DTI Logo Fair Work Logo


Fair Work Act 2009                                                    






s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards


Four yearly review of modern awards


Educational Services Award




10.04 AM, FRIDAY, 29 JULY 2016


Continued from 28/07/2016





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.




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.




MS GALE:  I think this was also sent by email, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Are we happy to swap out J and K then?


MS GALE:  We would be very content with that.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Rather than just have another re-numbering.  So these will now become the new J and K.


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.


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


MS GALE:  Thank you, Professor Junor.  Could you please restate your name and address for the record?‑‑‑Anne Merilyn Junor (address supplied).


Thank you.  And have you prepared a statement in the form of an expert report for these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I have.


Do you have a copy of that report with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


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.


So that would be to amend the heading of section 3 to read, "My Own Empirical Research"?‑‑‑That's correct.


Thank you.  And with that change do you say that the statement is true and correct?‑‑‑I would, yes.


And do you adopt it as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


Thank you.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  That will be exhibit O.  Any objections, Mr Pill, Ms Pugsley?




MS PUGSLEY:  No, your Honour.


***        ANNE MERILYN JUNOR                                                                                                                  XN MS GALE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                           [10.10 AM]


MR PILL:  Good morning Dr Junor.  My name is Mr Pill and I'm in the middle of the Bar table there?‑‑‑Right.


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.


And you're currently an Honorary Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales?‑‑‑That's correct.


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.


Now, as I read your bio in the period from 1995 to 2013 you supervised eight PhD students to completion?‑‑‑That's correct.


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.


Thank you.  Thank you.  I should check, can you hear me okay?‑‑‑I beg your pardon?


I was actually just checking, Dr Junor, that you could hear me okay?‑‑‑Yes, I can.  Yes.


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.


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


All right?‑‑‑Yes.  It was, I guess, a process of discussion, of collegial discussion.


And did you take on any PhD students that you didn't want to take on?‑‑‑No.


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.


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.


All right?‑‑‑But it was earlier this year.


Thank you.  Are you aware, Dr Junor, that expert reports are required to be signed?‑‑‑Sorry, I didn't hear the question.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


You're not sure?‑‑‑I'm not sure.


All right.  Now, your statement has a number of sections.  The first is entitled My Personal Experience?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


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.


And section 4, which is on page 23, is entitled Expert Report?‑‑‑Mm-hm.

***        ANNE MERILYN JUNOR                                                                                                                 XXN MR PILL


Are sections 2 and 3 part of your expert report?‑‑‑Are we on   sorry, what page are we on?


I'm sorry, Dr Junor, I'll take you back.  Page 23?‑‑‑Page 23.


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.


And then on page 29 there's another subsection 4.2 Literature Review?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Mr Pill, has this witness been provided with MFI1?  That might assist her.


MR PILL:  No, Commissioner.


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


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.


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:


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.


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.


And you were at UNSW as an academic employee for 10 years; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


So you read it a number of times over a 10 year period; is that your evidence?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


Well, you've just given evidence that you've read the policy a number of times?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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


Yes.  The question I asked was that students have to comply with such policies?‑‑‑Yes.  Sorry, I misunderstood your question.


Now, in terms of time spent reading policies is there any published quantitative research on the time spent reading policies?‑‑‑I don't know.


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.


All right.  Dr Juno, are you aware of any?‑‑‑No.


Now, on page 3, you give evidence of your personal experience in working as a casual academic?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


Yes.  So if I break them into two, your evidence is that the first person, and I'll read the sentence:


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.


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.


All right.  Now, over the page, you say:


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




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.


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.


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.


All right?‑‑‑Mm.


Did you engage other sessional staff during the course of your continuing academic career?‑‑‑Indeed.


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.


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


And did so having regard to what you were going to engage them to teach or to tutor in?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


That section starts with the number 2, 2012 update?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


Is that what's being referred to in the second dot point that I just took you to?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


Okay.  So perhaps you can turn the page to page 19, and you reference this on page 18.  It says:


The seven tables that follow indicate a strong continuity of experience between the two surveys.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


Do you accept that that's what they do?‑‑‑It's thematically grouped.  Yes, that's the standard typology if insecurity of Guy Standing.


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.


Right?‑‑‑Using the Standing typology.


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.


Okay.  And then ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑And compare them with statements from the open-ended question in 2002/3.


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


So there's some similarity between the comments in 2007 and 2002?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


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.


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.


Yes, all right.  I'm just reading your statement, findings published in 2004 and 20055?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes, yes, yes.  Yes, yes.


Now, can I take you to   and, sorry, the bottom of page 8 you talk about methodology, and you talk about the purposes?‑‑‑Mm.


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.


And then just whilst we're there under research questions, Casual Academic Survey, you say that:


The questions were designed to provide answers to the following questions.


And those in italics are relevant to this submission?‑‑‑Mm.


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.


And across 19 universities?‑‑‑No, it was a complete population of casuals in five universities.


I'm sorry?‑‑‑Went for depth not breadth.

***        ANNE MERILYN JUNOR                                                                                                                 XXN MR PILL


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.


Yes.  And 29.1 per cent response rate, as I read it?‑‑‑Yes.




And are you able to say which five universities they are?‑‑‑I   this is awkward, because there was a confidentiality agreement.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


I won't press you for the names?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


Yes, of course?‑‑‑There was   yes, there was one.  Yes.


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]


And there was a post 1987 university.  They were the five.


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.


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


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Right.  Yes?‑‑‑An example would be Macquarie but that wasn't the one where the survey was distributed.


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.


Okay.  That clarified it for me.  Thank you.


MR PILL:  It's building material.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  But I didn't think that any of them were made out of gumtree.


MR PILL:  Maybe what they study perhaps?‑‑‑I think it's based on Simon Marginson's typology.


And to be fair it's not actually a typology that's used widely in the sector, is it?‑‑‑No.


No?‑‑‑No.  It was current back in   when I did the surveys.  I think then superseded by more felicitous descriptions.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  We now go for concrete universities.


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.


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.


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


All right?‑‑‑It would obviously reference because that's what regulation consists of.


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.


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.


And we have here that typology down the left-hand side, the shorthand term?‑‑‑Yes.


And a definition down the right-hand side?‑‑‑Yes.


And then we have percentages, and they're percentages of those who responded, some 1300-odd?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


Who fell within that typology?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


Yes.  I'll come to that?‑‑‑Yes.


Park the last two rows for the moment?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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


‑ ‑ ‑ 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.


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.


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.


All right.  Your paper references that the last two were distributed across the seven typology groups?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


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.


So they're generally post-graduate students, or they are post-graduate students?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


And provide some university teaching as a sideline?‑‑‑Mm.


So these are TAFE teachers by and large who are doing some academic casual work for a university; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


And there's about 6.2 per cent of those?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


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.


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.


All right?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


And keeping up-to-date in relation to areas in which they're doing their PhD or acting in their employment?‑‑‑Yes.  The ‑ ‑ ‑


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


There was no implied assumption in my question.  It was a very straight forward question?‑‑‑Mm.


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.


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.


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.


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:


Casual academics who wanted to have academic jobs in five years' time were evenly divided between a preference for ongoing casual academic work.


And that's 30 per cent.  And a non-casual university career 32 per cent?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


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.


Is that a fair short summary?  All right?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, can I take you to page 15?‑‑‑Yes.


And it's got some bar graphs there?‑‑‑Mm.

***        ANNE MERILYN JUNOR                                                                                                                 XXN MR PILL


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.


So they had boxes to tick?‑‑‑One of those   yes, yes, it was tick box.


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.


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.


Yes.  In determining the figures did you take into account earnings such as PhD, stipends or scholarships?‑‑‑No.


Did you take into account earnings from other employment?‑‑‑No.


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.


Can I just confirm, this is data from 2002 predominantly?‑‑‑Yes, 2002/3.  Yes.


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.


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.


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


And have been a witness on behalf of the ASU; is that right?  In the Fair Work Commission equal rem case?‑‑‑That's correct.


Yes.  Now, can I take you to 4.2, and there's an introduction and overview, and about half-way through it says:


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.


?‑‑‑Could you please tell me the page number?


I'm sorry, Dr Junor.  Page 29?‑‑‑And which paragraph, sorry?


I was starting at the first paragraph, mid-way through.  It starts with the words, "It provides a conceptual basis"?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


‑ ‑ ‑ 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


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.


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.


Yes.  And the argument that you're making is effectively an argument to support a discipline currency payment?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


It's all right.  I'll withdraw the ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑What are putting to me?


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.


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


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.


And IT professionals?‑‑‑Yes.


HR, human resources professionals?‑‑‑Yes.


Other health workers?‑‑‑Yes.




Early childhood education providers?‑‑‑Yes.


Just bear with me one moment, Dr Junor.  I have no further questions for this witness.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you.  Anything, Ms Pugsley?


MS PUGSLEY:  No, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Ms Gale, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE                                                 [11.18 AM]


MS GALE:  Professor Junor, can you hear me clearly?‑‑‑Yes, I can.


You were taken to section 2 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.


Which is pages 6 and 7?‑‑‑Yes.


And you were asked how those statements fit within or related to the expert evidence that you've given?‑‑‑Yes.


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


I think, Dr Junor, that that sentence has been removed from your statement.  You'll recall where were some redactions made?‑‑‑Okay.  It's ‑ ‑ ‑


The copy you're working from has not been redacted?‑‑‑No, it hasn't.


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?


Yes, casual employment plays a ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑A central role in university teaching and a key role.


Yes?‑‑‑If you could   okay.  So if you could go to page 31.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


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,, 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.


MS GALE:  Yes?‑‑‑Okay.  So   sorry, I'm working   so the second point:


Academic teaching and assessment is a highly skilled professional occupation and the basis for the accreditation of other professionals.


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


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:


Only a small number of hourly paid casuals are genuinely casual.


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.


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.


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.


MS GALE:  I did ask an open question, your Honour.

***        ANNE MERILYN JUNOR                                                                                                               RXN MS GALE


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  And I'm not sure where it's actually leading from my part.


MS GALE:  I hadn't anticipated quite this level of detail in response, but I did ask the question?‑‑‑Sorry, should I ‑ ‑ ‑


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  No, no, Dr Junor, just ‑ ‑ ‑


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]


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.


Take your time?‑‑‑I do apologise.


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


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.


Well, this is one of the problems of course when you ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑I shouldn't have done that?


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.


MS GALE:  Yes, your Honour.


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.


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]


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.


MS GALE:  Yes, your Honour.

***        ANNE MERILYN JUNOR                                                                                                               RXN MS GALE


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  If there's any difficulty we'll make the arrangements from the Commission's end.


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.


And that is all you have in front of you?‑‑‑Yes.


Thank you.  The question you were answering related to section 2 of the statement?‑‑‑Yes.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


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.


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


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


Can you just answer my question, Professor Junor, please?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


I've asked you one question only, which is limited to one part of the table?‑‑‑Yes.


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.




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?


It's a matter for your advisor.  You've answered my question?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


So those are the two items in table 8 that you would draw attention to?‑‑‑That's correct.  Yes.


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


Yes?‑‑‑And page   sorry, point 16, I don't have specific evidence on that.  It follows from point 14.


Thank you.  So if I can just summarise what you've said.  You've said that paragraphs ‑ ‑ ‑


MR PILL:  Well, I was going to object to that.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Well, yes.  Ms Gale, that can't be done.


MS GALE:  Thank you.  No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Mr Pill, Ms Pugsley, given the unusual circumstances that have occurred, do either of you need to ask any additional questions?


MR PILL:  No, your Honour.


MS PUGSLEY:  No, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you, Professor Junor, you're excused?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [12.32 PM]


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.


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


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).


Thank you.  And you have prepared three statements for these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I did.


Okay.  Do you have a copy of those statements with you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


Can I just check that that's all you have with you?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Which paragraph?‑‑‑Thirteen, sorry.


MS GALE:  Thirteen.  Yes?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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


MS GALE:  Yes, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  And that's what it looks like is now happening, Ms Gale.


MS GALE:  I understand, your Honour.  However, the process of redaction has changed the apparent meaning of the related words, your Honour.


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.


MS GALE:  Yes, your Honour.  Are there any other corrections you would seek?


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Well, what are we going to do about this paragraph?


MS GALE:  I'm sorry.


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.


MS GALE:  Yes, your Honour.


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.


MS GALE:  Yes, your Honour.


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


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.


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.


Yes.  Okay?‑‑‑On page 13, just for clarity, in paragraph number 40, I had made the comment in making the statement:


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.


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.


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.


So you'd delete that one sentence; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


With those changes ‑ ‑ ‑




MS GALE:  I'm sorry.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Does not the second sentence also have to be deleted?

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XN MS GALE


There is sufficient flexibility in the organisation working hours to allow this.


And the "allow this" is the swimming?


MS GALE:  I think it also refers to the previous sentence though, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  All right.  Along as we're clear on what it actually refers to.


MS GALE:  With those changes, do you adopt this as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.


And do you say that it is true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.


Thank you.  If I could have the first witness statement marked, your Honour?


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Exhibit P.  Any objections, Mr Pill or Ms Pugsley?


MR PILL:  No, your Honour.





MS GALE:  If we can turn to your second statement, Professor Andrews, which is titled Supplementary Witness Statement?‑‑‑Yes.


And I think it's lodged on 18 March.  And that has a number of attachments?‑‑‑Yes.


Do you have any changes you need to make to that statement?‑‑‑No.


Okay.  Do you say that it is true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XN MS GALE


Do you adopt it as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.


I tender that statement, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Exhibit Q.  Any objections, Mr Pill or Ms Pugsley?





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.


No?  If the witness can be ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Thank you.  Yes, I remember.


And do you have any changes you need to make to that statement?‑‑‑No.


Do you say that it is true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.


Do you adopt that as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.


I tender that statement, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Any objections, Mr Pill, Ms Pugsley?







MS GALE:  No further questions.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XN MS GALE



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                            [12.43 PM]


MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.  Professor Andrews, I represent a number of universities in this proceedings including Monash University?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


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.


Now, in terms of your employment you commenced at the university in 1995 as a research fellow?‑‑‑Yes.


Under a Queen Elizabeth II research fellowship; is that right?‑‑‑No, as a post-doctoral research fellow.


And was it subsequently that you obtained the QEII fellowship?‑‑‑Yes.


And when was that?‑‑‑Nineteen ninety-seven it was awarded.


And how long did that run until?‑‑‑Five years.


Five years?‑‑‑Until   in 2002.


All right.  And then you became a lecturer teaching in research academics in January 2004?‑‑‑Two thousand and four, yes.


And you've been promoted a number of times since then?‑‑‑Yes.


You just need to verbalise it, sorry, for the record?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


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.


And then on 1 January 2008 you were appointed an Associate Professor, a level D?‑‑‑No.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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.


So level E, professorial level?‑‑‑Yes.


So you were appointed as a full professor with effect from?‑‑‑2012 I think, or 2013.


Okay.  It might be 1 January 2013?‑‑‑Something like that, yes.


Okay.  All right.  Now, in terms of your promotions you were successful in promotion on each occasion?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


So if I've understood that correctly you agree with the proposition I put?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


But that:


There's no part of the year I work as little as a standard 38 or 40 hour week.




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


And also three days a week you arrived at work at 9 o'clock because you do school drop off?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.


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.


And can I ask when that was?‑‑‑So Rachel was born in 2008 and 2012, and that's definitely 2012.


And the year of your marriage, Professor?‑‑‑Not married.  Not married.


I'll withdraw the question.  Now, you're also the deputy head of school?‑‑‑I am, yes.


And that's an additional appointment over and above being a professor?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.


And you receive a separate additional heads allowance?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


Fifteen thousand dollars per annum?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.


And that's in addition to your salary as a professor?‑‑‑Yes.


Which is approximately $170,000 under the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑I believe so, yes.


And together with 17 per cent super?‑‑‑Yes.


And so that's a package which is slightly in excess of $200,000?‑‑‑Yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


Now, in terms of   you're a PhD supervisor of six?‑‑‑Currently, yes, I am.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


Sorry, is that main, was it, sorry?‑‑‑Main supervisor.


Yes?‑‑‑Then you will have co-supervisor and joint supervisor.  But the main supervisor is expected to carry the burden of the work.


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.


Right?‑‑‑Ranging in contribution, supervisory contribution from 80 per cent, down to 60 per cent.


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.


But it is actually a requirement, if I understood your answer before?‑‑‑Yes, it's an actual requirement.


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.


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


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.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


Do you sit down with all six every week at the Uni?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes, I do.


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.


Across your six PhD students?‑‑‑Yes.


Right.  And as I understand your evidence in your discipline the PhD students have to be part of the research project; correct?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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


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.


So since 2004?‑‑‑Yes.


And you've mentioned   you were drawing a distinction between review articles and other articles?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Is that a convenient time to adjourn, Mr Pill?


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]



MR PILL:  Professor Andrews, just before we broke I was asking you some questions about PhD supervision?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


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.


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.


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.


Thank you.  Can I just ask you some questions about contact hours?‑‑‑Yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


And at paragraph 11 of your first statement you give some general evidence about contact hours?‑‑‑Yes.


I'll just let you turn to that?‑‑‑Yes.


You say:


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.




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.


And they're ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑The laboratory total contact hours as well are spread over both semesters, so they're not simply during one semester.


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.


And so just to check I've understood that, the 38 to 55 is the total over those two teaching blocks?‑‑‑That's correct.


Of 24 weeks in total?‑‑‑That's correct.  Yes.


And similarly the 40 to 110 demonstrating hours, that's the total across the year, but falling within those two semesters?‑‑‑Two semesters, yes.


Yes?‑‑‑And this only refers to under graduate teaching in the units that we are allocated teaching within.


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


All right.  I'll might come back to that?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


Yes?‑‑‑And that's an expectation, a pedagogical expectation.


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.


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.


There's five faculties?‑‑‑Sorry?


Five faculties at Monash?‑‑‑Nine faculties, I think.




Okay.  And to be clear the education focused are continuing academic staff members?‑‑‑Yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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.


And that compares with your traditional 40/40/20 teaching and research academics?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.


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.


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.


All right?‑‑‑I can't speak to anybody else's workload distribution.


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.


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.


Yes.  All right?‑‑‑And they're direct contact, so you're physically located in the laboratory.


Physically in the lab?‑‑‑Yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


Now, your evidence is that you use a lot of PhD students to help conduct this demonstrating?‑‑‑Yes.  That's true.


One hundred and sixty-five of them is your evidence here?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Teaching associates.  And they're paid for that marking?‑‑‑Yes, paid for the marking.


Now, you give evidence at the start of your statement that you directly supervise a level   this is paragraph 3?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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


‑ ‑ ‑ 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.


And when you say you look after them, it's predominantly ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑The level A or the level B and C?


Sorry, I'm just talking about Bs and Cs now?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


You're not managing them in the same way as you're managing the level A?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.


You're predominantly conducting an annual performance review?‑‑‑Performance review.  Yes, that's true.


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.


You see them every day?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


But you're not managing them every day?‑‑‑I don't manage them, no.


No?‑‑‑What they do, once their teaching is allocated, and what they do in their research is up to them.


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


Yes?‑‑‑And that's oversight of a more senior staff member trained to undertake the performance reviews.


Yes.  Monash provides training for its supervisors?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.


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.


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.


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.


One would hope?‑‑‑One would hope.


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.


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.


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.


And there's actually formal principles about achievement relative to opportunity?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


There would also be discussion about developmental programs that could undertaken?‑‑‑Yes.


Whether I might go on the outside studies program and pursue that?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


Yes.  So there might be discussions about a promotion trajectory?‑‑‑Yes.


And then, having done that, you get to the end of the year and that process goes over again?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


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


I'll just take you to it.  You give that evidence at 25.  And I'm para-phrasing?‑‑‑Yes.  No.


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.


And part of the change now is to put some greater emphasis on demonstrated expertise and excellence in education?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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?


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


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.


Now, can I ask about conferences?‑‑‑Yes, of course.


And you give this evidence partly at 33 on page 11.  And you talk about that there are two peak periods of conferences?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


And it's part of the reason why you're here today?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


Are you speaking at that conference?‑‑‑Yes, I am.


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.


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.


And how often would you attend conferences?‑‑‑Normally two to three times a year.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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.


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.


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.


‑ ‑ ‑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.


Yes?‑‑‑But there is still an approval process.




You're flying on the university's dollar?‑‑‑Or the ARC money, yes.


On the ARC?‑‑‑The public money.


Yes.  Now, you currently hold three ARC grants; is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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.


So it's a little bit over 1.2 million dollars, if I add those three numbers up?‑‑‑Yes.


Four forty, 360, 430?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes.  In terms of grant applications there's essentially a grant round?‑‑‑That's right.


Does it fall at the same time every year or approximately the same time?‑‑‑Within a few weeks.


Yes?‑‑‑The deadline is within a few weeks and it's always early March of each year.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Can I take you to PA2 which is attachment PA2?‑‑‑Yes.  So supplementary witness statement?


That's the one?‑‑‑PA2.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


And I just need to take you to the second attachment?‑‑‑Yes.


And what you've attached there is quantitative research expectations?‑‑‑Yes.


Is that right?‑‑‑Academic performance indicators, yes.


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.


And goes over to the second page?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes.  And you're being a level B professor teaching in research, you have minimum and aspirational standards?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.


And so, can I just check I've understood this correctly?‑‑‑That's okay.


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.


And the aspirational would be to produce five?‑‑‑Yes.


And these are generally assessed over a rolling three year period?‑‑‑Yes, correct.  Yes.


And so when we look, for example, back to a level B   now, it's the case there's none for level A?‑‑‑No.


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.


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


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.


And if I've understood you correctly whereas previously, if you and I co-authored a paper ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑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.


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.


All right.  And similar considerations apply to the research income and the supervision which is essentially HDR supervisions?‑‑‑HDR supervision, yes.


Yes.  So higher degree research supervision being predominant for PhDs but some Masters supervision as well?‑‑‑Some Masters but not many.


And in terms of your work ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑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.


So if I take a conservative view of that and say eight, that's 24 over the last three years?‑‑‑Yes.


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


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.


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.


Right?‑‑‑And I don't like counting bodies on desks as such.


Like I count offices for our solicitors?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


Now, as the supervisor of six level Bs and Cs, are they all exceeding the minimum performance standards?‑‑‑On publication, yes.


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.


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.



***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  So can I just perhaps ask a question there?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


‑ ‑ ‑ 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.


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.


MR PILL:  Can I ask a couple of related questions?‑‑‑Yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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.


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.


And without putting it too bluntly in terms of your role as a supervisor ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑have you formally disciplined any of your staff who haven't met a metric?‑‑‑You talk about the B and C staff?


Yes?‑‑‑No.  Nearly everyone in the school of chemistry meets or exceeds the minimum standards.


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.


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.


Sorry, I'll just find that for you.  Paragraph 55 through 58?‑‑‑Yes.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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.


Now, you've given evidence at paragraph 57 that:


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.


You see that?‑‑‑Yes, I am reading that right now.


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.


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.


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]


‑ ‑ ‑ 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


So if the witness can ‑ ‑ ‑


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  We're just going to give you a test.


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.


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.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Clause 71?‑‑‑Clause 71?


MR PILL:  Sorry.  Sorry, page 77?‑‑‑Yes.  Okay.


My apologies, clause 71?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


Yes.  And then the next round of bargaining was 2005?‑‑‑Yes.


And I'll hand you that document.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Do you want to mark these as MFIs as we go along, Mr Pill?


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.



MR PILL:  And what I've handed you there is the cover page and then an extract from the 2005 agreement?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Yes.  All right.  Thank you.  I'll ask that be marked.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Document for Monash University Enterprise Agreement 2005 MFI6.



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.


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


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.


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.


‑ ‑ ‑ and some factors for dealing with unreasonable workloads.  Now, you were part of this bargaining round?‑‑‑Yes, I was.  Yes.


Yes.  Now, well, I'll ask that that be marked for identification.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Monash University Enterprise Agreement 2009 extract MFI7.



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.


And by that clause, it's clause ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Fifty-nine.


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.


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.


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


Sorry, in the context ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑There are many discussions that happen.


‑ ‑ ‑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.


When you say it was raised before you got involved, how do you know that?‑‑‑It was raised before I got involved.


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.


Yes?‑‑‑I'm not Australian.  I don't understand that.


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.


Yes?‑‑‑And probably in a context that I wouldn't have fully understood.


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.




MR PILL:  Thank you.




MR PILL:  Paragraph 56 you say, in the last sentence, that:

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


If the union had held out for what we wanted we never would have got an agreement.


I'm sorry, you can ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes, I was looking at 56 of the agreement.


Sorry.  Understandable mistake due to my questioning.  Fifty-six of your statement in the last line and-a-half?‑‑‑Yes.


You say:


If the union had held out for what we wanted we never would have got an agreement.


?‑‑‑That's true.


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.


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.


All right.  Putting aside that retrospect vaguely understanding?‑‑‑Yes.


In terms of what you claimed at the bargaining table so forget the compromise, the negotiation?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


And there was no claim for an overtime loading?‑‑‑No claim.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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.


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.


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.


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


MR PILL:  You would accept that whilst you say 40 per cent of an absolute can't be determined ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑ 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 ‑ ‑ ‑


That that is a meaningful number?‑‑‑Absolutely.


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.


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.


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.


Broad indication?‑‑‑Yes.


You accept that?‑‑‑Yes.  Research is a many varied wonderful thing.


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.


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


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.


Indeed?‑‑‑And for many people it's become work.


Yes?‑‑‑Rather than, you know, a calling.


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.


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?


In terms of claiming an overtime payment?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


You go on at 60 to say:

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


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  


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.


So it's ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That the university buys in, yes.


So university funded external providers of psychological support on those sorts of issues?‑‑‑Yes.


There's also a university counselling service?‑‑‑University counselling.  Yes.


There's what's called Safer Communities?‑‑‑Yes.


Which deals with more extreme situation at risk individuals?‑‑‑Yes, students and staff.  Yes.


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.


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?


Yes?‑‑‑Personally, no.


Okay.  All right.  Now, can I just a couple of questions about IT, as in information technology?‑‑‑Okay.


You do give some evidence about it.  You look a little ‑ ‑ ‑


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  Can I perhaps just ask a question before you move on to that, Mr Pill?

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


MR PILL:  Yes.  Thank you, Deputy President.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  At paragraph 61 you indicate that, or you depose:


I've never been instructed not to work during lunch breaks or refrain from working out of hours.




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.


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.


What might be characterised as odd hours, whether it's late at night or consistently on weekends ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑ 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


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.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  Thank you, Mr Pill?‑‑‑Thank you.


MR PILL:  At paragraph 58, Professor, you give some brief evidence about information technology?‑‑‑Yes.


And your evidence is you're given the option between an desktop and a laptop?‑‑‑Yes.


And I take it from your evidence that you've elected to have a desktop?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


‑ ‑ ‑you have greater requirements than, the university also enables staff to salary package IT equipment?  Are you aware of that?‑‑‑Laptops.




And you've actually done it yourself?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


All right.  Have you read all of the university policies?‑‑‑At some point.


And you'll see under   well, there's some procedure of coverages as to who it applies to?‑‑‑Yes.


And then all staff?‑‑‑Yes.


And then it goes on to talk about a process for approving requests.  It talks about:


appropriate for the efficient discharge of a staff member's responsibilities and where there's sufficient budget available.

***        PHILIP CRAIG ANDREWS                                                                                                               XXN MR PILL


And then there's an approval process at number 3.  You see that?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


And when you say you have to use your own cost centre ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Funds, yes.


‑ ‑ ‑it's obviously technically the university's funds?‑‑‑Technically, yes, but you have budgetary control of them to some degree.




And at number 10 you'll see that there's capacity to seek, under this policy, reimbursement for certain rental costs?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


It is an internal budgeting process and allocation of costs?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes, allocations.  Yes.


I have no further ‑ ‑ ‑


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Are we marking that document, Mr Pill?


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.



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.


And there's also reflected in the enterprise agreement what's call accelerated incremental advancement?‑‑‑Yes.


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.


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


I have no further questions.




MS PUGSLEY:  No questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Any re-examination, Ms Gale?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE                                                    [3.46 PM]


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.


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.


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


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.


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 ‑ ‑ ‑


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.


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]


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



ANNE MERILYN JUNOR, AFFIRMED........................................................ PN2584

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE................................................... PN2584


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 #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 #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