the literature review. Do I need to explain why a literature review is research or can we take it as read that people understand that ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2822
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: You can take it as read, Professor Junor, that the Bench is fully aware what a literature review is in this context?‑‑‑Right. It's a cross-referencing of empirical evidence to theory and the generation of further theory. Okay. Well, that was part of the evidence; a key role in teaching and assessment. It really does also go to pages 35 and 36. And the extent to which teaching is now undertaken in universities by sessional staff, 4.2.4 okay at page 35, 4.2.4.1, How casualised is the Australian university teaching workforce? There are figures in that section A and B which suggests that, in fact, the majority of teaching is undertaken by casuals and therefore it follows that just going back to the statement, casual employees play a central role in university teaching and assessment, particularly at under graduate levels.
PN2823
MS GALE: Yes?‑‑‑Okay. So sorry, I'm working so the second point:
PN2824
Academic teaching and assessment is a highly skilled professional occupation and the basis for the accreditation of other professionals.
PN2825
And that's on pages 30 to 32 where I go over the history of professions that we were just talking about.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR RXN MS GALE
PN2826
Yes?‑‑‑How it's based on the creation of communities of practice sharing codified and tacit knowledge, ethical standards and expert practice requires high levels of professional understanding in order to exercise judgement in assessment and accreditation work. It argues that we risk diluting professional standards if we fail to take advantage of practitioner casuals' practical knowledge and also to ensure that they have the depth of academic understanding to assess and guide student professional development. And on pages 32 to 33 I've tried to capture the tacit knowledge aspects of that work. And over on page 35 the risks inherent in relying on casual employment to create communities of professional practice if they are not maintaining disciplinary currency. Point 3:
PN2827
Only a small number of hourly paid casuals are genuinely casual.
PN2828
I would argue that most of the work is not intermittent or of short duration or to meet an occasional need. And that's discussed on pages 34 and 35. You will notice that I've brought up-to-date my own earlier research, and in case there are misgivings in people's minds that empirical research undertaken 10 years ago or more is no longer current that the other part of my research has been constantly to update the statistical evidence that I believe generated the circumstances in which casual employment is conducted, so that if that high percentage of casualisation has continued then the nature of casual work that flows from that has also continued, so that I would argue the ongoing currency of earlier findings. Now, where am I up to? That was the evidence on the fact that the work is not intermittent.
PN2829
Yes?‑‑‑Yes. So on pages 34 and 35 I make the point say yes, I use the diagram of types of work to illustrate the argument that aspects of hourly paid casual work by people engaged for a full session involves piece work in the sense that for each hour of teaching they need to do the work that enables them to both teach and assess in a manner that is consistent with professional currency and contributes to the maintenance of the currency of the profession into which they are inducting their students, and so they're there for the hour. They can't say, "Well, I only had time to really do enough reading to cover the first 10 minutes of this. Goodbye". So whatever they need to deliver by way of professional induction into a professional community of practice they have to do that background work in order to be to provide that professional currency. So that at the bottom of page 34 and over to page 35 they more or less have to self-exploit and do spill over work if they are going to contribute to the creation and maintenance of a community of professional practice.
PN2830
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Ms Gale, is it your intention that we go through every single paragraph on section 2? Is that the way you wish to continue this re-examination? If so, I'll take an adjournment now if that's what we're doing. You've asked an open question.
PN2831
MS GALE: I did ask an open question, your Honour.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR RXN MS GALE
PN2832
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: And I'm not sure where it's actually leading from my part.
PN2833
MS GALE: I hadn't anticipated quite this level of detail in response, but I did ask the question?‑‑‑Sorry, should I ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2834
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: No, no, Dr Junor, just ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2835
MS GALE: I suspect on that that we should adjourn.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: On that basis, we will take the adjournment now. The Commission is adjourned.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.29 AM]
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.29 AM]
RESUMED [11.56 AM]
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Yes, Professor Junor, you can continue. Please be seated.
<ANNE MERILYN JUNOR, RECALLED [11.57 AM]
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE, CONTINUING [11.57 AM]
PN2838
MS GALE: Professor Junor, before you resume, could I perhaps, just to be clear, take you to the other parts of section 2 which have been redacted so you know what's gone from the statement before you go any further through it. The paragraph numbered 5, which commences, "The unusual feature of". Sorry, this is all at section 2 on page 6. Section 2 on page 6?‑‑‑Sorry, I've actually misplaced the material.
PN2839
Take your time?‑‑‑I do apologise.
PN2840
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Sorry, Professor Junor, have you got any other material in front of you apart from your witness statement?‑‑‑Have I got any material apart from ‑ ‑ ‑
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR RXN MS GALE
PN2841
Have you got any other material in front you at the table apart from the witness statement?‑‑‑I have I wrote handwritten notes on the witness statement.
PN2842
Well, this is one of the problems of course when you ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑I shouldn't have done that?
PN2843
This is one of the problems, Ms Gale. We shouldn't be having witnesses you know, we assume the integrity of the system. In future if we're going to well, any witness now done by video I'm going to have to get you to ask the question whether they have any other material.
PN2844
MS GALE: Yes, your Honour.
PN2845
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Because it is inappropriate in a matter of this nature if there is other material there, and it is clear that this witness has other material in front of her. What I propose to do, in the circumstances of this case, and in this important part of re-examination, I think that we will make arrangements that there needs to be a copy without notes on it in front of the witness.
PN2846
MS GALE: Yes, your Honour.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: So we'll take an adjournment and as long as it takes we'll take. Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.59 AM]
SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.59 AM]
RESUMED [12.20 PM]
<ANNE MERILYN JUNOR, RECALLED [12.20 PM]
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE, CONTINUING [12.20 PM]
PN2848
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Ms Gale, just going forward, can we ensure, and this goes for all parties, from now on that only redacted statements are with witnesses.
PN2849
MS GALE: Yes, your Honour.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR RXN MS GALE
PN2850
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: If there's any difficulty we'll make the arrangements from the Commission's end.
PN2851
MS GALE: Thanks, your Honour. Professor Junor, can I confirm that you now have in front of you a copy of your redacted witness statement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2852
And that is all you have in front of you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2853
Thank you. The question you were answering related to section 2 of the statement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2854
And I've asked you to explain what you say is the link between those statements found at section 2 and your research evidence. I think you can take it as read that the Commissioners will have read your witness statement and you perhaps don't need to give as much detail as to what is found in the last section of your witness statement?‑‑‑Okay. I apologise for straying earlier. I think we were up to point 7, the nature of academic work, and the requirements of the employer; that there is an ethical and contractual obligation to be aware of significant policies. That really was covered in the cross-examination, and it does - it goes to section 1, pages 2 and 3. No, page 2, rather. Point 8, again, it goes ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2855
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Sorry, just so I'm following what you've just said, you've drawn our attention to page 2, your personal experience; is that what you ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2856
And you say on that page we can draw the conclusion in relation to paragraph 7?‑‑‑Yes, awareness of policies. Yes. Similarly for point 8 and point 9. So point 10, the nature of academic work, again, an ethical and contractual obligation to maintain adequately up-to-date knowledge. That's covered on page 36 where it's argued from the Percy report and the Blast material, that it's an unsustainable situation if professional development is absent or ad hoc and unpaid. It also is covered by table 8 on page 17 which indicates that there appears to be a lower incidents amongst casual academics than contract or continuing academics of attendance at conferences and seminars gaining useful performance feedback, even contact with other staff, and particularly inclusion in meetings and decision making processes. And the reason for that, one can infer, is that there has been no or very limited payment for such work, such disciplinary currency work.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR RXN MS GALE
PN2857
Sorry, Professor Junor, can I just understand what you're drawing your attention to? Again, on page 17, you're drawing attention to the fact that we can draw from the table that payments have an impact on included in meetings and decision making processes, are you?‑‑‑Yes, I am, because paid attendance is required and certainly university support for attendance and at conferences and seminars. For example in ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2858
Can you just answer my question, Professor Junor, please?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2859
I've asked you one question only, which is limited to one part of the table?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2860
And your representative can re-examine on this question if they wish to, and I'm trying to understand, because we, as the Bench, have to understand your evidence and it's precise nature of it?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2861
Right?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2862
Amongst all the other experts that we are given in this matter, and I've asked you only about one of the points in table 8, which is, you are saying that included in meetings and decision making processes is linked to the claim for a discipline currency payment; is that what you are saying? Is that your evidence?‑‑‑Yes. I shouldn't explain why?
PN2863
It's a matter for your advisor. You've answered my question?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2864
MS GALE: So Professor Junor, I think you have taken us as far as 10, 11 and 12; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes. I'd like to correct my previous statement though. The meetings and decision making processes is not part of disciplinary currency. It's performance feedback and attendance at conferences and seminars are the two items that contribute to disciplinary currency.
PN2865
So those are the two items in table 8 that you would draw attention to?‑‑‑That's correct. Yes.
PN2866
Thank you?‑‑‑Shall we go to point 14 because 11, 12 and 13 are fairly, I think, self-evident. Although in point 13 I didn't offer an estimate of time. So point 14, the amount of time required to maintain disciplinary currency, and there's an example provided there. Now, from I'm sorry, because I wrote my report without because it was just my structure of a report and it doesn't I'm finding it hard to align it with the specific points on page 7. I'm sorry, you'll have to bear with me because I'm having to do the cross-referencing again. Okay. At page 37, and the quote from May goes to point 14. Okay. Point 15, again it's the literature review material from pages 30 to 35.
*** ANNE MERILYN JUNOR RXN MS GALE
PN2867
Yes?‑‑‑And page sorry, point 16, I don't have specific evidence on that. It follows from point 14.
PN2868
Thank you. So if I can just summarise what you've said. You've said that paragraphs ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2869
MR PILL: Well, I was going to object to that.
PN2870
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Well, yes. Ms Gale, that can't be done.
PN2871
MS GALE: Thank you. No further questions.
PN2872
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Mr Pill, Ms Pugsley, given the unusual circumstances that have occurred, do either of you need to ask any additional questions?
PN2873
MR PILL: No, your Honour.
PN2874
MS PUGSLEY: No, your Honour.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Thank you, Professor Junor, you're excused?‑‑‑Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.32 PM]
PN2876
MS GALE: Your Honour, I do wish to state for the record that Professor Junor had been provided with the redacted version of her witness statement, and that the NTEU will make sure that no similar error occurs with our further witnesses. The next witness that we seek to call is Professor Phil Andrews.
PN2877
THE ASSOCIATE: State your full name and address, please.
PROF ANDREWS: Philip Craig Andrews (address supplied).
<PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS, AFFIRMED [12.34 PM]
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE [12.34 PM]
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XN MS GALE
PN2879
MS GALE: Thank you. Professor Andrews, could you state your name and address again for the record, please?‑‑‑Yes, I am Philip Craig Andrews (address supplied).
PN2880
Thank you. And you have prepared three statements for these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I did.
PN2881
Okay. Do you have a copy of those statements with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN2882
Can I just check that that's all you have with you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2883
Thank you. The first of those statements of 11 March is entitled Witness Statement Professor Phil Andrews. Do you have that one in front of you?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2884
Do you have any corrections or updates to make to that statement?‑‑‑I noticed in a subsequent version relating to paragraph 13 that there are clearly some comments redacted.
PN2885
So you have the redacted version in front of you?‑‑‑I have the redacted version in front of me and reading it it doesn't seem to make any sense. I just want to point out ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2886
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Which paragraph?‑‑‑Thirteen, sorry.
PN2887
MS GALE: Thirteen. Yes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2888
So you do wish to make any amendments to how it now reads?‑‑‑So rather than add words, just the content at the moment seems to imply that it's the common topic of conversation would be about the collegial process that transpired in setting the relative equity. A comment that was redacted was really comments relating to workload and over work. And I think the way this was phrased caused some problems, but I'd just like to make it clear that it was that the common topic of conversation is really about workload and not about the collegial process or the transparency and the equity.
PN2889
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Ms Gale, we're going to have to make sure when a witness comes into the witness box going forward that they understand what is actually being redacted in consultation prior to the matter. We can't have the redacted material then coming back through the back door.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XN MS GALE
PN2890
MS GALE: Yes, your Honour.
PN2891
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: And that's what it looks like is now happening, Ms Gale.
PN2892
MS GALE: I understand, your Honour. However, the process of redaction has changed the apparent meaning of the related words, your Honour.
PN2893
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Then it may have to be that you strike out entire paragraphs rather than give us paragraphs that don't work with the witness. I mean, in the normal course when a paragraph is redacted making that concession one at least can consult with their witness prior to them going into the witness box to make sure that they are comfortable with what has happened in the redaction.
PN2894
MS GALE: Yes, your Honour. Are there any other corrections you would seek?
PN2895
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Well, what are we going to do about this paragraph?
PN2896
MS GALE: I'm sorry.
PN2897
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Because at the moment we have a paragraph which is now half there and it seems to me the preference would be to strike out the answer that has been given in relation to paragraph 13 from the transcript.
PN2898
MS GALE: Yes, your Honour.
PN2899
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: And strike out perhaps the entire paragraph 13, given that the witness is saying it doesn't make sense as currently put.
PN2900
MS GALE: Yes, your Honour.
PN2901
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: All right. We'll have the record strike out the witness' answers in relation to paragraph 13 and paragraph 13 will be struck from the record.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XN MS GALE
PN2902
MS GALE: Professor Andrews, do you have any other corrections?‑‑‑Yes. Just to update on a couple of things, if it's of interest, on page 6. In paragraph 18 I had made the comment that the school of chemistry had proposed the creation of three new teaching and research academic positions. This was in relation and attempts to manage increasing student numbers and workload, and it makes the comment that the Dean of Science had refused those appointments. Just to update that the Dean of Science has since moved on and the school of chemistry has been successful in having two 10 year long research fellows who have been on government research grants converted to continue in the positions within the school. So it's no longer the case that those three appointments were blocked.
PN2903
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: So in relation to your statement, which is what we have in front of us, for the record, you wish to delete the last sentence of paragraph 18?‑‑‑It can be deleted because it's well, it's technically true that the Dean did block the appointments. We've since managed to improve the situation.
PN2904
Yes. Okay?‑‑‑On page 13, just for clarity, in paragraph number 40, I had made the comment in making the statement:
PN2905
One day a week I leave work at 2.30 pm to take my daughter swimming and then catch up with work in the evening.
PN2906
I have to say that that no longer happens. I no longer have the time to leave on a Thursday afternoon at 2.30 in the afternoon since taking over as deputy head of school.
PN2907
MS GALE: So you would ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑My duties have significantly increased and so that is no longer possible, and so it's no longer a true statement. I would just like to make sure that that's understood.
PN2908
So you'd delete that one sentence; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2909
With those changes ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2910
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Sorry, Ms Gale.
PN2911
MS GALE: I'm sorry.
PN2912
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Does not the second sentence also have to be deleted?
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XN MS GALE
PN2913
There is sufficient flexibility in the organisation working hours to allow this.
PN2914
And the "allow this" is the swimming?
PN2915
MS GALE: I think it also refers to the previous sentence though, your Honour.
PN2916
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Yes. All right. Along as we're clear on what it actually refers to.
PN2917
MS GALE: With those changes, do you adopt this as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2918
And do you say that it is true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2919
Thank you. If I could have the first witness statement marked, your Honour?
PN2920
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Exhibit P. Any objections, Mr Pill or Ms Pugsley?
PN2921
MR PILL: No, your Honour.
MS PUGSLEY: No.
EXHIBIT #P WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS
PN2923
MS GALE: If we can turn to your second statement, Professor Andrews, which is titled Supplementary Witness Statement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2924
And I think it's lodged on 18 March. And that has a number of attachments?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2925
Do you have any changes you need to make to that statement?‑‑‑No.
PN2926
Okay. Do you say that it is true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XN MS GALE
PN2927
Do you adopt it as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2928
I tender that statement, your Honour.
PN2929
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Exhibit Q. Any objections, Mr Pill or Ms Pugsley?
MR PILL: No.
EXHIBIT #Q SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS
PN2931
MS GALE: And your third statement, Professor Andrews, entitled Further Supplementary Witness Statement, you have a copy of that in front of you? That's one page, so it might be right at the back of the bundle?‑‑‑No, I don't, sorry.
PN2932
No? If the witness can be ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Thank you. Yes, I remember.
PN2933
And do you have any changes you need to make to that statement?‑‑‑No.
PN2934
Do you say that it is true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2935
Do you adopt that as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2936
I tender that statement, your Honour.
PN2937
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Any objections, Mr Pill, Ms Pugsley?
PN2938
MS PUGSLEY: No.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Exhibit R.
EXHIBIT #R FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS
PN2940
MS GALE: No further questions.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XN MS GALE
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Mr Pill?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL [12.43 PM]
PN2942
MR PILL: Thank you, your Honour. Professor Andrews, I represent a number of universities in this proceedings including Monash University?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2943
Can I just check, your third statement that you just read in the witness box, when you say you remember, this is a statement that you prepared previously?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2944
Now, in terms of your employment you commenced at the university in 1995 as a research fellow?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2945
Under a Queen Elizabeth II research fellowship; is that right?‑‑‑No, as a post-doctoral research fellow.
PN2946
And was it subsequently that you obtained the QEII fellowship?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2947
And when was that?‑‑‑Nineteen ninety-seven it was awarded.
PN2948
And how long did that run until?‑‑‑Five years.
PN2949
Five years?‑‑‑Until in 2002.
PN2950
All right. And then you became a lecturer teaching in research academics in January 2004?‑‑‑Two thousand and four, yes.
PN2951
And you've been promoted a number of times since then?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2952
You just need to verbalise it, sorry, for the record?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN2953
And that included well, when were you appointed as senior lecturer, do you recall?‑‑‑From memory, 2007, I think. I think that's pretty accurate.
PN2954
And then on 1 January 2008 you were appointed an Associate Professor, a level D?‑‑‑No.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN2955
No. In that you weren't appointed a level D, or I've got the date wrong?‑‑‑Level D sorry, yes, I am. Yes. Sorry, I'm thinking 2012 is when I was appointed to level E.
PN2956
So level E, professorial level?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2957
So you were appointed as a full professor with effect from?‑‑‑2012 I think, or 2013.
PN2958
Okay. It might be 1 January 2013?‑‑‑Something like that, yes.
PN2959
Okay. All right. Now, in terms of your promotions you were successful in promotion on each occasion?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2960
Now, and it's fair to say that to achieve promotion you were undertaking activities and producing outputs that exceeded that for the level that you were promoted from?‑‑‑That's normally how academic promotions works. It's solely a performance based activity. There is an expectation that the level you're promoted into is one you would already be meeting and would be expected to operate at, yes.
PN2961
So if I've understood that correctly you agree with the proposition I put?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2962
Yes. All right. Now, your evidence is that you are currently working an average of 50 hours a week. Some weeks are heavy, some are not?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2963
But that:
PN2964
There's no part of the year I work as little as a standard 38 or 40 hour week.
PN2965
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2966
Yes. And perhaps whilst we're there, up until you took the deputy head of school role, it's the case that you were leaving work one day a week at 2.30 pm to take your daughter swimming?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN2967
And also three days a week you arrived at work at 9 o'clock because you do school drop off?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
PN2968
Now, those hours that you're doing there, the work that you're doing, have your hours increased as you've become a more senior academic?‑‑‑I would say the intensity of the work has increased. The hours I've had to try and manage. Now, having two young children, I simply can't spend the number of hours that I would have previously done, particularly in the early point of my career that I do now. I think I've become much more efficient in my work. There's a lot more delegation involved in the work. So I think previously, if I say an average of 50 hours that would be lower than I would normally have anticipated working in previous years before. It really changed when the kids came along rather than any change in work function or work pattern.
PN2969
And can I ask when that was?‑‑‑So Rachel was born in 2008 and 2012, and that's definitely 2012.
PN2970
And the year of your marriage, Professor?‑‑‑Not married. Not married.
PN2971
I'll withdraw the question. Now, you're also the deputy head of school?‑‑‑I am, yes.
PN2972
And that's an additional appointment over and above being a professor?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.
PN2973
And you receive a separate additional heads allowance?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN2974
Fifteen thousand dollars per annum?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.
PN2975
And that's in addition to your salary as a professor?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2976
Which is approximately $170,000 under the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑I believe so, yes.
PN2977
And together with 17 per cent super?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2978
And so that's a package which is slightly in excess of $200,000?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN2979
Now, in terms of you're a PhD supervisor of six?‑‑‑Currently, yes, I am.
PN2980
And are you the sole supervisor, are you co-supervisor?‑‑‑No, Monash has a system of supervision now that every PhD student has to be jointly or co-supervised, so we no longer have a situation where an academic staff member will be a sole supervisor of a PhD student. We do however have main supervisors who are ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2981
Sorry, is that main, was it, sorry?‑‑‑Main supervisor.
PN2982
Yes?‑‑‑Then you will have co-supervisor and joint supervisor. But the main supervisor is expected to carry the burden of the work.
PN2983
All right. And in terms of your six, can you just identify if you're the main supervisor for all six or are you ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Those six PhD students I'm the main supervisor.
PN2984
Right?‑‑‑Ranging in contribution, supervisory contribution from 80 per cent, down to 60 per cent.
PN2985
And some of your colleagues, one or more, pick up the other percentage?‑‑‑Yes. We generally bring in co or joint supervisors primarily not primarily because it's a requirement, but because they bring added expertise to the project.
PN2986
But it is actually a requirement, if I understood your answer before?‑‑‑Yes, it's an actual requirement.
PN2987
Yes. All right. And in part of your evidence you indicate that under the workload model there's an allocation of two hours a week teaching time to PhD students that you supervise?‑‑‑That is a guideline that came out from the Monash graduate institute several years ago when they attempted to quantify supervisory requirements for PhD students. So it was an attempt, when Max King was the pro vice-chancellor graduate studies, to try and quantify the level of engagement expected of a supervisor of a graduate student. I think at the end of a consultation process the initial expectation came out around about five hours. That was completely unworkable. And the expectation dropped to a recommended two hours per week that you should try and spend per PhD student.
PN2988
And is that, if you're the main supervisor, is allocated to you or did you get that 80 per cent of the two hours?‑‑‑You can negotiate that with an alternate.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN2989
So in terms of the workload allocation for you in relation to these six, how many hours is that?‑‑‑Well, technically it would be 12 hours at the six times two hours per week.
PN2990
Right?‑‑‑However, two hours manifests itself as, in various guises. We have weekly research group meetings which will take a couple of hours, and where students present. In my calendar, because I often get tied up with administrative duties and other duties, I schedule weekly meetings with all my PhD students of at least half an hour. We have normally in the evenings because a lot of PhD students will work through to 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening, before I go home I tend to have a wrap discussion around the lab, and most evenings a discussion with the students before I go home or they go home. So ‑ ‑ ‑
PN2991
Do you sit down with all six every week at the Uni?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, I do.
PN2992
Right. And if I've done the maths correctly, and I appreciate I'm talking to a professor of science, but we have at least notionally two hours times six times 50 or 48 weeks of the year, but it's approximately 600 hours for the year?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2993
Across your six PhD students?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2994
Right. And as I understand your evidence in your discipline the PhD students have to be part of the research project; correct?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2995
Yes. Thank you. And as part of that you will often co-author all of the publications with the PhD students?‑‑‑Yes, in science, and it's common in engineering science and medicine that co-authorship is common. Because the supervisors are in control of gaining the research funding that allows the research to continue or to be developed that the project ideas, some of the background IP, the core development through discussions, almost all publications will be co-author publications between the student and the supervisor. And I know that's not the case in some other disciplines.
PN2996
And in your discipline do you know how many publications you've co-authored with your PhD students?‑‑‑Within a certain timeframe or in entirety?
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN2997
We can take it in turns. So in total at your time at Monash?‑‑‑Almost all publications will be co-authored. Research publications will be co-authored with a PhD student who's engaged one or more PhD students engaged on the work. And the exception to that would be where you have to write review articles or you write the reviews and responses to published work. And I would say I'm trying to estimate. I published over 130 scientific articles in the literature. Since about 2004 there would that would be probably in the range of 90 to 100 of those articles.
PN2998
So since 2004?‑‑‑Yes.
PN2999
And you've mentioned you were drawing a distinction between review articles and other articles?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3000
In the case of the review articles, is it the case that you would be the author and not the PhD student, or was it the other way around?‑‑‑The let me just draw a distinction there, is that principally in the sciences and similarly engineering and medicine there is a requirement, and it comes through the funding bodies and comes through the journals that you take responsibility for the published work.
PN3001
Yes?‑‑‑Somebody has to be legally responsible for what's published, and that tends to be the supervisor. And if you look at a scientific journal, it will have a little star next to the name. The PhD students are normally not credited as the principal author. There are various ways of identifying the person who's done the majority of the work, usually done by putting their name in the first of the list of authors, so it's immediately recognisable who has done the work. The supervisor will go last in that list. When it comes to review articles I think it's just and right that if a PhD student has been involved in the article writing then it'll be recognised. That's quite clear and that happens quite regularly. If it's a single author publication then that's not going to happen.
PN3002
Yes?‑‑‑But normally as principal supervisor or a CI chief investigator on the grant, you will take responsibility for the published work and that means you will be identified as the lead author. Yes.
PN3003
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Is that a convenient time to adjourn, Mr Pill?
PN3004
MR PILL: Yes, your Honour.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: The Commission will adjourn till 2 o'clock.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.57 PM]
LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.57 PM]
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
RESUMED [2.17 PM]
<PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS, RECALLED [2.17 PM]
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL, CONTINUING [2.17 PM]
PN3006
MR PILL: Professor Andrews, just before we broke I was asking you some questions about PhD supervision?‑‑‑Mm-hm.
PN3007
Can you tell the Commission how it came to be that you were the main PhD supervisor of the six students that you were currently supervising? Did they approach you? Did you approach them? How did it come to be that you become the PhD supervisor?‑‑‑Yes, often it's a very complicated process. Internally domestic PhD students have the track record of finding supervisors very early on from within the school. The international students apply through an expression of interest process by which they essentially online will look up what your research interests are, what your research impacts are, what your areas of interest are and will make an application. Sometimes that can either be independently through the university process, and then you're notified of somebody expressing an interest in supervisor, or they will contact you directly. If they contact you directly, and there is some interest you can then guide them towards the official university application process. The domestic students tend to be within school and on the basis of reputation and on the basis of your research, so it's about knowing who are good and bad supervisors and also the area of research. The international ones primarily are based on research topic.
PN3008
And so is there generally some alignment between your research expertise background and that that the PhD student is going to be undertaken by the student?‑‑‑Well, the student has to be in a common area, so they have to have had the background to qualify them for doing the PhD in chemistry which is what I do.
PN3009
Yes?‑‑‑And they will then apply. They supply all their documentation, history, qualifications, background, interest, whether they've published in an area, undertaken research before. And then there is an initial screening based on the qualifications by the university and then you can then make a determination on whether you think this student is appropriate for your research group and whether you will support their application for a scholarship. And that's essentially how it happens. And then they go through an application process.
PN3010
Thank you. Can I just ask you some questions about contact hours?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3011
And at paragraph 11 of your first statement you give some general evidence about contact hours?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3012
I'll just let you turn to that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3013
You say:
PN3014
Generally contact teaching hours for teaching and research staff range from 38 to 55 lectures per year and 40 to 110 demonstrating hours in the laboratory.
PN3015
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3016
Just a few questions about that. Is it fair to say that these are contact hours that generally fall within the two semester periods, the teaching periods?‑‑‑So the full contact lecture hours will be spread over both semesters.
PN3017
And they're ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑The laboratory total contact hours as well are spread over both semesters, so they're not simply during one semester.
PN3018
And they're two 13 week semesters at Monash?‑‑‑Two the semester teaching semester runs for 12 weeks, and there is what used to be called swap back, but now there's a break before the exam period. The exam period runs for four weeks, and then there's an examiner's period which runs for about a week after that where all the assessment is collated and grades are finalised.
PN3019
And so just to check I've understood that, the 38 to 55 is the total over those two teaching blocks?‑‑‑That's correct.
PN3020
Of 24 weeks in total?‑‑‑That's correct. Yes.
PN3021
And similarly the 40 to 110 demonstrating hours, that's the total across the year, but falling within those two semesters?‑‑‑Two semesters, yes.
PN3022
Yes?‑‑‑And this only refers to under graduate teaching in the units that we are allocated teaching within.
PN3023
Yes?‑‑‑I think there is one of the appendices gives a significant breakdown in how those hours are managed and collated.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3024
All right. I'll might come back to that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3025
And is it the case that if I'm a reaching research staff member I'm doing lectures and I'm also doing demonstrating?‑‑‑It's policy within the school of chemistry, and generally within the science faculty, if you teach into any particular unit, which is a standalone subject, you must do the laboratory demonstrating coincident with lecture teaching.
PN3026
Yes?‑‑‑And that's an expectation, a pedagogical expectation.
PN3027
And this range that you have that you have here, range from 38 to 55, is it the case that in science there are some staff who are more teaching intense?‑‑‑There are very few teaching intensive staff in science. In our school in chemistry we have two, what we call, education focused staff. Monash calls them education focus that staff, so while they can be considered teaching staff, they're considered - it really encompasses education plus a notion of scholarship and research, so it's not just a question of teaching, there's also a question of scholarship as well. So we call them education focused. In chemistry and they're I don't know the exact numbers, but I would say probably three across three others across the science faculty.
PN3028
And from the answer that you've given that's a smaller number than in other faculties in other disciplines, is it?‑‑‑Monash as a total, and I'll try not to make a terrible guess at this, but the last numbers I saw was around 110 education focused staff appointed within that category and they would be distributed amongst the various faculties, yes.
PN3029
There's five faculties?‑‑‑Sorry?
PN3030
Five faculties at Monash?‑‑‑Nine faculties, I think.
PN3031
Nine?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3032
Okay. And to be clear the education focused are continuing academic staff members?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3033
But rather than having a full research focus they have a focus on teaching in the pedagogue year of teaching and scholarship?‑‑‑Yes. They're appointed as teaching and research academics because there is no category of employment under the agreement that captures education focused staff, so they're employed as teaching and research. They negotiate the weighting, so it can be anywhere from 60 per cent teaching to 40 per cent research, 20 research 20 admin. Anywhere up to an expectation of 80 per cent teaching, but there has to be space and it's about 20 per cent for scholarship and research.
PN3034
And that compares with your traditional 40/40/20 teaching and research academics?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.
PN3035
And whilst we talk 40/40/20 the actual percentage really varies from each individual?‑‑‑It doesn't vary much because the variation from the 40/40/20 is supposed to be a function of the performance management system. Discussions at the start of every year will base around workload; workload requirement based on the range of duties. Any deviation from the 40/40/20 is normally negotiated through that process but most, if not all, will largely find themselves within a small margin of error within those percentages.
PN3036
Thank you. And do you have any knowledge of whether, if I'm a teaching sorry, can I clarify, your evidence at paragraph 11, is that for the school of chemistry or is that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That's only the school of chemistry.
PN3037
All right?‑‑‑I can't speak to anybody else's workload distribution.
PN3038
All right. And do you know whether there is any correlation between high numbers of lectures and high numbers of demonstrating hours?‑‑‑There has to be a correlation. If you teach into more units and you teach more lectures, there tends to be a standard set number of demonstrator hours that you'll be required to do. So when I talk demonstrators it's senior demonstrators. It's an academic supervision of a laboratory program. There is an attempt to because just to clarify, those are four teaching blocks in an afternoon, and they can take up a substantial amount of time at any one week of a period, and therefore to try to minimise the impact across the week of any individual academic's requirement to be in a laboratory sometimes that can vary based on other work requirements, but often there is a correlation.
PN3039
All right. And so the 40 to 110 that's hours, but it's in relation to demonstration that will typically have a four hour block?‑‑‑They're in four hour blocks.
PN3040
Yes. All right?‑‑‑And they're direct contact, so you're physically located in the laboratory.
PN3041
Physically in the lab?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3042
Now, your evidence is that you use a lot of PhD students to help conduct this demonstrating?‑‑‑Yes. That's true.
PN3043
One hundred and sixty-five of them is your evidence here?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3044
Is there any preparatory work that the demonstrators have to do for the particular lab, or is it predominantly done in the lab when you're demonstrating?‑‑‑No, the demonstrators undergo induction training for which they're paid of course, which is normally a one day requirement. There is a general approach to pedagogy, health and safety, assessment regimes, and there will be additional program that the school of chemistry will run which will rely on the specific knowledge which relates to the units in which those students we'd be teaching and so it's at least one day.
PN3045
And then having done that, if I'm a PhD student, and I might do a couple of labs, do my eight hours, it's predominantly in the lab work that I'm doing?‑‑‑The direct face-to-face is in the laboratory.
PN3046
Yes?‑‑‑Working with the students. The marking doesn't take place in the laboratory, and the consultation follow up doesn't take place in the laboratory.
PN3047
The PhD students, they've been engaged casually to undertake this demonstrating work?‑‑‑Yes. So yes, they're known as teaching associates, the sessional staff.
PN3048
Teaching associates. And they're paid for that marking?‑‑‑Yes, paid for the marking.
PN3049
Now, you give evidence at the start of your statement that you directly supervise a level this is paragraph 3?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3050
A level A grant funded post-doctoral staff member, and as part of the performance development process and responsible for the performance reviews for about six level B and C academic staff in the school?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3051
And in terms of the difference between what you're referring to there with directly supervising your level A, and being the performance ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Supervisor.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3052
‑ ‑ ‑ supervisor for the performance development process, just explain why you're using the distinction there?‑‑‑So the distinction is that level A grant appointed staff, unless, for example, you get a significant Australian research discovery grant, you will have applied for money for a post-doctoral research fellow as part of that. If you're lucky enough to be awarded, you can then appoint a level A research associate who then conducts research in the lab, so they're directly part of your research team. You have supervisor responsibilities and often the performance management of those staff are directly under your control. An indicator of satisfactory performance is often contract renewal, so the vast majority of level A staff are appointed on 12 months contracts for these research only staff, renewed after 12 months. If they're renewed after 12 months that's normally an indication of satisfactory performance. The B and C staff are under my performance management process, teaching and research academics, tenured academics, who have independent research money, independent research careers, and I simply look after them as part of the performance development process. So their engagement in teaching, their engagement in research, their aspirations to do greater and greater things comes under my purview. Yes.
PN3053
And when you say you look after them, it's predominantly ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑The level A or the level B and C?
PN3054
Sorry, I'm just talking about Bs and Cs now?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN3055
You're not managing them in the same way as you're managing the level A?‑‑‑Yes. That's correct.
PN3056
You're predominantly conducting an annual performance review?‑‑‑Performance review. Yes, that's true.
PN3057
And it'd be fair to say you could actually go some significant time without even seeing some of the Bs and Cs that you might supervise?‑‑‑I see them every day.
PN3058
You see them every day?‑‑‑Yes, I do.
PN3059
But you're not managing them every day?‑‑‑I don't manage them, no.
PN3060
No?‑‑‑What they do, once their teaching is allocated, and what they do in their research is up to them.
PN3061
Yes?‑‑‑How their performance is managed within those rules is what comes under scrutiny as part of the performance development process.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3062
Yes?‑‑‑And that's oversight of a more senior staff member trained to undertake the performance reviews.
PN3063
Yes. Monash provides training for its supervisors?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
PN3064
And that process, that performance development process that you refer to, would you agree with this, that the staff member initially fills in the annual review document and planning document?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3065
And then the supervisor will look at that and there will be at least one meeting but possibly more, but generally one meeting where there will be a discussion about that?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
PN3066
And then, having done that, there will be agreement about what they're seeking to achieve in terms of their career aspirations over the next three years?‑‑‑Yes, one would hope.
PN3067
One would hope?‑‑‑One would hope.
PN3068
And you say that because some staff don't participate in this process?‑‑‑No. Well, I think you know Monash quite well, and it's been significant attention from a senior manager has been spent over many years about how well and effective the performance management system is at Monash. It's underwent various guises trying to find the best one, and I think management of academics has been a vexed issue for a long time. I don't think anybody at Monash would say the system was absolutely perfect but I think when people engage in the system in the way it's supposed to run it can be an effective process.
PN3069
And part of the discussion, particularly about planning for the next three year period includes discussing their personal circumstances. So I need you to would you agree that it includes personal circumstances?‑‑‑If it's relevant, yes.
PN3070
Yes. And so for example, have to use your imagination here, but if I was about to go off and have a child, I was going to be absent on maternity leave for a period of time that would be part of my three year plan to take into account?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3071
And there's actually formal principles about achievement relative to opportunity?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3072
There would also be discussion about developmental programs that could undertaken?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3073
Whether I might go on the outside studies program and pursue that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3074
And then having gone through that process there's a plan that's signed off by the supervisor and the staff member, in a figurative sense. It's online as I understand it?‑‑‑It's online, but there is a tacit agreement once the discussion is held.
PN3075
Yes?‑‑‑If both parties agree then it's accepted as being agreed. The process at Monash means the supervisor responds to the comments that the staff puts in. Those comments are then sent back to the staff member. The staff member will accept or reject the comments. If they reject them then there has to be a disputation process. But normally they're accepted. Hopefully it's a negotiated outcome. And the one thing you did miss of course is that the performance management process is often most important for promotion prospects.
PN3076
Yes. So there might be discussions about a promotion trajectory?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3077
And then, having done that, you get to the end of the year and that process goes over again?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3078
And the process you've just described I'll withdraw that. In terms of the allocation of teaching that occurs separately but running alongside that process?‑‑‑It occurs separately and you could argue that allocation of teaching is somewhat under the current system based on requirements and need. Negotiation of your load is a part of the performance management process, so while they inform each other they're not necessarily the same process.
PN3079
And it's the case, isn't it, then under the enterprise agreement there's actually separate clauses for the performance development and the workload allocation process?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3080
But the two do intersect and the product of the performance development process includes essentially some indication as to what they'll be doing over the next year and the next three years?‑‑‑Yes, I think what - ideally that would certainly be the process.
PN3081
All right. Now, in terms of you give some evidence about recent changes to promotion and you give that evidence ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3082
I'll just take you to it. You give that evidence at 25. And I'm para-phrasing?‑‑‑Yes. No.
PN3083
And tell me if you don't agree, but traditionally there's been a greater emphasis on research expertise or research standing and research output in promotion than there has been on school educational excellence?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN3084
And part of the change now is to put some greater emphasis on demonstrated expertise and excellence in education?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3085
And do you accept that part of that is because there has been a move towards career paths for those who may excel in teaching but who may not wish to or indeed may not just be good at researching?‑‑‑Yes, I think that's a fair summary. Yes.
PN3086
And it's the case, isn't it, that these changes will provide a better career path and great access to promotion to those who are good teachers but perhaps not great researchers?‑‑‑I believe that's the intention, yes.
PN3087
Is it fair to say from reading your statement that your personal preference as an academic is to focus on research rather than on teaching?‑‑‑Are you talking to my personal preference or my opinion of the process?
PN3088
Your preference. Your personal preference?‑‑‑I'm first and first and foremost I see myself as a scientific researcher, but I've had a long standing interest in education, teaching, and the impact on students, the pedagogy innovative practice in teaching which meant, from 20006, I took over coordination of the first year cohort. I've been engaged with our Malaysian campus in developing new programs and degrees and I was associate head of education in the school for five years. And so while I see myself principally as a discipline researcher I have a very strong interest in the educational practices of the school and the university.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3089
And if you had to choose between conducting your self-directed research and undertaking allocated teaching, it'd be fair to say you'd prefer to be researching?‑‑‑I don't think I'd like to be given that choice. I like both, but as you hinted at, at the start, delving into the whole area of the bias in promotion process is where Monash is a research intensive university, A lot of kudos in international standing is based on its research outputs and its research standing. I think it would be fair to say that there has been consistent and historical bias towards research capability and outcomes rather than educational practices. I think that balance is shifting. Probably not as fast and as deep as some people would like, but certainly I think the university is now on a trajectory where it takes the education and welfare of students, they consider it much greater, and the impact of that much more than they used to in the past. And I think that has come to reflect on the expectations of staff within that domain as well.
PN3090
Now, can I ask about conferences?‑‑‑Yes, of course.
PN3091
And you give this evidence partly at 33 on page 11. And you talk about that there are two peak periods of conferences?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3092
The majority of European, UK and US conferences held in July or August. The majority of Australia conferences held in late November and early December. Now, as I understand it, you're actually off to a conference in Budapest shortly?‑‑‑You're well informed.
PN3093
And it's part of the reason why you're here today?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3094
Because you were scheduled to give evidence in this proceeding in late August/early September, but I understand part of the reason you're here today is you're off to Budapest?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3095
Are you speaking at that conference?‑‑‑Yes, I am.
PN3096
And in terms of how it came to be that you are going to that conference, is that something you were directed to do?‑‑‑No, no, the majority of conference participation I think is seen as an aspect of your academic work. I'm sure, as I understand and perhaps others don't, Monash for many years has certainly sold itself as an international university. It has a very strong sense of its international standing. It creates a strong ethos amongst its researchers that they are seen on an international stage. They are seen to be Monash University researchers presenting on an international stage, and therefore conference attendance is something which, I believe, is considered part and parcel of the standard academic work these days.
PN3097
And it may often mean an international conference?‑‑‑The international conferences have the greater impact than the national conferences, but certainly propagating your research at either is seen as a necessity I think.
PN3098
And how often would you attend conferences?‑‑‑Normally two to three times a year.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3099
And approximate time? Is that a week is that?‑‑‑Yes, so normally the conferences will run for five days, and two days either side travelling. When we and I think this would be relatively normal for my colleagues as well as myself, if we take the time to travel to Europe, and we normally don't go to a conference and come back.
PN3100
Yes?‑‑‑There will be visits to other universities; there will be seminars; there might be satellite meetings. So, for example, I'm going to be in Budapest at the end of August, beginning of September, but as part of that I'll be visiting Dresden, the Helmholtz Institute in Dresden is running a two-day workshop on nuclear medicine, so I'll be taking the train from Budapest to Dresden to attend a workshop, and we have an ongoing collaboration with the Helmholtz in Dresden. So, yes, you try and bundle as much academic and scientific work into those trips as you possibly can.
PN3101
Yes. And it's fair to say, without being trite about it, this isn't something that you go and go to your head of school and say, "Can I" withdraw that. In terms of what you've just described ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3102
‑ ‑ ‑that's essentially at your initiative; you've organised it; you've made the contacts with your colleagues internationally and arranged all these matters?‑‑‑By and large that's true.
PN3103
Yes?‑‑‑But there is still an approval process.
PN3104
Yes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3105
You're flying on the university's dollar?‑‑‑Or the ARC money, yes.
PN3106
On the ARC?‑‑‑The public money.
PN3107
Yes. Now, you currently hold three ARC grants; is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3108
Are you able to give the Commission an indication as to what sort of quantum that is in an annual dollars, please?‑‑‑Yes. So the two of the grants were awarded in 2011 and they were for, exact figures, one was $440,000. The second one was $360,000. The projects they're awarded three years but normally the funding exists until the money is finished or PhD students, who work under that project, complete, which means that you can normally have a grant funded for three years, but if you begin a PhD student in the third year of that project the ARC allows carry over money until all the students engaged under the funding are completed. And so there's simply a rollover basis. So what it means is you start with a large amount of money and it gradually whittles down as you run the project. I was awarded another grant in 2014 and I believe the sum was about $430,000.
PN3109
So it's a little bit over 1.2 million dollars, if I add those three numbers up?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3110
Four forty, 360, 430?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3111
Yes. In terms of grant applications there's essentially a grant round?‑‑‑That's right.
PN3112
Does it fall at the same time every year or approximately the same time?‑‑‑Within a few weeks.
PN3113
Yes?‑‑‑The deadline is within a few weeks and it's always early March of each year.
PN3114
Early March?‑‑‑That's for ARC discovery grants. There are other schemes that the ARC runs; infrastructure grants, linkage grants which are industry based; collaborative projects grants. They again, were one time per year, but the ARC, in its wisdom has now, and I think it's a good thing, has now moved to rolling applications for those grants.
PN3115
For those particular grants?‑‑‑The NHMRC, which is the National Health and Medical Research Council grants are normally slightly earlier than the ARC, and I believe this year, and surprisingly there's slightly maybe two weeks after the ARC deadline. So there's some latitude in where the deadlines fit. But, yes, normally we experience one major grant rounding period in per year.
PN3116
And generally three year grants that we're talking about?‑‑‑Normally three years. Yes, you can apply for five years, but they're much more difficult to be awarded.
PN3117
Okay. Now, can I take you to your second statement. This is exhibit Q. It says Supplementary Witness Statement Professor Phil Andrews on the top?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3118
Can I take you to PA2 which is attachment PA2?‑‑‑Yes. So supplementary witness statement?
PN3119
That's the one?‑‑‑PA2.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3120
And I just need to take you to the second attachment?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3121
And what you've attached there is quantitative research expectations?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3122
Is that right?‑‑‑Academic performance indicators, yes.
PN3123
And you're in the school of chemistry and the table for that appears towards it starts at the bottom of the first page?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3124
And goes over to the second page?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3125
Yes. And you're being a level B professor teaching in research, you have minimum and aspirational standards?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
PN3126
And so, can I just check I've understood this correctly?‑‑‑That's okay.
PN3127
The research output, so I'm now on the second page, the research output, the minimum standard would be to produce two publications in quality publications?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3128
And the aspirational would be to produce five?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3129
And these are generally assessed over a rolling three year period?‑‑‑Yes, correct. Yes.
PN3130
And so when we look, for example, back to a level B now, it's the case there's none for level A?‑‑‑No.
PN3131
No. And so we look at level B, .67 obviously it's well, it's not impossible but point .67 is obviously two over three years. There's two publications over three years?‑‑‑.67 is based on the what used to be called the desk allocations, and it was the easiest thing is to give me an example. If there was a paper published which has two Monash offers on it then they didn't used to attract single digit weightings, so it wasn't one. You would be given .5 each.
PN3132
Right?‑‑‑That however has since changed and the government now allocated individual points for authorship irrespective of the number of authors.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3133
Right?‑‑‑So what you're looking at here would be based on the process of dividing up the number of authors to the number of papers.
PN3134
And if I've understood you correctly whereas previously, if you and I co-authored a paper ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3135
‑ ‑ ‑and you were 50 per cent and I was 50 per cent, I would now get one whereas previously I would have got .5?‑‑‑You'd get .5, yes.
PN3136
Okay. And in terms of how Monash considers it, is it the case that they look at it over a three year period? So they look at, well, have you had two publications over the last three years and that's .67? Yes?‑‑‑It's one way of cutting up the cake so to speak.
PN3137
All right. And similar considerations apply to the research income and the supervision which is essentially HDR supervisions?‑‑‑HDR supervision, yes.
PN3138
Yes. So higher degree research supervision being predominant for PhDs but some Masters supervision as well?‑‑‑Some Masters but not many.
PN3139
And in terms of your work ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3140
‑ ‑ ‑over the last three years how many publications have you produced?‑‑‑Good question. Average well, I can tell you because when the ARC application went in I was averaging nine per year, so in the last three years it would probably be nine per year. Eight to nine per year.
PN3141
So if I take a conservative view of that and say eight, that's 24 over the last three years?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3142
In terms of research income other than the ARC grants that we went through which totalled 1.2 million dollars, do you have any other research income?‑‑‑I get money from the there's a collaboration with the German Academic Institute, so that's DAAD, they run a collaborative project for the colleague in chemist. We have a small amount of funds that come in from the industry sector which is what they call category 3 funding. We have an ongoing collaboration with Clarion which is a major health chemical company. They provide a small amount of funds, but by and large the main granting bodies are the main source of income.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3143
Are you able to put an indicative number of those other sources you've just identified?‑‑‑Over the last three years, probably in around maybe 150 to $200,000.
PN3144
And your HDR supervision is currently six, as the main supervisor. If you look over the last three years, is it still six or are there others that have now completed?‑‑‑We've had a no, we've had the reason I know it's always around about six is because that's the number of desks and the fume hoods they have available in the lab. I've had three students complete within the last nine months and I've had two PhD students start last year. One PhD student started this year. Another starts next week and so I know that it's always going to be around about six and it usually can't be more than eight, so at any one given time it's within that realm.
PN3145
Right?‑‑‑And I don't like counting bodies on desks as such.
PN3146
Like I count offices for our solicitors?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3147
But, as I've understood that answer, it'd be somewhere between your current six and perhaps another three over the last three years?‑‑‑At any given time, yes.
PN3148
Okay. So it's fair to say just on at least your first impression you're significantly exceeding, not only the minimum, you're significantly exceeding the aspirational quantitative research performance expectations?‑‑‑That would be true, yes.
PN3149
Now, as the supervisor of six level Bs and Cs, are they all exceeding the minimum performance standards?‑‑‑On publication, yes.
PN3150
Yes?‑‑‑The difficult areas are in HDR supervision and in research income. One I think I have one staff member who wouldn't meet the grant income, but given the tenuous nature of the government funding bodies it tends not to be taken as, you know, an entirely negative thing as long as the research outputs and the HDR supervision are satisfactory.
PN3151
Yes. So it's not the case, is it, that if you fail to meet one of these standards, or indeed more than one of these standards that you are dismissed?‑‑‑No. No, you're perfectly right. They're guidelines, they're not definitely, you know, the chopper comes down if you don't meet the magic number.
PN3152
Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3153
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC: So can I just perhaps ask a question there?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3154
In the sense that, as Mr Pill has put it, you're achieving more than the aspirational targets, I think your evidence was earlier that your average hours of work are about 50 per week. To what extent is the overachievement influencing the hours that you're working?‑‑‑I think there's a I'm sure as you understand there is always a cultural as well as an institutional imperative towards achievement. I would say, given my administrative load and the roles I take on, the wider roles I take on within the university, my publication HDR supervision would be mid-range for our scope, which is an internationally recognised high achieving school.
PN3155
For me the quality and the quantity of the outputs is commensurate with staying competitive for national competitive guides, so the ARC and NHMRC funded. It's quite clear that you need to be operating at a certain level to be competitive both for those grants, but also in a regime where we're trying to attract industry partners, consultation, high level collaborations overseas. The higher your impact the higher your performance, the more likely those collaborations and the impact you have and the finances you gave are likely to occur. And so you could argue quite clearly that to overachieve you have to work a very high number of hours and that's probably a legitimate argument. The argument that goes along with that is if you don't achieve then you simply wouldn't survive as an academic in that environment. Your ability to attract external funding would become much more difficult.
PN3156
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC: So one inference one could draw from what you just said is that, in essence, a driving motivator is that, in essence, your performance in the research area in turn drives what you achieve by way of research grants, which arguably gives you the opportunity to be more competitive to secure those research grants, and further your own areas of research interest?‑‑‑That's correct.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3157
So that one of the issues in the context of the material that's been led thus far before the Full Bench is the distinction between what might be required as opposed to what might be self-initiated in terms of work. What I'm trying to get a sense of is your perspective of, in terms of the performance here and the overachievement what the balance is between the proportionates required of you and that which might be self-initiated, self-driven?‑‑‑I think the attempt to introduce the minimum performance standards was an attempt by the university to try and quantify what it expects of the research outputs of its academics. And as you can see a lot of people, not everybody, would view them as not particularly onerous. On the other hand the university has a narrative, as an internationally competitive high achieving university which wants to be higher up the international rankings they had a process called academic strengthening which was quite clearly an attempt to buy in high performing academics.
PN3158
The attempt was to generate a culture of success around research and that means every year we are given data on the amount of money that we win from research grants. I'm not sure if you're aware there are four levels of grant funding that the government recognise. Category 1 is government research funding, whereas category 3 would be industrial funding that's come from outside, and as you understand that balance is almost shifting now in the Australian context, that the Turnbull Government is quite clearly pushing us towards a category 3 funded.
PN3159
I think the university wants to be seen as an internationally well respected high research impacting university, and that means it expects of its staff that it would rather be aspirational than meeting minimum standards. That would be the reason why, since the introduction of the performance indicators here, every year they were notched up, and so essentially you had to run faster on the treadmill. There was an expectation you had to perform. The results saw a move to start to performance manage people who did not meet those expectations. And the language I've been on the academic board for 10 years at the university, and the language from the management was that there needed to be (indistinct) at the bottom end of the university.
PN3160
There's no point the university sustaining over a long period of time people who do not contribute that research excellence culture. The only way to deal with that through the agreement is through performance management. And that's why I said earlier that I think the university has been particularly poor at that culture through performance management and the process of dealing with academics is by and large through voluntary redundancies, so people have been you have conversations and you don't meet the standards that Monash expects, perhaps you should think about moving on, and bonus money on the top of redundancy packages are offered to help people leave the institution. That then allowed the space and the money to buy the high hitting research academics and it's quite clearly a strategy of Monash University for the last six/seven years. And it's called academic strengthening. It's everybody is aware of it.
PN3161
I think what it did, as well as creating the culture of academic excellence, I don't think many academics would disagree, they earn a living in an excellent research environment and I don't that's beside the point, but I think the nature of research, the way research is conducted, the funding and the support for search, the nuances were never really considered when the numbers were generated, and I think that's why there's been so not so much distress but nervousness about the process is that it's very hard to quantify what's required and what is needed and how it should be supported to meet those minimum standards. And at the moment at Monash, this year 2016, they are revisiting the purpose of the academic performance standards.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3162
I think there's a general feeling amongst our senior management that they haven't achieved what they wanted them to achieve and so they're looking at a much broader application of the standards, rather than simply a numerical benchmark, having a much more holistic approach to the job that academics do within the institution and that includes research and teaching academics and a balance between those two domains, two activities.
PN3163
Monash, at the moment says we must be excellent researchers and, as you said, we're also told we have to be excellent educators and the narrative is riding two horses at the same time, as do you have to be excellent at both, or can you be excellent at one and moderate at the other? And that discussion has never really coalesced about how we assess that process, and I think that's something which is vague at the moment. And so I think in answer to your question, I think the minimum standards are something that the university essentially wants people to aspire to. I would say the weaknesses that hasn't articulated well; the tools, the time, the support that allows people to meet those aspirations, I think.
PN3164
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC: And in terms of those minimum standards, again, coming back to the issue of hours of work, what's your sense as to, if you were to just achieve the minimum that are specified in this document for someone at the level E ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3165
‑ ‑ ‑ what's your assessment as to what that would require in terms of a weekly set of weekly hours?‑‑‑I would have a personal it's very hard to judge. I could probably answer from a personal basis, but a much broader basis would be more difficult. I think to meet the minimum standards, you know, I could probably work 40 hours a week, but I would have to have the number of PhD students to run the projects to do the research work. I would have to have the funding available to run those projects.
PN3166
The reality is without the funding and without the students, and I think we have to recognise that when you get to level D/level E staff, so associate professor/professor you almost transition to a research manager environment rather than a direct hands on researcher. I think if you're going to achieve anything in the research area you still have to have significant success in those two other domains to achieve the research outputs. Trying to quantify and time what it would take is difficult I think. That really depends on what the other variables and what the inputs are and I think those would have be some quantification around those as to so how managing those variables would allow you to meet any particular outcome that would be required from the university. I think what I'm saying is it's not an easy question to answer.
PN3167
MR PILL: Can I ask a couple of related questions?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3168
The academic performance standards that we see here they were introduced at Monash in approximately 2011?‑‑‑Yes, it would around about that. I can't be absolutely sure, 2010/2011.
PN3169
And I appreciate there's familial issues at play, but your hours of work, prior to 2011 were certainly not significantly less than they are now?‑‑‑They prior to 2011 I'd say they would've been more. For the majority of those years they would've been more.
PN3170
And without putting it too bluntly in terms of your role as a supervisor ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3171
‑ ‑ ‑have you formally disciplined any of your staff who haven't met a metric?‑‑‑You talk about the B and C staff?
PN3172
Yes?‑‑‑No. Nearly everyone in the school of chemistry meets or exceeds the minimum standards.
PN3173
Yes. But on the two or three you mentioned, that it might not be any one or two, it's not the case that you're ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑We get traffic lights. I'm sure you're aware of these types of business knowledge outputs. We are given green, orange, red. We have very few staff who are ever on red. We have a number of staff who would be orange in research income and HDR supervision. The orange doesn't necessarily mean that they're doing something wrong and not meeting expectations, because, as you know, it's done on a three year rolling basis, and there are mitigating circumstances why certain people can't meet HDR or funding requirements. We do have an understanding, and I think this would be university wide and Provost Edwina Cornish has lamented on this several times, is that as long as the staff are prepared to apply for grants and actively seeking to have research income, are actively seeking to promote and supervise students, then we see that as part of the normal process of being a high functioning academic. So they don't necessarily have to win the grants. We know there's less than 20 per cent chance every year of winning the grant, but they at least have to be applying. They have to be competitive and they have to spend the energy making themselves competitive.
PN3174
Yes. Thank you. Can I take you back to your first statement? You can put your second statement to one side. And I wanted to take you to you give some evidence about enterprise bargaining at the university?‑‑‑Great fun.
PN3175
Sorry, I'll just find that for you. Paragraph 55 through 58?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3176
Now, your evidence is that you've been a direct member of the bargaining team in the 2009 and 2014 agreements. Did you have an awareness of the preceding enterprise bargaining in 2005 and 2000?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.
PN3177
Now, you've given evidence at paragraph 57 that:
PN3178
Without any award provisions about academic working hours or workloads to provide a safety net for this aspect of bargaining the union negotiators have been in the invidious position of bargaining to establish any regulation at all.
PN3179
You see that?‑‑‑Yes, I am reading that right now.
PN3180
Yes. Now, you'd accept that it's the case that you have negotiated workplace sorry, I can't read my own handwriting you have negotiated clauses regarding academic workload allocation?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
PN3181
And you would also accept that, at least in the bargaining rounds that you were in, and Mr Picouleau will give this evidence, what appears in 57 that's never been stated in bargaining, that we can't bargain because there's no award safety net that deals with hours?‑‑‑The what I can say in response to that it's never been stated as the way you've stated it. That there has been a continual pushback from the university to try and regulate on the basis of hours what academic work entails. What you see in the current agreements is many years in gestation and outcome and discussion and trauma. There has been an attempt to try and quantify academic work on the basis of contact teaching and associated teaching practice; an attempt to quantify what would be expected within the service administrative and leadership component of workload. That has not been successful. The quantification work we have finally settled on and not being able to move much further on is the total allocated hours, and what would constitute academic work, primarily teaching work, within those maximum allocated hours.
PN3182
All right. I'd like to put some documents to you, and these are parts of I've saved a few trees these are parts of Monash University enterprise agreements. Just whilst I'm doing that, you've ‑ ‑ ‑
AUDIO MALFUNCTION [3.11 PM]
PN3183
‑ ‑ ‑ with various officers with the NTEU Monash branch?‑‑‑I know it off by heart, so it's not true.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3184
So if the witness can ‑ ‑ ‑
PN3185
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: We're just going to give you a test.
PN3186
MR PILL: If the witness could be handed one. Professor Andrews, you're probably more used to seeing it in this sort of format. We don't have colour photocopying it appears. The first one is an extract from the 2000 enterprise agreement. Do you recognise that?‑‑‑I haven't read this for a long, long, long, long time, I have to say, but some of it looks familiar, yes.
PN3187
I just want to highlight a couple of things for you. And so I'm looking at clause 77, staff workloads?‑‑‑I don't have a 77.
PN3188
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Clause 71?‑‑‑Clause 71?
PN3189
MR PILL: Sorry. Sorry, page 77?‑‑‑Yes. Okay.
PN3190
My apologies, clause 71?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3191
And this is essentially the genesis of the current clause. There is an agreement to there was commitment to certain principles and then there was a joint workloads task force that was set up, agreed between the university and the NTEU, and to a bipartisan taskforce. Do you have any awareness of that?‑‑‑Sorry, I can't see where you're reading from. I was reading from the start.
PN3192
I'm sorry, over the page, the second subparagraph, 71.2?‑‑‑Okay. Joint workloads taskforce, yes. To investigate workloads. I have a vague recollection of it. It was 16 years ago or more when it was negotiated.
PN3193
Yes. And then the next round of bargaining was 2005?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3194
And I'll hand you that document.
PN3195
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Do you want to mark these as MFIs as we go along, Mr Pill?
PN3196
MR PILL: Yes, your Honour.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: All right. This will be MFI5, which is a 2000 enterprise agreement extract.
EXHIBIT #MFI5 MONASH UNIVERSITY 2000 ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT EXTRACT
PN3198
MR PILL: And what I've handed you there is the cover page and then an extract from the 2005 agreement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3199
The Monash University Enterprise Agreement Academic and General staff 2005. A couple of clauses I want to take you to; clause 56. Clause 56 deals with performance management of academic staff?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3200
And whilst the process, as your evidence was, is continued to be refined, it's essentially that annual planning process that you mentioned; is that right?‑‑‑Process yes, that looks like the genesis of the a very convoluted process, yes.
PN3201
Yes. And then at clause 57, which appears on page 35, we have a clause that was negotiated into this agreement dealing with academic workloads?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3202
And are you aware that this was a clause that was based on a proposed union clause?‑‑‑I couldn't say 100 per cent that's for sure, but given that the union always submits model clauses on academic workloads, which are then negotiated, I would say, without knowing it word for word, I would anticipate it would be based on a clause that the union would've submitted.
PN3203
Yes. All right. Thank you. I'll ask that be marked.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Document for Monash University Enterprise Agreement 2005 MFI6.
EXHIBIT #MFI6 MONASH UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2005
PN3205
MR PILL: And just before I leave that document, it was negotiated in, and is was at 57.13 to 57.15, a particular process for dealing with unreasonable workloads?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3206
And again that was based on a union proposal?‑‑‑I would imagine so. I wasn't on the bargaining team for this agreement.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3207
I appreciate that. Can I take you to the 2009 agreement? Now, again, so I've given you the cover page and then we see again at clause 59 the performance management process. And at clause 60 we see the academic workloads?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3208
It's a similar paradigm to the 2005 one that was negotiated and the union has negotiated some additional provisions, some further detail into the agreement including in relation to what teaching may include, some further detail about what the academic workload models had to address ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3209
‑ ‑ ‑ and some factors for dealing with unreasonable workloads. Now, you were part of this bargaining round?‑‑‑Yes, I was. Yes.
PN3210
Yes. Now, well, I'll ask that that be marked for identification.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Monash University Enterprise Agreement 2009 extract MFI7.
EXHIBIT #MFI7 MONASH UNIVERSITY 2009 ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT EXTRACT
PN3212
MR PILL: And lastly, and I apologise to the Bench, in the university's compendium there's an attachment to a statement of Mr Picouleau. Can I ask the witness be shown the document, which is attachment AP1? It's the current enterprise agreement. And you're familiar with that clause?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3213
And by that clause, it's clause ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Fifty-nine.
PN3214
Thank you. And again just turning back a page to clause fifty my apologies, clause 64. It's moved, but there's still a performance development clause that deals with that annual process of setting of objectives that you described before?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3215
And then separately we have an academic workloads clause, and, again, you'd accept that the bargaining parties have maintained the same paradigm, but there was some further, if I use an NTEU word, further improvements that were included that were bargained for by the union?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3216
Now, having gone through those, in any of the rounds that you were involved in or aware of, was there any mention of the award?‑‑‑In what context?
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3217
Sorry, in the context ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑There are many discussions that happen.
PN3218
‑ ‑ ‑of the academic workload in bargaining?‑‑‑What the academic award is, and there would have been discussions on the award modernisation; there would've been discussion that would've happened long before I became engaged in the process. It was always raised as an issue but not one that I would say I was wholly conversant of in terms of how it framed these negotiations.
PN3219
When you say it was raised before you got involved, how do you know that?‑‑‑It was raised before I got involved.
PN3220
Yes, sorry I thought that was what your evidence just was?‑‑‑There would've been discussions around what the award was before I had any really understanding of what that of what even an award process was.
PN3221
Yes?‑‑‑I'm not Australian. I don't understand that.
PN3222
Professor Andrews, putting aside the language "it would have been", "there would have been discussions", do you recall whether there were any specific discussions about ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑I don't recall any specific discussions that surrounded the award. I couldn't give you any detail on them, but, in my memory, it would've been something which would've been discussed.
PN3223
Yes?‑‑‑And probably in a context that I wouldn't have fully understood.
PN3224
Now, at the end of paragraph 56 well, can I just indicate to the Bench, I wasn't intending to mark it for identification in the context that it's a proposed attachment to Mr Picouleau's statement.
PN3225
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Yes, I follow that.
PN3226
MR PILL: Thank you.
PN3227
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Yes.
PN3228
MR PILL: Paragraph 56 you say, in the last sentence, that:
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3229
If the union had held out for what we wanted we never would have got an agreement.
PN3230
I'm sorry, you can ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes, I was looking at 56 of the agreement.
PN3231
Sorry. Understandable mistake due to my questioning. Fifty-six of your statement in the last line and-a-half?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3232
You say:
PN3233
If the union had held out for what we wanted we never would have got an agreement.
PN3234
?‑‑‑That's true.
PN3235
Are you aware of what the union has proposed in this proceeding?‑‑‑I'm vaguely aware. I haven't I'll be honest, I haven't read in detail what it's about.
PN3236
Right?‑‑‑But I'm vaguely aware of what it is, which is an attempt to try and bring academic workloads, or the basics of academic workloads in what we would understand is a standard working week, 30 hours.
PN3237
All right. Putting aside that retrospect vaguely understanding?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3238
In terms of what you claimed at the bargaining table so forget the compromise, the negotiation?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3239
It's the case, isn't it, there was never a claim to include a clause that would see academic hours of work set and recorded by the employer?‑‑‑I think you're if by that you mean would academics be clocking on and clocking off, certainly not. That was never part of our claim.
PN3240
And there was no claim for an overtime loading?‑‑‑No claim.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3241
No claim for a provision that required a distinction to be drawn between self-directed work that pursued over and above what the university required and what the university required?‑‑‑I think the notion of university requirement is a very, very difficult one. If I can indulge for a second, the way that workloads have been managed is, as we've always understood it, and which we the framework within which we've operated is, teaching is countable. You can at least allocate and understand duties. You can understand contact time, whether it's face-to-face or whether it's development.
PN3242
There is always an attempt to constrain academic workloads based primarily on teaching and on required service. There has never, in my knowledge, been an attempt to say to academics that you cannot conduct X numbers of hours of research. And so the nominal 40 per cent which is allocated as a percentage but, as we know, percentages don't mean anything when you're talking about absolutes, the 40 per cent then is 40 per cent of what? And the question then becomes, in the allocation of total hours, so you'll see in the agreement I think we have an allocatable hours of 17.45 for academic work. You can take that as being 40 per cent for teaching and 20 per cent for admin, and then what's left over. But there's never been an attempt to regulate academic research work within the residual number of hours.
PN3243
What has happened in the university, and I think why academic workload is such a strong issue when we come to bargaining and then quite a vexed issue for most academic staff, and why the union comes under so much pressure on this issue, is that the 40 per cent teaching, the 40 per cent admin continues to conflate, and what used to be 40 per cent 10 years ago is no longer 40 per cent. It's no longer that number what it is now. And therefore the time to conduct your research has either been shifted or it's been squeezed. And I think what we would try and do and what the union's objective was, was to try and ring fence the teaching time and the service administrative leadership time to protect what we would understand would be the research time of the academics.
PN3244
We had a very difficult time in the university of considering something that we accept, which is a culture of research excellence, when the time to do research is not protected, and I think that is the big difficulty that most people have. We are now dealing with a massive outflow in the number of students. I'm sure you understood that the cap in the students came off in 2012. There's been a massive increase in the number of enrolments, so all those students have to be taught; they have to be accommodated; they have to be engaged with; they have to be consulted with; there are new regulations/policies that guide how we deal with those students. All that has been an increase in work. There has never been an attempt to try and balance that by protecting staff members' research time. The object in the last round of bargaining was to try and protect the research time that academics have. And why I think I expressed the frustration at the university's approach is that the language that they use in research excellence and maintaining high research activity of its staff was never mirrored in negotiations in their attempt to protect the research time and the research capability of staff.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3245
MR PILL: You would accept that whilst you say 40 per cent of an absolute can't be determined ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3246
‑ ‑ ‑ if we do allocate hours to teaching and related activities, that 40 per cent of - and I think you mentioned 17.45 or 16.45?‑‑‑17.45. Yes, 16 ‑ ‑ ‑
PN3247
That that is a meaningful number?‑‑‑Absolutely.
PN3248
That you can calculate that number. And if the university went to you and directed you to stop researching, said to you, "You cannot research after you reach 38 hours or 40 hours a week", would you accept that most research active academics, to use that term, would resist that approach from the university?‑‑‑Yes, I don't think the university would do it, and I think you're correct that most academics wouldn't accept a directive to limit their research time. But I think what you're implying is quite different from how much research time is required to meet a numerated standard that the university has directed staff to achieve.
PN3249
Yes?‑‑‑My difficulty, I guess, is that if the university sets a hurdle you're required to clear, then they should be absolutely clear on how much time is expected to be spent meeting those obligations.
PN3250
Well, you'd accept, and I think your evidence has been given, that to attach a particular number of hours to research, given the nature of research, is, at best, a broad guestimate?‑‑‑Difficult.
PN3251
Broad indication?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3252
You accept that?‑‑‑Yes. Research is a many varied wonderful thing.
PN3253
Yes. And you'd also accept that for many academics their research is not just their employment, it's their vocation?‑‑‑That's true and perhaps I'm speaking for myself. I think that's true to a certain extent.
PN3254
Yes?‑‑‑I think when the work stress and the work management and the requirements to perform land on top of that calling it becomes difficult. And I think if we want to see the research activity of academic staff as somehow being a hobby, that they would love to do, like gardening on a beautiful summer's day, I think the stresses of other aspects of their work and meeting certain standards impinges upon the joy of conducting that work.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3255
Yes?‑‑‑And therefore, look, I agree with you, I think most people enjoy doing the research that they do. I think they enjoy setting the targets, the planning, the outcomes, but we don't live in an idealised world where, you know - we don't.
PN3256
Indeed?‑‑‑And for many people it's become work.
PN3257
Yes?‑‑‑Rather than, you know, a calling.
PN3258
And the person who cures cancer or wins the Nobel prize there's not too many people who can remember which university they came from. They remember who the researcher was?‑‑‑They remember who it was. Although the universities would like to think differently.
PN3259
Now, in terms of you give some evidence well, sorry, can I underline one last point? So you accept that in bargaining, and I think you give some of this evidence, in bargaining, whilst you haven't achieved everything that you've sought to achieve, the elements that I just went through, which are features of the proposed award clause, it's not the case that you haven't been successful in negotiating them. They haven't even been put; you accept that? I appreciate you only have a vague understanding of the clause, but those elements that we went through, they haven't been put?‑‑‑You mean in terms of trying to quantify research?
PN3260
In terms of claiming an overtime payment?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3261
In terms of requiring recording or setting of hours by the employer?‑‑‑I can say as part of our negotiations in the last two rounds that there's never an attempt to try and corral or curtain research and in fact the discussions - there wasn't even an attempt really to quantify the research time, though the discussions would've been around protecting the time based on curtailing the other activities that make up an academic workload.
PN3262
Yes. All right. Now, at 59 and 60 of your first statement. You've got a heading, this follows the heading, Employer Responses for Long Working Hours for Academic Staff. You mentioned the university's wellbeing at Monash program?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3263
You go on at 60 to say:
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3264
There's also an occupational health team which focuses on specific risks in the workplace environment. It doesn't appear to address issues of overwork stress. Its current list of resources and documents available is
PN3265
And then you've listed a number there. Do you agree with me that the university also offers, amongst other things, an employee assistance program for staff?‑‑‑Which is an external program.
PN3266
So it's ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That the university buys in, yes.
PN3267
So university funded external providers of psychological support on those sorts of issues?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3268
There's also a university counselling service?‑‑‑University counselling. Yes.
PN3269
There's what's called Safer Communities?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3270
Which deals with more extreme situation at risk individuals?‑‑‑Yes, students and staff. Yes.
PN3271
Students and staff. There are occupational health and safety advisors across the university?‑‑‑Yes, there has to be. It's legally there has to be, yes.
PN3272
And are you aware that, through some of those processes, including the OH&S process, that staff can and have raised issues about stress? Are you aware of that?‑‑‑Am I aware of it?
PN3273
Yes?‑‑‑Personally, no.
PN3274
Okay. All right. Now, can I just a couple of questions about IT, as in information technology?‑‑‑Okay.
PN3275
You do give some evidence about it. You look a little ‑ ‑ ‑
PN3276
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC: Can I perhaps just ask a question before you move on to that, Mr Pill?
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3277
MR PILL: Yes. Thank you, Deputy President.
PN3278
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC: At paragraph 61 you indicate that, or you depose:
PN3279
I've never been instructed not to work during lunch breaks or refrain from working out of hours.
PN3280
?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3281
For those staff which you supervise, have you ever given them an instruction along those lines?‑‑‑The students I directly supervise always take a lunch hour. The staff that I performance manage, how they manage their times tends to be up to them. We're under no obligation and certainly we haven't been directed to direct staff that we supervise to make sure that they're taking breaks. Monash has no common lunch hour any more. And generally the understanding is that there is no lunch hour, so if people take lunch it tends to be on an ad hoc basis. The problem with the 12 to 2 period is that we now teach during those periods. Most meetings are conducted during that period, seminars are conducted during those periods, and there becomes and laboratory preparation for all the laboratory staff to 2 o'clock in the afternoon for the afternoon session, so all the preparation occurs between 1 and 2 o'clock which usually includes a briefing of demonstrators on the work which happens. The idea now that there is a particular that academic staff can simply take off has almost disappeared from the university.
PN3282
So let me put the second part of it, in terms of out of hours work, and I'll put a scenario to you, if you were consistently getting emails from one of your direct reports, if I can use that sort of terminology?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3283
What might be characterised as odd hours, whether it's late at night or consistently on weekends ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3284
‑ ‑ ‑ and it may or may not be a common occurrence, would you ever say to that individual, "You need to actually get a better work/life balance"?‑‑‑I've questioned why documents are sent at 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night when because Sunday work for most academic has almost become the norm you expect to see emails come in on a Sunday. We have queried in academic staff meetings and our school about the volume of work which has come in over the weekends, particularly in preparation for things which happen on Mondays.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3285
We are sent documents on Saturday or Sunday for preparation for Mondays, and there has been a constant dialogue. Luckily the head of school has made sure that administrative documents don't come over the weekend, but there's been almost no control, certainly no directive, but there has been discussion about why there is a need to have such a high volume of work going back and forward over the weekends. The response has been that many academics simply manage their time around opportunities and gaps and the need to fulfil the family or social requirements. And I think the availability of IT now where you're constantly connected has meant for most people it's easier to send it on a Sunday and get rid of it than wait till Monday morning and send it around and everybody else even has less notice of what happens on a Monday morning. I think again it comes back to culture, and personally I believe it's an unhealthy culture but it's not one that I individually am going to change within the next 10 years probably.
PN3286
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC: Thank you, Mr Pill?‑‑‑Thank you.
PN3287
MR PILL: At paragraph 58, Professor, you give some brief evidence about information technology?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3288
And your evidence is you're given the option between an desktop and a laptop?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3289
And I take it from your evidence that you've elected to have a desktop?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3290
And then you yourself have gone out and also you have a laptop, an iPad, a smartphone and a home desktop computer?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.
PN3291
All right. Do you accept that you could've had the university laptop and it would've avoided the necessity for you to purchase your own laptop?‑‑‑I used to have a university laptop.
PN3292
Yes?‑‑‑Which ran I carried everywhere, my screen, in the office and the laptop went everywhere, there was a security problem, and this was before we now have shared service and Cloud backup, but I find that it's when the lighter this is a technical answer to I'm sure a question which you're not asking, is that the laptops became lighter.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3293
What am I not asking?‑‑‑And they became much easier to carry. But they weren't powerful enough to run as desktop computers, where a lot of the programs that we operate on our desktop computers use a lot of energy and a lot of power and a lot of computing power that simply don't function on some of the laptops, therefore the laptop became an option simply as a carry about to conferences and overseas and anywhere that I have to go and I've got one in my bag at the moment. It just became an easier option in terms of backup of data, and also avoiding getting back ache. The iPad I use for teaching and I have to say the university does not buy equipment that you use for teaching, and that, again, is a source of disgruntlement amongst the staff. Nearly everybody these days uses new technology to engage with the students and to develop new teaching practices. I think just the new pedagogy just demands it. But the university doesn't financially underwrite that commitment. Everybody I know who uses an iPad for teaching has bought it themselves or bought it from consultant funds that they've achieved in the university.
PN3294
All right. Can I put a couple of things to you that the university does do? So in addition to providing you with a computer, albeit one that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes, a desktop, much better.
PN3295
‑ ‑ ‑you have greater requirements than, the university also enables staff to salary package IT equipment? Are you aware of that?‑‑‑Laptops.
PN3296
Yes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3297
And you've actually done it yourself?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3298
Yes. And in addition to that, the university also has a procedure which enables staff to seek, whilst there's no automatic entitlement to have university equipment, there is a procedure that enables staff to seek it, and the heads of cost centres can approve it; aware of that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3299
Can I provide you with a copy of a document. Are you generally familiar with this document?‑‑‑Probably generally. Probably a long time since I read it.
PN3300
All right. Have you read all of the university policies?‑‑‑At some point.
PN3301
And you'll see under well, there's some procedure of coverages as to who it applies to?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3302
And then all staff?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3303
And then it goes on to talk about a process for approving requests. It talks about:
PN3304
appropriate for the efficient discharge of a staff member's responsibilities and where there's sufficient budget available.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3305
And then there's an approval process at number 3. You see that?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3306
And have you sought to access this process?‑‑‑This process itself? No, we know that the computers are renewed every three years at the cost of the school. Personally I never accessed this. Normally when you want to access additional equipment, such as iPads, university phones, you have to supply a cost centre fund which is your own cost centre fund, so you're responsible for the cost of the equipment. If you get the heads approval to use the administrative cost centre fund then that would be an agreement between the head and the individual staff member that I'm not aware of.
PN3307
And when you say you have to use your own cost centre ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Funds, yes.
PN3308
‑ ‑ ‑it's obviously technically the university's funds?‑‑‑Technically, yes, but you have budgetary control of them to some degree.
PN3309
Yes?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3310
And at number 10 you'll see that there's capacity to seek, under this policy, reimbursement for certain rental costs?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3311
Have you ever sought to do that?‑‑‑No. I my home work course in relation to internet connection and the such like I claim it back on tax.
PN3312
Yes. Do you accept that these are appropriate matters for the university policy?‑‑‑Yes, I don't see why not, and I think my feeling whether I think the university should be much more generous in its application of supplying equipment which academics are required to use to conduct their work. It doesn't always happen unfortunately. And usually the imperative is simply one of cost rather than need.
PN3313
It's a question of whether the funds are available?‑‑‑Whether the funds are available and who pays. So even our staff members in our school who have university phones pay for the phone themselves through a university fund and the charges for the phones have to come back to the cost centre fund that they control, not the school's administrative cost centre.
PN3314
And just to be clear, and this is a universitiasm, there's often talk about, "It's my fund" and "You're out of my cost centre" or "my account"?‑‑‑Yes.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3315
We're not talking about Phil Andrews' going down to the ANZ Bank and taking it out of your ANZ account?‑‑‑No, it's internal university funds.
PN3316
It is an internal budgeting process and allocation of costs?‑‑‑Yes. Yes, allocations. Yes.
PN3317
I have no further ‑ ‑ ‑
PN3318
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Are we marking that document, Mr Pill?
PN3319
MR PILL: Thank you, your Honour. Yes.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: That's the Conduct and Compliance Provision of University IT Equipment Communication Facility for Staff Monash University MFI8.
EXHIBIT #MFI8 CONDUCT AND COMPLIANCE PROVISION OF UNIVERSITY OF IT EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR STAFF MONASH UNIVERSITY
PN3321
MR PILL: I'm sorry, thank you, your Honour. Just a couple of more questions. When a staff member is performing particularly well do you accept that the university has a number of mechanisms that provide for recognition and reward for academic staff?‑‑‑I believe that's the case. I think there are bonuses paid and supplementations are paid. It doesn't happen in the science faculty but I understand it happens in other faculties, particularly business and economics and the faculty of medicine.
PN3322
And there's also reflected in the enterprise agreement what's call accelerated incremental advancement?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3323
So provided there's satisfactory performance every year there's an incremental progression, so in addition to my 3 per cent EB increase, my salary also goes up as I satisfactorily perform each year?‑‑‑Yes, incrementation and you can get as you said, you can get accelerated increment advance based on high performance.
PN3324
And lastly you'd accept that in the academics sphere academic promotion is often seen as the primary reward for exceptional performance?‑‑‑As I said, academic promotion is a wholly performance based process, and recognises high performance.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS XXN MR PILL
PN3325
I have no further questions.
PN3326
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Ms Pugsley?
PN3327
MS PUGSLEY: No questions.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Any re-examination, Ms Gale?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE [3.46 PM]
PN3329
MS GALE: Professor Andrews, you were asked about the way the teaching is allocated, and there was a discussion about to what extent that occurs as part of the performance management process, and to what extent it occurs through a separate I think you said there was allocation of teaching based on requirement and need, and then there was load negotiated in the performance development process?‑‑‑Yes.
PN3330
Could you just explain what those processes are and how they in relation to the allocation of teaching, how those two things intersect?‑‑‑And how they should I can illustrate it with what happens in my school, but I know it's not exactly but I think how we do it is probably the model in which the university is supposed to be based. There has to be a certain amount of teaching done because you have a certain amount of students; you have a certain number of subjects to teach; those students have to be taught and there are a certain number of hours allocated to every unit. So every unit at Monash is 144 hours, 72 direct contact, and 72 self-directed learning by the student. So those 72 direct contact have to be managed. So the number of units we have and the number of students we have determines the number of contactors our staff need to meet as a minimum.
PN3331
That allocation is then determined through discussion but primarily by the associate head education, who then will allocate the teaching based on knowledge of the particular area, experience in the particular area, experience at teaching the particular level, and all the units have to be covered based on the experience of the staff members and the quality of the staff members involved. So all staff members including research only staff members are allocated teaching hours. That covers the baseline requirement. There will always be an unevenness amongst the staff because we don't necessarily require, unless there's an urgent need, we don't necessarily require somebody who doesn't have sub-discipline knowledge in one area to teach at a higher level into another area, so we try in the breadth of the sub-disciplines to cover at an expert level all the teaching we do.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS RXN MS GALE
PN3332
The only difference there would be in first year teaching which is a general chemistry teaching and really we would expect anybody to be able to teach in any area of that, first year teaching with something like 1800 students takes up the majority of our staffing time. The associate head education will then allocation the units and the teaching time. That document, an example of which has been provided in the appendices, is then distributed amongst our staff to make comment. Staff can then comment on the basis of that they don't want to teach in a particular unit; that they are going to be on leave for the second half of the year; they've negotiated with the head of performance supervisor for a reduced load in order to meet a higher research outcome for example. Those, what you could call, varietal, are often taken into consideration when the final workload document is generated.
PN3333
So for five years I generated the teaching workload document and one of the first meetings I would have is with the head of school, who, at that time, did all the performance management and the negotiations for reduced load or long service leave or study leave, or "I'm going to be on that leave", it would all be then made apparent to me what negotiations were made with individual staff members, it would then be given to me, and the workload document would then be adjusted based on the agreements that were met between the staff member and their performance manager. That document is circulated amongst the academic staff over a period of about, I would say, anywhere between a month and-a-half to two months before it's finally settled on. We normally go through about 13 iterations of the document before ‑ ‑ ‑
PN3334
MS GALE: Thirteen?‑‑‑Thirteen before it's settled on. And the important thing is that in our school everybody knows what everybody else does in terms of teaching. There is no behind closed door deals. So it's very transparent. And I think our school, and I can say for the faculty of science, we're very unusual in that from professors and higher level research only staff down to a level B staff, the process is transparent and we don't discriminate widely amongst the academic levels. We expect a professor to teach as much as level B staff member. People will then engage in the teaching practice and there will be some fluctuations as need requires during the year but usually the document, and the February document, is close to what will happen during the year and then it's re-negotiated come November the following year. So the interaction I think you're getting at is that there is a performance management system that will assist people to manage their workload that then feeds into advice given to the person who generates the workload document. But everybody will see the outcome of those discussions because it becomes transparent in the document.
PN3335
Thank you. No further questions.
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: Thank you, Professor Andrews, you're excused?‑‑‑Thank you very much.
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS RXN MS GALE
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.52 PM]
PN3337
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI: The Commission will then adjourn until 29 August.
ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 29 AUGUST 2016 [3.52 PM]
*** PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS RXN MS GALE
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
ANNE MERILYN JUNOR, AFFIRMED........................................................ PN2584
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE................................................... PN2584
EXHIBIT #O WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANNE MERILYN JUNOR... PN2595
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL......................................................... PN2595
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE................................................................ PN2810
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN2836
ANNE MERILYN JUNOR, RECALLED....................................................... PN2837
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE, CONTINUING................................... PN2837
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN2847
ANNE MERILYN JUNOR, RECALLED....................................................... PN2847
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE, CONTINUING................................... PN2847
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN2875
PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS, AFFIRMED..................................................... PN2878
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE................................................... PN2878
EXHIBIT #P WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS PN2922
EXHIBIT #Q SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS............................................................................................................................... PN2930
EXHIBIT #R FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS.......................................................................................................... PN2939
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL......................................................... PN2941
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN3005
PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS, RECALLED.................................................... PN3005
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL, CONTINUING............................ PN3005
EXHIBIT #MFI5 MONASH UNIVERSITY 2000 ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT EXTRACT............................................................................................................................... PN3197
EXHIBIT #MFI6 MONASH UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2005 PN3204
EXHIBIT #MFI7 MONASH UNIVERSITY 2009 ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT EXTRACT............................................................................................................................... PN3211
EXHIBIT #MFI8 CONDUCT AND COMPLIANCE PROVISION OF UNIVERSITY OF IT EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR STAFF MONASH UNIVERSITY............................................................................................................................... PN3320
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE................................................................ PN3328
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN3336