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




10.09 AM, TUESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2016


Continued from 29/08/2016





MR PILL:  Your Honour, perhaps I can briefly address one issue before we start, or that most directly affects Commissioner Johns, who is not here, and it relates to the statements of Drs Dicks and Nerkar that we raised in correspondence.  There's been some communications overnight between the parties - - -


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes, I've seen the correspondence.


MR PILL:  - - - and on the basis that those concessions and redactions are made, and subject to one thing I'll say in a moment, we don't press to have the statements withdrawn.  What we would seek, and it's not opposed, is the opportunity ahead of 21 October for leave to file a statement in response, or statements in response, to each of those two statements if our clients so choose.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  Do you have any objection to that, Ms Gale?






MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.  I understand from my friend that the product of those redactions will be filed with the Commission next week in the form of a replacement statement for Dr Nerkar.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  Having said that, I don't think, given that 21 October is a half-day and the way we're travelling, there may have to be a revisit of the timetable as we go along.


MR PILL:  Yes.  We anticipate that, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  So might have a further revision at the end of this week, Ms Gale.


MS GALE:  Yes.  Thank you, your Honour.  The NTU proposes to call Professor Glenda Strachan.  Before she comes into the room, though, I just want to indicate that in the hearing before Johns C in relation to objections, the NTU was given liberty to ask some additional questions of Professor Strachan when she's in the box, and that's found at paragraph 118 of the transcript of 21 July.  On that basis, we do propose to ask Professor Strachan one additional question.




MS GALE:  Could I call Professor Glenda Strachan.

<GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN, AFFIRMED                                 [10.12 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE                                     [10.13 AM]


MS GALE:  Professor Strachan, could you state your name and address for the record again, please?‑‑‑Glenda Jean Strachan (address supplied).


Do you have a statement in the form of a report that you prepared for these proceedings?‑‑‑I do.


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


Do you have any corrections or amendments you need to make to that statement?‑‑‑No.


Do you say that it's true and correct?‑‑‑I do.


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


Thank you.  I ask that that statement be marked?





MS GALE:  Professor Strachan, can I take you to attachment 1 of your statement which begins at page 19 of the bundle?‑‑‑Yes.


There you have attached the questionnaire on which the research that you provide information on is based?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XN MS GALE


It starts with the academic staff questionnaire and that runs to 15 pages?‑‑‑Yes.


Then there's the general and professional staff questionnaire?‑‑‑Yes.


That also runs to 15 pages, so what I'd like to do is take you to page 5 of 15 in the general staff questionnaire?‑‑‑Yes.


That section there headed, "Your hours"?‑‑‑Yes.


I'll wait until we're all on the same page.  There are six questions there, E1 to E6, and E5 is, "When you work more hours than your set weekly hours, how are you compensated"?‑‑‑Yes.


Could you tell us what your findings were in relation to that question?‑‑‑Right.  Well, we'd already asked a couple of questions about how long people had worked in 1 to E4, so in E5, we asked when you work more than your set weekly hours, how are you compensated and there were there options and the possibility for adding some comments.  So the first option was overtime payment, the second option was time off in lieu of overtime, and the third option was no compensation.  The fourth box was "Other" if people wanted to write some different things in.  Well over 95 per cent ticked boxes 1, 2 or 3, and of that, 17 per cent said they received overtime payment and I think 12 per cent received time off in lieu of overtime and 67 per cent said they received no compensation for their weekly hours, for hours worked over their weekly hours.  Set hours.


Thank you.  I have no further questions.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                           [10.16 AM]

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


MR PILL:  Good morning, Professor Strachan.  I represent the group of eight universities in this proceeding and I just need to ask you a few questions, or a number of questions, about your statement.  I'll start on page 1.  Is it fair to say that your research across your career has focused or had a special emphasis on gender inequity, as I read your statement?‑‑‑That's a very interesting question.  Some of the questions I ask and some of the focus is on that.  I'd draw your attention to the fact that I did get the Vic Taylor Distinguished Long-Term Contribution Award awarded in 2015 by the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand and this was on my contribution in the field of industrial relations scholarship, plus feminist IR.  So my research is in the field of industrial relations, is always been wider than that.  If we look at the history of industrial relations scholarship, up until the 1970s, it was almost by default based on the male breadwinner model and we looked at men and male industries.  So from the 1970s, and particularly my work from the 1980s, sought to insert analysis also of women's work and women in industrial relations.  So I would see my work as adding in that area, but never to the exclusion of looking at the total workforce, or men in the workforce, and - - -


Perhaps I might interrupt you there.  When I asked you whether you had a special emphasis on gender inequity, I was actually just reading from your own statement under "Overview of Research".  In the second line there, you'll see that you've given evidence that your research career - you've got the body of research on contemporary and historical workplace change with a special emphasis on gender inequity - - - ?‑‑‑Yes, an emphasis, but not an exclusion to other aspects of that.


No, no.  I understand that.  You've also cited selectively a number of book chapters, and this appears on page 2 at the bottom and page 3 and page 4.  Having gone through those, it's fair to say the overwhelming majority are directed at issues concerning women gender inequity?‑‑‑Yes.  I think that that's right.  I wanted to insert that understanding, but it's always in the context of understanding what the whole of the workforce does, and certainly our survey, the work and careers in Australian universities survey in which this research is based was a survey of all workers, women and men, in the industry.


Now, you're here today, put forward as an expert, and you've prepared a report.  Is there some reason why your report is not signed?‑‑‑No.  I can sign it.  There's no reason I know that it's not signed.


Are you aware of the practice note or guidance concerning expert evidence - - - ?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - in the proceedings?  Are you aware that experts' reports are required to be signed, contain acknowledgements that you've read and understood the practice note concerning expert evidence?  Are you aware of that?‑‑‑Right.  Well, I was.  I don't know why it wasn't signed.  I can certainly do that.


I'm sorry, I didn't understand you?‑‑‑I'm unaware as to why I wasn't given a copy to sign.


You're aware that it's required to identify the specific questions that the expert was required to address?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


You accept that in your report, nowhere does it identify the questions that the NTEU asked you to address?  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Well, maybe there wasn't that specific detail there, then, yes.  If that's the case.  I wasn't asked to put that in.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Professor Strachan, these are very important questions for the Bench, right?  I would ask that you really take the time to think about your answers very carefully.  You're put forward as an expert.  That's the basis upon which your evidence is being taken.  We need to understand how you're qualified as an expert?‑‑‑Right.  Yes, I was, on the basis of the research that was conducted under this Australian - - -


No.  The particular thing that Mr Pill is putting to you and you need to answer his questions directly.


MR PILL:  Are you aware that it also requires you to include an acknowledgement that your opinion is based wholly and substantially on specialised knowledge?  You're aware of that?‑‑‑Well, I wasn't given that advice, I have to say, to say that.


Were you given instructions or a brief or request by the NTEU at all?‑‑‑I was given instructions to prepare a submission around details from the research that we had conducted.


Yes.  Can you tell the Commission how you prepared your report?‑‑‑Well, I went to the research that we'd conducted under the Australian Research Council Grant and the initial report from that and prepared a summary of that and included the total report from that.


Your statement in front of you has been redacted.  Do you accept that the NTEU put some content to you in the initial report that you filed in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.  There was an initial literature review which they showed me, yes.


You included that in your previous expert report?‑‑‑Yes, that was included, yes.  I agree with that, yes.


The particular statement you're referring to, the NTEU is a research partner for your study, is that right?‑‑‑That's correct, as is Universities Australia and UniSuper.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


In terms of the NTEU as a research partner, what did that involve in the NTEU?‑‑‑Well, all research partners - it's an Australian Research Council linkage grant, and the three research partners were Universities Australia, the NTEU and UniSuper.  All those partners are required to provide some support, both financially and in kind, and - - -


What is the in kind contribution that the NTEU provides?‑‑‑The in kind contribution was some work within the office, stuff, work help at analysing some of the data there.  And the in kind work from Universities Australia was support for contacting partners in terms of getting universities to participate in the survey and UniSuper provided some support via providing some data from UniSuper and analysing that as requested from that.  And all provided, I think, $20,000 per year for three years as financial support, and all that was approved when the grant was approved through the Australian Research Council.


Can I ask whether you're a member of the NTEU?‑‑‑Yes, I'm a member of the NTEU.


You have not included that in your expert report?‑‑‑Right.  Okay.  Well, I am a member.


How long have you been a member?‑‑‑I've been a member since I joined Universities - well, it's predecessor union in 1983.


So some time?‑‑‑That's correct.


You've worked in the past with Dr Robyn May?‑‑‑Yes.


You're one of her supervisors on the PhD?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


You've worked with Dr Anne Junor as well?‑‑‑I have worked with Dr Anne Junor.  Not for a while, but we're actually named on a new grant together.


Are you aware that they've given evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.


Have you discussed that with them?‑‑‑No, I have not.


In your statement, we've got section 1 which is personal details?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


We've got a section 3 which is your research?‑‑‑Yes.


And then we've essentially got two attachments?‑‑‑Yes.


We've got an attachment 1 which includes two surveys, one for academic staff and one for general staff?‑‑‑That's correct.  Yes.


Secondly, a section, or attachment 4, I apologise, we've got the report itself as part of your research?‑‑‑Yes.


Can I take you to page 6 of your statement which is the section that starts with "My Own Research"?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


In the third paragraph, you talk about the fact that there are, or continue to be, pronounced gender inequalities that remain in universities?‑‑‑Yes.


But also identify that universities do have a number of policies directed at seeking to address those matters?‑‑‑That's correct.


Are you aware from your research that universities, for example, have a number of policies directed at assessing achievement relative to opportunity?‑‑‑Yes.


It's fair to say, isn't it, that they also are market leaders, if I can put it that way, across sectors in terms of paid parental leave?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.


Would you also accept that it's fair to say that the higher education sector is marked by a high number of flexible working arrangements relative to other sectors?‑‑‑Yes, it is.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Are you in a position to indicate whether the gender inequalities, which is the focus of your research, are better or worse than other sectors?‑‑‑That would require a lot of other detailed research and I don't have that on other sectors to make that comparison before me.  Those comments that are made there are based on the fact of that universities - or the highest proportion of any industry group actually get awarded the Employer of Choice for Women Award each year and that's been consistent in that area.  So they - it talks about a number of policies that they hold, because that award is mainly policy-based, then we talk about the practice.  So in terms of the policies in that held, that's what I'm basing that on and I know that a greater proportion of universities in the university sector get that award than do in other industry sectors.


Yes, thank you.  That's an award that's determined by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, the Commonwealth agency, is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.  It's a Federal government agency for women in the workplace.


Can I get you to turn the page to page 7 and I just want to ask you some questions about methodology?‑‑‑Yes.


So your report is a report based on a survey?‑‑‑Yes.


In fact, as you say at the top there, there's three survey instruments?‑‑‑Yes.


I take it that there's one for each of the groups; there's one for professional and general staff, fixed term and continuing, one for academic, fixed term and continuing and one for sessional teaching staff?‑‑‑That's correct.


You say midway down the survey instrument is attached in appendix 1.  Can I just ask, we don't have the sessional survey, is that right?‑‑‑No, that wasn't attached to this one.  I think - I don't know, Robyn may have - gave evidence, that was her focus of her research, Dr Robyn May, so that isn't attached to this one.


Is that why you left it out, because Dr Robyn May was going to give evidence about - - - ?‑‑‑Well, that was the - she was the PhD funded on the project.  Her focus was on the casual academic staff.  I can make some comments on the findings, though, supervised her - - -


I just want to understand the documents that you've chosen to put before the Commission?‑‑‑No.


You've chosen not to put before the Commission the survey instrument for casuals and I just want to understand your answer?‑‑‑Yes.  She is the - she has the most detailed knowledge about the casual survey.


So because she was going to give evidence about it, you decided not to include it?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Did you discuss that with the NTEU?‑‑‑I probably did.  I can't exactly recall though, the other discussions, but that's likely.


Before I leave the groups, I just want to pin down some nomenclature.  Group 2, which you described as academic - - - ?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - as I understand it, casual academics or sessionals are excluded from that group?‑‑‑That's correct.


Those people appear in group 3?‑‑‑That's correct.


And they're just academics in group 3?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.


So none of the surveys touched casual professional/general staff?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes, that is indeed correct.


In terms of the sessional teaching staff, could that cover everyone from someone who delivers a series of, say, six lectures through to someone who is teaching on a sessional basis much more regularly?‑‑‑Yes, it could.  Who it reaches was dependent on the process.  The whole survey and project received ethics clearance from the University of Queensland and Griffith University, and under that there were procedures for contacting each university to participate.  Through that, the sessional staff survey was only sent out electronically, given that universities didn't - many of them couldn't provide lists for, you know, firm post box, if you like, addresses for casual academic staff.


Yes?‑‑‑So the participating university provided an email list of casual staff in a semester time to the social science research junior who was actually administering the questionnaire through the University of Queensland for us.  So the university just provided a list of email addresses at a certain point in a semester and then those people were sent out the questionnaire.


Can I just ask you about your description in group 3 there, that says, "Engaged on a casual hourly basis only as per last pay period prior to study launch"?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Can you just explain that to the Commission, as to how the people were picked?‑‑‑Right.  Well, each university was asked to send an email list for their casual staff on the basis of the pay period prior to when it was being sent out, the date it was being sent out.  So the week or two - the prior pay period.  It was an internal semester date.  Not every university administered on exactly the same date because we negotiated with each university about - some said it would be much better if we did it in September and others said in October or November.  So there were a couple of different dates during the second semester that the survey was administered on the basis of agreement with each university.  And so we asked them to look to their pay records for the previous pay period prior to that administration date and just send it out to all the casual staff they had email addresses of.


Yes?‑‑‑For that.


So it follows from that, that if a casual had been engaged earlier in the semester but hadn't been working in that pay period, they would not be picked up?‑‑‑Yes, that's quite likely.  That's quite likely that that's the case.


And that could be the case even if they subsequently came back and had a further - - - ?‑‑‑That is right.  It's a very - as you would understand, it's a very transient - well, it's more transient than the other staff.  Greater difficulties in contacting them.


Is it fair to say that across the survey, your report is based upon the self-reported responses that you received?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


Was there any process to check or verify those responses against university records, for example?‑‑‑No.  No.  That would be nice, but very expensive.


In terms of the response rate, 27 per cent overall responded?‑‑‑Yes.


It's fair to say that the non-sessional staff had a greater response rate?‑‑‑Yes.


That's a significant difference?‑‑‑Yes.


And that appears in the bottom paragraph there.  You've got sessional staff at 12 per cent and you've got professional staff at 35 per cent and academic staff at 32 per cent?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


That was the case even though you could win an iPad, I see, if you filled in the response?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct, and all of that was approved, of course, by the ethics process of the university, so it's quite typical to, in a survey, they will allow a prize up to $1,000, I think it is, or a small amount, to be offered for surveys and that was approved by the ethics committees.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Because it's hard sometimes to get people interested enough to complete a survey?‑‑‑That's correct.  We were very pleased with those response rates.  For casual staff, even reaching them is difficult, so we hoped for more than 10 per cent and we got 12 per cent and the other response rates, according to the statisticians in our team were very healthy for surveys of this kind.


A subset of that was a target group.  If I can take you to page 8?‑‑‑Yes.


The target group was, as I read your report, a random selection - - - ?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - from the list the universities had provided?‑‑‑Yes.  That's correct.


It was a random selection of 250 professional staff?‑‑‑Yes.


And 250 academic staff?‑‑‑Yes.


It's the case, isn't it, that the reliability and probative value of survey data is greater if it's a random sample?‑‑‑That's correct.  Yes.


I see at the table at the top of page 8 that - and I'm not derogating from the particular numbers there - you've got numbers for each of four different groupings of universities?‑‑‑Yes.


Although it's fair to say that not all of the universities listed there participated in the study?‑‑‑That's correct.  Under the terms of the ethics clearance, we don't divulge which - the names of any particular university that participated, so they're confidential.


It's fair to say you had approximately 50 per cent of the target group across those universities respond?‑‑‑Yes.


So about 125 professional staff, or thereabouts?‑‑‑Yes.


And 125 academic staff?‑‑‑Yes.


Is it the case that the report, though, the report is not just a report of this random target group?‑‑‑No.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


It's across, including the non - - - ?‑‑‑It's a report of all responses.  When we got the responses, the statisticians in our team, Professor Peetz and Whitehouse, looked at the target responses and we just decided to collapse it all and look at the total responses.  So all the research we've conducted since then has been on the basis of the total responses.


You say the statisticians; is that because 125 was considered too small a sample group?‑‑‑They looked at - no, I think the reasons were quite complex about that.  Looked at numbers answering different questions and there did not seem to be any particular reason to focus on the target group, so from memory, there were a couple of reasons in that.  The overall response rate was regarded as a good one.


It's the case, isn't it, and I'm looking at the bottom of page 8, that more women than men participated in the survey?‑‑‑Yes, it is.


Do you agree, and you say it's consistent with the Dewar statistics?‑‑‑Yes.


Do you accept that women are at least slightly over-represented in this survey?‑‑‑Marginally over-represented, but women are still the majority of employees in the sector.  So there's a couple of percentage difference only.


So for example, for academic staff in 2011/12 when you did the survey, based on the Dewar statistics, there is, for academic staff, approximately 45 per cent were female and approximately 55 per cent for male?‑‑‑Yes.


That compares, for example, with 51 per cent women and 49 per cent women for academic staff here?‑‑‑Yes.


Similarly, in relation to professional staff, there were 64 per cent females and approximately 36 per cent male, and that compares with 70 per cent women and 30 per cent men in your survey?‑‑‑Yes.  That's right.  So it's slightly over‑represented.


You accept that a potential explanation for that is the survey does have some emphasis in relation to equity issues and parental responsibilities?‑‑‑I don't know the reason.  Honestly cannot - I cannot say or speculate on the reason why a slightly higher percentage of women answered than men.  I really have no evidence for that.  The survey was very carefully cast in a non-gendered way with questions.  So I had no possibility of answering that question.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


But it was a voluntary survey?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.


People participated because they were interested and able to do so?‑‑‑That's right.  Yes.


Can I go to the top of page 9.  You've given evidence that a greater proportion of academic staff were born outside of Australia.  Are you able to say why that is?


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Sorry, isn't it the majority of professionals are born in Australia?  You said out of Australia.


MR PILL:  I'm sorry.  The last sentence, a greater proportion of academic staff are born outside of Australia, so - - - ?‑‑‑Than other staff.


- - - a greater proportion than the professional staff?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.  No, I can only - I can only speculate in relation to the employment processes at the universities in terms of recruiting their academic and professional staff.


Are you aware, based on your experience or your research, that there is greater internationalisation of academic staff in higher education than there is professional staff?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes, yes, from our general experience and from the survey, yes.  That's correct.


It's the case, isn't it, that academics particularly, if I can use this term, high-quality academics or high‑quality researchers will often move from country to country to pursue their careers?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


I appreciate you're giving evidence about your survey, are you aware of the recording of academic hours of academic researchers across the world?‑‑‑Yes.  Quite a number of them.


Yes?‑‑‑Not necessarily every single one, though, but yes, quite a number of other pieces of research, particularly on Australian working hours.


Are any of those based on - well, put it this way; are those based on self-reporting of hours?‑‑‑I'm thinking of the surveys of Coates and others in Melbourne and they were self-reporting, yes.  And I think probably Winefield in the 1990s was.  I'd have to check back, but it would be fair to say that the majority of surveys of hours staff were working had been based on surveys, but I couldn't say if everyone has.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Now, I just want to ask you a couple of questions, the rest of your section 3 from "Key findings of professional general staff" then relate to general staff and I want to ask you some questions about that, and then I'll come back to the academic staff?‑‑‑Yes.


In your first paragraph there under "Key findings" you give evidence about gender segregation and you referenced lower proportions for HEW 8 and above.  Is there a particular reason why you've called that HEW 8 and above?‑‑‑Well, the research that had been done early, and particularly actually in some research conducted by Universities Australia in looking at the Department of Education data on this, and tracking this three years shows that, if you like, there is a crossing point at level 8.  So there seems - this is where the numbers of women are currently declining.  So they start off as more women in the lower levels, you know, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and at the moment, using this longer-term national data, the key point of decline, or cross-over, is about level 8.  From level 9 on, women - men, you know, predominate in it.  So at the moment, based on those national figures, level 8 is a sort of a key cross‑over between where women are equally or more represented and they actually decline in their representation.


Yes.  Can I take you to page 12 where there's a table 5?‑‑‑Mm hm.


There's reference to "What is your current job"?‑‑‑Yes.


You'll see two of the answers towards the bottom, third and fourth-last, are "Management" and "Senior management"?‑‑‑Yes.


Senior management in that context is, I take it from the reference in brackets, to pro vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors?‑‑‑Yes.


They're very senior management positions?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


Do you accept, looking at the numbers there, and I've added them up, there's 1,087 female managers or senior managers, 1,967 male managers or senior managers, and that comes out at slightly over - well, it comes out at 3154 managers.  If I turn the page to table 8, you have a breakdown of respondents by classification level.  Do you accept that there's - and when I look to the numbers, if I look to HEW 10, HEW 9 and HEW 8, the numbers broadly correlate to covering HEW 10, HEW 9 and at least a significant proportion of HEW 8?‑‑‑Mm.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Do you accept that, as a general proposition, the managers and senior managers are populating HEW 8, 9 and 10, or above?‑‑‑Yes, generally.  The point I would make about the previous one, "What is your current job", people selected from a range of options and ticked what they thought, so it could be a little - you know, we didn't ask for it to correlate with an exact level in table 5 as we do in table 8.


I accept that, but you accept the general proposition that I put to you?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


My friend took you in evidence-in-chief, the questions she asked you this morning, to essentially uncompensated extra hours?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.


Are you aware that in the vast majority of enterprise agreements and in the industry award, that HEW 8, 9 and 10 do not have an entitlement to paid overtime?‑‑‑Yes, I am.  I thought HEW 8 and 9 had an entitlement to time off in lieu.


It varies across the sector, but - - - ?‑‑‑Varies across the sector, yes.


Did you seek to exclude HEW 8, 9 and 10 from your survey question or qualify it in any way?‑‑‑No.  We asked everybody all of those questions.  I have, however, data we've worked out by their answers by level there, and so it - I have it in my bag.  I can't remember it all in my head, but we have done the cross-tabulation between level and compensation.


Yes?‑‑‑So I can provide you with that precise detail actually.  I know from memory that, was it, 32 or 34 per cent, around that, of levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 said they received no compensation and being the lowest group of - like, lowest-paid employees, they are definitely entitled to that, so it was just in excess of 30 per cent of that group said that they had no entitlement - they had - did not receive any compensation for work in excess - of excess set hours.


Yes?‑‑‑You know?  But I have actually the exact cross-tab details.  I can actually give you, if I can look in my bag?


We'll stick with the statement for the moment?‑‑‑Right.


Can I ask, in that question, did you identify or seek to distinguish between hours that they were directed to work and hours that they worked?‑‑‑No, we did not.


Go back to page 9.  You've identified these key findings, and I just want to confirm a couple of them.  It's fair to say that there's a high degree of job satisfaction, you report that?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


It's also fair to say that the majority, more than half, 59 per cent, received help from their supervisors with their careers?‑‑‑Yes.


There's a couple of questions that go to that and the majority indicated that their supervisors were helpful to them?‑‑‑Absolutely.


Can I take you to table 10 on page 13.  You've extracted some tables about working hours and table 10 says, "How many hours per week do you usually work in your current job?"  You accept that in the question, you've actually underlined the word "usually" to emphasise it?‑‑‑Yes.


You accept there's a difference between what you usually work and, say, a statistical average?‑‑‑Yes.  I - we were asking individuals to reflect on their working life.  What we did by underling that was - "usually", so that if they had had a peak week the week before or, you know, a huge working week for one week or a very low one, that they could just reflect on what was usually, they had done usually.


You accept that there's some scope for interpretation - - - ?‑‑‑Absolutely.


- - - if I, say typically, during semester times work 50 hours a week and in January I work 20 hours a week, do you accept this, I'm likely in response to that question say, well, I usually work 50 hours a week?‑‑‑I can't answer what was in the mind of any respondent when they answered the survey.  We took a lot of time to prepare the words in the questionnaire and we did a pilot study prior, and quite substantial changes from the pilot study to the final study, to try and get questions that would seek the heart of the answers we wanted.  So we ended up with this one.  I don't know what's in the mind of any single individual when they answer it.


No, I accept that?‑‑‑We were after, I guess, trying to get people to exclude if they were in a working environment that had some high peaks and low troughs, to avoid picking at that end.  Obviously other people, their working hours are fairly stable from week to week, so we did the best we could and in the terms of survey construction by asking what they usually worked.


Yes.  You accept you didn't ask them whether there were departures from the number that they provided?‑‑‑No.  No.  We - - -

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


You asked them for their average number of hours per week?‑‑‑No, we didn't.  We did not.  In a large questionnaire, we're constrained by the number of questions you can ask, to get people to complete it.


You didn't ask them whether those hours they were reporting had been recorded by them?‑‑‑No, we did not.  We did not.  It wasn't a survey totally focused on hours, it was a survey wider, looking at wider issues about working career, of which one is hours.


Yes, indeed.  You accept that, given the way that question is framed, when I talk about OSP, or Outside Studies Programme or sabbaticals, that sort of language - sorry, I'll unpack the question.  You're aware that in the higher education sector, academics will typically have access to periods of time, usually six or 12 months, that they can apply for to typically go overseas and engage in research collaboration with their colleagues?‑‑‑Yes.


If I was answering this question, "How many hours a week do you usually work in your current job", you'd accept that I'm likely to discount periods of OSP?‑‑‑I don't - this is actually in answer to professional staff, so they would have less access to that than academic staff.


You're quite right, Professor Strachan.  The same question appears in the academic - - - ?‑‑‑That's right.


Perhaps I'll revisit with you at that point?‑‑‑All right, okay.  Yes.


Can I take you over the page to page 14.  The question is, "If you could choose the number of hours per week would you prefer to work", and options, "Fewer hours than now", "Same hours as now", "More hours than now", "Don't know", "Not sure".  Were there any other qualifications put on this question?‑‑‑No.  That is the question as it was asked.


So you didn't ask them if they would choose to prefer number of hours if it would come with a commensurate increase or decrease in their remuneration?‑‑‑No.  No, we did not.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


You'd accept that outside of that, so for the same salary, that there would be a propensity to say, "Well, I'd like to work less hours"?  A bit like asking someone, "Would you like more salary for the same number of hours"?‑‑‑I'm not so sure that I totally agree with that statement actually on that.  This is only - I have to say at this point I don't know for sure, I can't answer that question one way or the other.  We don't have any of the data to make any qualifications at all about, you know, the statement that you said, that everybody would like to work fewer hours or implication that many people would like to work fewer hours.  I really can't make a comment on that.  I really question it because some people do like being at work, but that's just a personal quirk.  So I can't - we have no data to comment on.


Do you accept that if I'm one of those who works fewer hours than now, absent those questions about, well, is that on a part-time basis with less salary, that it doesn't actually give us an indication as to whether, for the same salary - sorry, I withdraw that.  Can I ask you to turn to page 17 where you ask questions about flexible working arrangements?‑‑‑Yes.


At table 23, we have in the context of actually making a change to your employment, which would come with some sort of change in remuneration, a series of arrangements that one way or another are all a reduction in working.  Working less hours on an ongoing basis, working reduced hours, working fewer hours each day, working school term only, job share.  I should qualify my question.  Have more flexible start and finish time for the same number of hours, working extra overtime could be more hours, and transferring into different jobs.  You see that?‑‑‑Yes.


In this question, staff were able to tick more than one of these?‑‑‑Yes, they were.


So the percentage of 20 per cent that appears at the top there could well have within it persons who also appear in the other percentages below?‑‑‑Yes, correct.


Can I take you to page 15 and I just want to ask some questions about the way - so I'm at page 15, it's table 15, 16 and 17.  Do you accept that when I look at the questions at table 15 and the available responses, other than the qualifier, "None of the above", they're all expressed in the negative?‑‑‑Well, I wouldn't say having to work - oh, having to work part-time, having to take additional leave, stress from home - well, yes.  Yes, that's the first time that anyone in our trialling put that point to me.  I don't know that I would look at them as negatives myself.  First time anyone's mentioned that, but you are looking at - that question is, "Has your work been affected by your family responsibilities?"


Yes, and then all of the answers are implicitly negative?‑‑‑Yes.


There's no question, for example, about that - there's no box to tick that might have had a positive effect?‑‑‑Well, yes, apart from "None of the above".


Apart from "None of the above", and indeed, 57 per cent - - - ?‑‑‑That's correct.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


- - - fell within "None of the above"?‑‑‑Absolutely.


So notwithstanding the negative phrasing of the question, the majority actually ticked "None of the above"?‑‑‑Well, I think most people wouldn't - well, I thought just statement of fact, had they worked - had they had to work part-time, had they had to take additional leave, so to me, they're more statements of fact, and as you say, 57 per cent had done none of those.


Yes.  So there's no question about where the family or carers responsibilities have actually assisted them in maintaining balance in their life.  We've already had evidence in these proceedings from a professor at Monash who has moderated his working patterns because he had a young family?‑‑‑Yes.


There's no question it was that, other than "None of the above"?‑‑‑Well, we have the question somewhere, I'll have to look, about "Has your balance between work and family gone up or down in the previous two years", and that question is a very standard question on, like, national Hilder surveys and so on like that.


Can I take you to table 16.  You'd accept again it's a negatively-framed question?  "Have you ever resigned from or not taken up work in the university due to caring responsibilities?  How long were you out of the sector as a result"?‑‑‑Right.  These are standard work and family questions that are done or are similar to those done in other national surveys like the Hilder survey, so we put them in here to see at that stage, you know, what the impact of trying to - combining care responsibilities with work actually is and - - -


But you accept my proposition it is a negative question?‑‑‑Well, I don't know if I do accept.  We're asking at this point questions of fact from them, so not opinion.  "Have you had to work part-time?  Have you resigned from your job or not", so we're just asking them questions of fact about their working life.


But you accept there's no corollary balanced question, there's no question of fact as to, "Have you taken up employment in this sector or the university because of flexibilities in the sector"?‑‑‑No, we didn't ask that question.  No.


Or because of the hours of work and the benefits that are available in the sector?‑‑‑No.  No, that could be done in another survey.  No, we didn't ask that question.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


You accept at table 17, "Think about the balance between your work and the rest of your life, how often does work", and then you look down and we've got the same three questions broken down by gender and the total.  Do you accept that those three are all negatively phrased?‑‑‑Well, the focus of these questions is on the work and interference with work and the rest of your life and they're standard questions that are asked to get an answer to that question.  These aren't new questions in this survey, they're taken from other surveys that are standardly done.  So I think - and this one is a "think" question, so this one is an opinion question for each individual to think about.


Can I take you over to table 19 on page 16 and the question is, "Thinking about your life in general, how often do you feel rushed or pressed for time?"  On its face, that's not work-limited?‑‑‑That's correct.


And doesn't identify a causative effect, causative reasons?‑‑‑That's correct.


If I look at the percentages there, the total sample, "Almost always", "Often", 52 per cent, that's actually less than the percentage for sessional academic staff, who account for 54 per cent?‑‑‑Right.  Yes.


You accept that?‑‑‑Yes.  That's a question that is commonly asked in other surveys that try to get at issues of work and family.  So it's a question that's been used in other surveys.


Do you accept that, even if I just look at those two facts, we've full-time professional staff - - - ?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - reporting that they're less feel rushed or pressed for time than sessional academic staff who on average have less hours of work - - - ?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


- - - that very limited conclusions can be drawn about the impact of work contributing to their feeling rushed or pressed for time?‑‑‑I'd have to say for casual staff, we don't know how much additional work they do in addition to university work because we're only asking about the hours of work at any university.  So I have - we have no information about whether they conduct any other work outside of the university or anything like that.  So I'd be a bit cautious, myself, about drawing any conclusions between the two.


You'd accept you'd have to be cautious drawing any conclusion about the role of work and the answer to that question?‑‑‑It's a combination of work and other issues, yes.


Well, only in the sense that every respondent has - - - ?‑‑‑Is employed, yes, that's correct.  Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Can I ask you to turn to the attachment and can I take you to page - this is attachment 1 which is the surveys themselves to start with, and on page 5 of 15 - - -


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Is that the academic one or the old one?


MR PILL:  It's the academic one, sir, first page 5 of 15 appearing.


Question E4, "How many hours per week do you usually work in your current job?"  You see that?‑‑‑Yes.


I've asked you some questions about "usually" and I won't repeat those.  In the context of academic staff, were there any questions that elicited whether their hours that they're reporting here are self-corrected hours?‑‑‑No, is the answer to that.  It becomes a more complicated issue when you're talking about academic staff and hours because academic work is more likely to be quantified by the quantum of hours rather than set weekly working hours.  So most academics have a contract now of employment which would set out that they have certain proportions of their time to be spent on teaching, research, service, administration, whatever that third category is called, and what I would regard as a typical, certainly historically typical contract is 40 per cent teaching, 40 per cent research and 20 per cent service or administration.  We know now that that is varied across the sector, but nevertheless, it's our understanding that the majority of academics will have in their performance reviews at least set down a specific proportion of their time to be spent on these three sorts of activities and a mix of those.  But it's then output-based as in you have so many hours teaching, you must do so much service, you must meet so many research outputs by quality and quantity.  So I don't know that ever that's set down as an actual, it's more a quantum of work rather than hours-based work.


So the answer to my question is there's no question in your survey that elicits whether the hours that they're reporting are self-directed hours?‑‑‑Well, I don't really know what self-directed would actually mean.  Could you explain that to me in academic context?


I'm just trying to understand the survey and it's - - - ?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


I'll ask you another question.  Do you ask about whether the activities that they are reporting as they're spending hours on were self-determined?  So for example, in the research space, it's not just the case, is it, that there's some nebulous output, the academic sits down and determines what research they're going to undertake and how they're going to undertake it and in particular the research question that they're going to tackle.  Is there any survey question here that actually identifies that the hours that they usually work in their current job, what proportion of those are what I call self-determined activities, as opposed to directed by the university?‑‑‑In connection - I'd answer this first of all by saying in connection with research, and certainly a Griffith University where I am in the business school, there are very specific expectations in terms of research outputs that are set down in yearly performance review.


Yes?‑‑‑So it is so many - for instance, so many articles in academic journals of a certain standard because journals are ranked, or with book publishers that are highly ranked, or perhaps a national grant application, whatever.  Now, this varies particularly with level of staff member there.  So while I would say often self-directed might be around the questions of the research that they follow, it is determined in the performance agreement that's made once a year between a staff member and their supervisor, the outputs that will be achieved from that.  So I would see self-directed might be the research question they do, but it's self-directed is not about the outputs they have, that they're now in, certainly at Griffith University business school, in documents there.  The outputs are there to be reached.


I'll come to Griffith.  Just in terms of the expert evidence here in the survey you're presenting, are there any questions that identify whether the hours being reported as hours usually worked include or distinguish between self-determined or directed activities - - - ?‑‑‑Right.  I don't really - I find it very difficult to accept the self-determined versus determined, but we didn't ask exactly about, you know, who is standing over you to do each of these hours of work, no.


No, but in the context of - - - ?‑‑‑But I still question that for an academic staff member.


So in the context of research, it would include thinking time, contemplation?‑‑‑Well, that's an essential part of conducting research.


Yes.  At your university, and I don't want to embarrass you, but are you exceeding the minimum standards you're employed to?‑‑‑Since I did my evidence, I'm now an emeritus professor at the university.


Right.  Perhaps I'll go back to when you weren't an emeritus?‑‑‑So, yes, I certainly met - I certainly met the expectations for a professor.  Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Well, you exceeded them.  Based upon your publications and so forth, you weren't just meeting the minima?‑‑‑Well, it becomes a bit more difficult here.  We have "satisfactory" and then an "excellent" area, so on that so, yes, it's satisfactory.  Just slightly above.  That's all.


So above?  And you'd include all of your hours, though?  If you were answering this question as to what hours you usually worked, you wouldn't stop at those that just enabled you to achieve the minima, you'd actually report the hours that you worked?‑‑‑It's very difficult to determine the minima in this context.  In terms of research and research outputs, though, they're quite varied as to timing.  Like, you might in and spend months on an application for a national research grant that doesn't get granted so you might say, okay, I've got to work on three grants because the likelihood is I may get three or none.  So you - it's not a precise science in terms of saying how much I need to do to actually get to satisfactory because you are at the other end, depending upon granting bodies or referees in journals and accepting, you know, a piece of research or not.  So the reality of it is that in a way, you have to aim to over-perform because you know that all of the outputs you actually give to publishers or to granting bodies, you might get all of them, which would be very good, but you might get none or very few.  So it isn't an exact science in terms of the hours you have to put in for the research to reach even a satisfactory output.


At Griffith University, are you aware that there were staff who were not meeting the minimum expectations?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.  There were.


And they weren't sacked?‑‑‑They were - there is a process.  I have been an academic supervisor.  There is a process to assist people to meet the standards and if they don't, then they did cease employment at the university, yes.


Ceased employment?‑‑‑Yes, they did.


They were terminated for unsatisfactory performance?‑‑‑Yes.


You did that yourself?‑‑‑I didn't do that myself.  I wasn't in a position of management, but I am aware of people in my department that happened to.


That was after a period of sustained under-performance, would you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, and a period of sustained assistance given by the university, too, to help them to reach a level of performance.  I don't want to paint the university as something ugly.  They worked very hard with staff to assist them to reach that level, but when that wasn't happening, they departed.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


It's a rare thing, unsatisfactory performance, termination of a continuing academic staff - - - ?‑‑‑Yes, it's not - it happens.  Certainly happens.


You accept it's rare, it's an exception?‑‑‑Yes.  Most of the staff for an employment on process do meet the standards and work hard.


A number of them exceed, and you'd accept that those who are exceeding when they report in response to your question, they're reporting their hours of work including that contribution that they've made which sees them exceed the minimum standards?‑‑‑Yes.  There would be some.  I'm sure the university is happy that they exceed those standards because they get more - in terms of research, they would get more research and kudos, et cetera, so the university is very happy if you exceed those standards.


Yes.  For example, if I was sitting on an editorial board, I'm also likely to include that in my time that I usually work?‑‑‑If there - I think it varies between university, but there's a component of time, certainly for - I know across the sector, but certainly for all - where they have to service, et cetera, and that senior service to the university, to the academic discipline or to the profession, so serving on an editorial board would be seen as service to the academic discipline which is included in that area of service generally.


You accept that's often an academic initiated role, that they might approach the board, or indeed, the board approaches them rather than the university requires it - - - ?‑‑‑Well, it will happen one way or the other, won't it?


As opposed to their supervisor saying, "Professor Strachan, you need to go and sit on our board, editorial board"?‑‑‑What will happen is that they would say, "Professor Strachan, we don't see that you're doing enough to 20 per cent of your service."  That's one day a week, if that is the case, "and you need to think about how you are going to do the equivalent of one day a week service to the university on committees, et cetera, to - you know, a journal, an editorial board or on a professional association", so staff - you know, and I, being an academic supervisor myself, certainly have to show that - in the Griffith business school anyway, that they are doing the equivalent of 20 per cent of their work in service.  But that can be done in a range of various ways.


Yes?‑‑‑So I wouldn't see it as an option, if somebody wasn't, then a supervisor sits down and says, "Well, in what ways can you offer service to the profession, to the academic and to the university?"  And you thought on that - - -

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


And indeed, through a discussion, the staff member might suggest something and you'll discuss that with them as their supervisor and then that's agreed?‑‑‑Yes.  That's right.  That's correct.


Can I ask you to turn the page.  There's a question about job satisfaction and security.  F2, you'll see B and C field there, "Unrealistic expectations of me in terms of teaching outcomes.  I feel there are unrealistic expectations of me in terms of research outputs."  You see that that question, as opposed to, for example, the one before it, "I have a lot of input into changes that affect me" is expressed in the negative, and do you accept that in these questions framed in this way, that there is a tendency to agree with the propositions that are put on the left-hand side?‑‑‑I'm not a huge expert on questionnaire design, so I can't answer that yes or no.  What one normally does do in a questionnaire is have some where you've got to think, do I put it on disagree or do I put it on agree, so that people don't go down and go tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.  So I know that's a good feature of a questionnaire design.  On the other question, I'm not an expert enough in questionnaire design to say whether I could agree with you or not on that.


Thank you.  Can I take you to attachment 4.  I've asked you a number of questions about professional staff so I'll skip over those, but it's fair to say, isn't it, that your expert report in section 3 of it that we've been through already is drawn heavily from this report?‑‑‑Yes.


I'm sorry, I will ask you one more question.  Page 27, table 56 - we probably need to look at the two tables together, as I understand the questionnaire, so I've got table 55 and table 56?‑‑‑Yes.


And at 55, it identified - sorry, I apologise, I took you to this table earlier in your section 3?‑‑‑Mm.


These are staff who are identifying that they wanted one of these working arrangements in the last 12 months?‑‑‑Yes.


And under the questionnaire, you could tick more than one?‑‑‑That's correct.


You could tick them all, theoretically?‑‑‑Yes.


Then of those employees, table 56 then identifies those that have requested - - - ?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


- - - a change in work arrangements.  You accept that, looking down, the rest have sought to request reduced hours, either on an ongoing basis or for a limited period, that the majority of those have had those approved?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.  Yes.  Good.


Indeed, a slightly greater number than those who sought extra overtime and not had - - - ?‑‑‑Yes, yes.  Yes.


- - - the opportunity to do so?‑‑‑Yes.  In the questionnaire, a lot of these arrangements which are available at the university, this is a way to test, you know, what's working or not.


Yes.  Academic staff starts on page 31.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  That might be a convenient time, Mr Pill.


MR PILL:  Yes, sure.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  We will take the morning tea adjournment.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [11.18 AM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT                                                                  [11.18 AM]

RESUMED                                                                                             [11.44 AM]



<GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN, RECALLED                                [11.44 AM]



MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.  Professor Strachan, I was about to ask you some questions about the academic parts of the report?‑‑‑Yes.


Can I just confirm - the data that was gathered as part of the report, it occurred in 2011?‑‑‑That's correct, yes - the second half of 2011.


The second half of 2011?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Thank you.  Now, just a couple of questions about the academic - can I take you to page 34?  The report identifies that of about 8,300 academics there were 1,700 to 1,800 of them on probation who responded?‑‑‑Yes.


Do you say whether that's representative or typical of the number of academic staff who are on probation?‑‑‑I do not know.


Okay?‑‑‑I don't know that anyone knows the answer to that one.  I don't know if any other statistics have ever taken out numbers on probation.


All right, thank you.  Now, can I take you to page 35?  There's some tables about working hours and workload and I've asked you a number of these questions by reference to the professional staff and also the questionnaire.  Now, table 75 identifies a certain number of employees who are self-reporting usual work in their current job between - well, they predominantly fall 35 to 39 and then a much larger number 49 and then at 50 or more hours?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, it's the case, isn't it, that academic staff were working these hours prior to 2010?‑‑‑There's a consistency of data through the research, for instance, of Winfield and of Coates and of academic staff working longer than 40 hours a week, with significant proportions working longer than 50 hours a week, yes, so I think - I'd have to look back.  I think the Coates research which in 2009 was able to do a bit of comparison;  it was slightly lengthened in their research.  But I honestly would have to look back to check that.  But certainly since the research in the 1990s in Australia there is - academics are working longer than 40 hours a week is consistent with all the research.


Yes, okay.  Based on the answers before, you've accepted that there is some scope for interpretation in the question, "What usually work in your current job"?‑‑‑Yes:  we asked as best they could to get a usual pattern of work, that's right.


Yes, but you've accepted previously in your evidence today that there is scope for interpretation?‑‑‑Yes, it is a question for people to interpret.


Yes.  It would include - my response as an academic answering this is likely to include activities that I undertake which are self-directed?‑‑‑I don't know that I agree with that because I don't want to agree with the question of self-directed.  I don't know how they answered it but my interpretation would be that, you know, to achieve what they want to achieve or what the university says, they do that.  So I would find it very difficult to divide it into self-directed and directed.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


You accept research is predominantly self-directed activity?‑‑‑Well, I actually don't because now in a lot of the performance reviews, people - they have to meet certain outcomes.  So how they meet those outcomes will vary:  not only their own talent but external circumstances, who accepts a grant or not, or whatever.


Or what they choose to research or whether they do a longitudinal study - - -?‑‑‑What academics choose to research is under their control but from my understanding at certainly Griffith University, most people have outputs they have to meet and as I said, it's quite variable, how you meet those outputs, because you might put in multiple grant applications and not get them or suddenly someone might ask you to be on a grant and you're on that and you get that and likewise with publications and journal turnaround times;  they are out of the control of the individual academic.  So I wouldn't class research as a self-directed activity.  The typical working contract of 40-40-20 says 40 per cent of your time must be spent on research but in the performance reviews for most people it's quantified in terms of outcomes.  So I can't categorise that as self-directed.  Might be difficult to put a time quantum on now different people will achieve that number of articles or things.


Let's look at this proposition:  outputs choose the activities they're actually undertaking.  You accept that they're self-directed in research, consistent with the principles of academic freedom?‑‑‑Well, they're self-directed in that way but they have to meet, say, 40 per cent of what they're supposed to do in terms of that.  So they're not under a choice of do or not do.  The topics can be of choice and academic freedom but 40 per cent of your contract or 60 or 80, depending on how it's focused - if it's on research, well, you should be quantified in terms of outcomes for the university.  They won't just say, "Well, go away and we're happy you're researching but you've got no outputs."  So I think it's - in that way achieving outputs is very directed by the university.


So if I'm passionately pursuing my academic research career, looking to be promoted or indeed moved to a so-called better university and I pursue a raft of activities to do that, I'd be reporting that as being hours that I usually work in my current job?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


You've agreed that includes reflective thinking time, an essential part of the research process?‑‑‑That's right - all sorts of - right through to reporting and tedious administration associated with research.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Yes.  It's fair to say, isn't it - your report shows this - that 67 per cent would actually have a preference for more research time?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.  It's a complicated picture.  A substantial proportion said their expectations of their research had risen in the last two years at the university and also when they look at the time they report that they are or a proportion report that they're spending more time on teaching than their contract says and more time on administration than their contract says, less time on research but they'd like more time on research.  So it's a complex picture in terms of what they are doing now to meet those expectations.


Professor Strachan, when you're referring to what a contract says - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - you accept that you're actually referring to a process of discussion about their work allocation?‑‑‑About their work allocation, that's right;  it's quite specific, I should say that.  Yes, the individual's work allocation, yes.


That's a matter of discussion and agreement with the staff member and the supervisor?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


Now, if you turn the page table 77 is a similar question to the one I took you to in relation to professional staff:  if you choose the number of hours worked where would you prefer to work?  Now, again, there was no qualifications on that - - -?‑‑‑No, but it's - - -


- - there's no reference to if you were to receive less money or more money?‑‑‑That's correct, yes;  it's an open question.


If I compare that to the table 119, which appears on page 55 - so here we have questions about working flexible arrangements and there's essentially five identified there in table 119.  All of those include working less hours?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


The second one is less hours for a limited period?‑‑‑Yes.


Again, the percentages - so that percentage of the top 20 per cent may include a subset of, for example, working fewer hours each day, working school term only or job share?‑‑‑That's right.


Even if I take a really conservative assumption and say that's not the case - these are all stand-alone - do you accept on its face that 62 per cent are not seeking these things?‑‑‑No, that's correct.  They're asked, "Have you wanted one of these work arrangements?"  So in terms of - it's a slightly different question to wanting to work reduced hours because these are specific work arrangements to seek.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Yes?‑‑‑So it's a bit of a different picture, I think, to the professional and general staff, where a lot of their contracts are hours-based so to seek to work reduced hours on an ongoing basis as a work arrangement - - -


Yes?‑‑‑ - - would mean generally that you would ask for a fractional contract or part-time or something like that.


Yes?‑‑‑Whereas working reduced hours could just mean overall to complete the task to a professional standard;  to complete my workload to a professional standard as required.


So as opposed to reducing my hours for the same salary?‑‑‑Yes, that's right too, yes;  so they're saying - yes.  One is, "I would like reduced hours to meet my - all the requirements or the quantum of work that I do."  Here it's focused on an arrangement that could be temporary or a longer period of time to reduce hours or shift hours around, such as work in school time only is an arrangement where you might be working longer hours otherwise and shorter so that is a shift in time.


Yes, and if I exclude those who are only seeking to reduce their hours for a limited period - so 12 per cent - they are up to 74 per cent, if it was part of a formal, flexible arrangement, are not seeking to reduce their hours?‑‑‑That's right.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Just before we move off that topic, Mr Pill, I'll just ask the professor this question about table 119:  do you say they have to pick one of those if - couldn't they be presumably wanting to have a job share as well as work in school time?  It's just not clear to me how that question actually works?‑‑‑Yes.  I'd have to check back because some questions allow multiple responses and some were exclusive responses on this one.  I'm not 100 per cent sure but I think it would probably be a multiple tick box one but I'd have to take that as a question on notice and double-check with the original data there, unfortunately.  I don't know that I could quickly run through and find the answer to that exactly but it's probably multiple.  Given the number of questions it's hard to retain every single detail in one's head on that one.  I might be able to if you just give me a second:  flexible work arrangements - on that question which was in 2, "Please tick any that you thought you would like" - so it does allow for multiple responses in that question.




MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.  So you would accept that because of that, my percentages are actually conservative?  They're likely to be higher, the number of staff - - -?‑‑‑The percentages of the number of - - -

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


The number of staff who have not sought to reduce their hours as part of those arrangements because there is some double-up in those percentages?‑‑‑Yes, there is;  there is, yes, and I could look at the original data in detail and tell you what that was but I haven't got that in front of me.  But as you mentioned earlier some of those arrangements relate to a reduction in pay so that's quite different to the previous question.


Yes, whereas the previous question is a bit of a no-brainer:  would I like to work less hours for the same money?


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Is a no-brainer a question, is it, Mr Pill?


MR PILL:  I withdraw it, your Honour?‑‑‑I wouldn't - I personally, working in the academic environment, wouldn't take it quite so flippantly as that.


Professor Strachan, I've withdrawn the question.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  No need to answer the question:  he's withdrawn the no-brainer question?‑‑‑All right.


MR PILL:  Sorry, Professor Strachan.  Now, table 82 - so I'm on page 38 - - -?‑‑‑38, did you say, sorry?




There's some tables at 82 about how many subjects you usually teach per semester?‑‑‑Yes.


I just want to understand, Professor Strachan - there's two parts to this table:  one is taught mainly by me and one's taught by a team?‑‑‑Yes.


If I've identified a number for, "taught mainly be me", and I'm also in a team do I appear in both parts of the table or just the one?‑‑‑Well, they can appear in both because you could be doing multiple things at the time.  I have to say on these questions it's very complicated to get to the quantum of an academic's workload.  There have been some surveys saying, "How many outputs have you had", by research, et cetera - exceedingly complex.  We tried to get a little bit of information about the teaching quantum, if you like, so that we could say something about the sector and maybe different university types.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


I have to say at the end of the day we haven't gone any further with analysis on those two questions because the - I think the teaching context that people now find themselves in are so complex, we asked by team and by me but now, you know, you can teach part by you and part by someone else and part blended and part online and all this sort of thing, that the teaching environment across universities is now so complex in the model that the model is saying, "Well, it's your subject and you get up in front of students for a whole semester and teach it", is not so prevalent, I would say.  So we ask these questions.


We haven't gone any further with any more detailed analysis because the team things - doesn't really inform us much about what is going on in the sector.  To understand teaching loads you would need, now, some very complicated and complex questions because of the range of teaching times, because it's often across more than two semesters now and the range of teaching modes:  distance, blended, face-to-face, by teams, with IT teams, so - - -


MR PILL:  Yes?‑‑‑You know, it's there as information in the initial report but personally - the teams - doesn't tell us a lot because now the complexity of the teaching environment, you'd need to ask a whole series of very detailed questions, I think, to get to that.


Yes, dealing with what we have got, what's available and what you've concluded in your report, it does at least tell us that if I'm looking at subjects that are taught mainly by me, we have 30 per cent not teaching any - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - and another 57 per cent teaching one or two and this is usually teach per semester?‑‑‑The reason also for that would be that - - -


Just before you go on to explain:  you accept that that's what the report - - -?‑‑‑Yes, that's what that basic data tells us.  I haven't - the next step to understand this would be to take out those staff that said they are research focused because there is a - several thousand staff who are research-focused or intensive and basically they are research fellows and only have a research role.  So they would teach very few subjects because the academic population includes those who identify themselves as doing both teaching and research and those who identified they were mainly research focused, so they taught very little.  So to give an accurate picture of how many subjects are taught by those who include teaching in their work arrangements, I'd have to do another table and take out those research staff who are predominantly the G08s.


All right, now, you've asked at 83 the number of casual sessional staff that usually supervise per semester?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Did you ask about PHD supervision?‑‑‑No, we did not.


So we don't know based on the responses where people are self-reporting teaching or research whether they are including PHD supervision as a research or as a teaching allocation?‑‑‑No, that would be correct, because it's my understanding it will vary from university to university and from time to time, how the university itself actually - I know we've seen a thing where they actually put it in people's allocations.  So it varies according to university allocation.


You accept that there's actually divergent views amongst academics within the same university as to whether it should fall as a teaching or research allocation?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes, that's right, so no, we didn't specifically ask that one.


Okay.  Now, 3.4 on that same page is job security.  I take it that the question you've asked at 84 is some proxy or indication of job satisfaction?‑‑‑Yes, it is.


Okay, and am I correct to interpret the table - if I put the first two rows together 86 per cent are more likely to stay?‑‑‑Yes, that's right:  it's consistent across all the surveys that the majority of people wish to stay working in the university sector - - -


Yes?‑‑‑ - - or in that current job, that's right.


It says the current job, doesn't it?‑‑‑There's another question that says the university sector, yes.


Now, again, just briefly page 47 you ask a question about the extent of help.  There's a similar question at page 50, so I'm looking at table 98 and table 106.  I can take you to the percentages if necessary but I put the general proposition to you:  do you accept that that shows that I high number of staff have received support and help from their supervisors?‑‑‑It's a high proportion that those are seen as a problem though I do look at those numbers and think - from my point of view if only 41 per cent say they received a good or somewhat good level of support of supervision applying for a promotion I think to me that's not overly high, actually.


Just pausing there:  you'd accept that if I haven't applied for a promotion I'm not going to answer, "yes", to that, am I?‑‑‑NO, but then there's guidance received in performance reviews - - -

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Yes?‑‑‑ - - which is an ongoing and annual one and that's a similar sort of percentage;  those who say it's been a help.  So in terms of the overall survey and the partners, it was about, you know, showing issues that were working well and issues that were problems for universities and I personally would categorise that as an issue that universities should look at, if only 40 per cent of their staff think they're being helped in their performance.


Can I take you to page 50, where there is a question about:  "Over the past five years how much help have you received from the following people in advancing your career"?‑‑‑I've got - the pages are a little bit out of whack, I think.  Page 50?


Page 50, table 106 - give you a moment?‑‑‑Yes, yes, I've got that.


You'll see:  "My supervisor, total sample", towards the bottom there.  So 61 per cent are reporting that they have received lots of or some help.  At the other end of the spectrum you've got 13 saying, "Not sought help", and 26 per cent saying, "Not received much help"?‑‑‑Yes, I think the universities, they want to look at these figures.  We did actually supply - those universities that participated, we supplied with an individual university report, confidential - - -


Yes?‑‑‑ - - at the time, to look at - - -


Do you accept this proposition, that relative to those who believe their supervisor is not helping them and those that believe that they are, the majority of those fall into those that believe their supervisors have helped them in their career?‑‑‑Yes, yes, the majority do, though I think it's a cautionary tale for universities.


Now, I'd like to ask you this question about sessionals and they appear in section 3 of the report - sorry, section 4 of the report, starting on page 59, table 129 on page 60?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, the question was, "How long have you worked at this university"?‑‑‑Yes.


You accept that that question again, is open to interpretation?  It's not a question of continuous service and is likely to be answered by me considering when I first was engaged by the university;  my first commencement?‑‑‑Once again, I can't say what was in the mind of any applicant there but with the nature of casual work being stop-start - - -

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


Yes?‑‑‑ - - I could assume that some of those people who answered it wasn't continuously worked there because that's the nature of the casual employment.


Yes?‑‑‑But I actually don't know exactly how they thought of it when they answered it.


Yes, and they might have had - I think in your evidence already - they might have had other roles at other universities interspersed?‑‑‑Who knows, is the answer.  I don't know is the answer.  We did ask - I think we asked did they work at more than one university and certainly through the uni super data which Dr May used, we could find out - - -


You did know you're on page 61?‑‑‑Yes, that they - other universities.


21 per cent and you did give evidence earlier today - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - that a number of casuals do work - have other work?‑‑‑They might;  they might.  We don't know.


It could also include a situation where, "I'm now sessional but was previously full-time", so for example a retiree who has moved away from full-time academia?‑‑‑Yes, it could include that.  I think in the further - it certainly could include that.  I would say from Dr May's thesis that that number is in the minority because she was able to get some data, I think, on that.  I'm not sure, yes, but it could include that.


(Indistinct) to your research?‑‑‑Yes.


This table doesn't actually tell us about the pattern of engagement, whether it's regular in terms of each semester;  you accept that?‑‑‑No, it doesn't tell us what the past pattern was, no, because by definition they can't predict the future pattern.


So effectively what we can with confidence say about this table is that it would indicate their first engagement, how long ago that was and that they now have an engagement in the relevant survey period?‑‑‑Yes.


You accept that?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


You asked about more than one institution:  did you ask whether they were students - so for example, PHD students?  Did you ask any questions about - - -?‑‑‑We have a question - a demographic question at the front that - I've just got my pages a little bit out of whack here now, sorry - here we are, page 59:  we asked, "Are you currently studying for a qualification?"


Yes?‑‑‑55 per cent of the sample said they were currently studying for a qualification.  So 55 per cent were currently studying for a qualification and working on a casual basis.


Thank you.  Now, table 132:  "Where do you undertake the teaching preparation" - were there any questions to elicit whether they could or were able to undertake their preparation at the university?‑‑‑No, we - that was the exact way they were - we just asked them where they did do that.


You accept on this basis there are slightly more women than men who are doing their preparation at home?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Did you seek to identify a reason for that?‑‑‑No, no reasons, just the bald figures.


No indication as to whether that might have been because - as the rest of your survey indicates that they were generally the primary carers?‑‑‑Yes, could be - I don't know.


It could be?‑‑‑I do not know, I have no information.


Now, can I take you to 62 and you've asked a question about how many weeks you will have worked in sessional, casual university jobs?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, on its face that could cover both, "My current job with one university", and if I'm in the 23-odd per cent that's got more than one job that could include more than one university;  you accept that?‑‑‑I do not know on that - in that one.  We asked them their current or most recent.  I - what is the length of - - -


That's all right, if you don't know?‑‑‑If they're multiple workers I don't know which one they picked, I suppose, is what I would say.


You accept that the majority of semesters in the Australian higher educational sector are 13 weeks?‑‑‑Yes.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


So a 13 to 24-week band will pick up someone who is doing casual teaching for one semester?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct, usually one semester.


Similarly 25 to 52 would pick up someone who is doing two semesters?  Even my maths extends that far?‑‑‑25 to 52?  Sorry, I don't quite see that in - - -


If I do two 13-week semesters, 26 weeks?‑‑‑Yes.


I would fall within the 25 to 52 weeks?‑‑‑I see - I'm on the wrong table, I beg your pardon.  They're different:  table 125 is the length of your current contract, which overwhelmingly there's - - -


Table 134 is - - -?‑‑‑ - - is mainly on a semester basis.  But the other one says, "By the end of the year who many weeks will you have worked?"  So you're correct:  the 25 to 52 weeks - the 50 per cent there - and bear I mind it was done in the second half of 2011 so they could predict quite well whether they were doing that or not.  Yes, 50 per cent of them have worked across two semesters or more there.


Yes.  If I work two semesters I fall in that bottom line?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


It also means, doesn't it, that casuals with shorter engagements are less likely to be picked up by your survey?‑‑‑I do not - I do not know the answer to that one.  They had to be currently employed in that semester to have a university email.


Well, employed in that semester at a particular pay date?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.


It's a snapshot in time?‑‑‑Yes, absolutely, that's the only way you can usually capture temporary workers like this.


It logically follows, doesn't it, that those who have more regular sessional engagements are more likely to be picked up by your survey?‑‑‑Yes, I could say that the guest speakers who receive a casual engagement for one or two lectures are not likely to be picked up by this survey.


Yes?‑‑‑The aim of this survey was to be able to talk about those casual staff that were not - like a one-off industry guest speaker is a separate category so that didn't concern us.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


They wouldn't pick up that cohort of academics that are engaged to do marking at the end of semester?‑‑‑If they were separate from these here and only doing marking, no, that's - - -


It wouldn't pick up the laboratory demonstrator who is job-sharing and works in the first half of the semester?‑‑‑No, the focus of this survey was to get information about casual staff who did not have just a marking engagement or a one or two-lecture focused engagement.


Yes?‑‑‑But it's very difficult to get information from, you know, a casual workforce at all on this but - so particular concern that we mightn't have picked up somebody who gave one guest lecture or just did some marking at the end of the semester was not a great concern for the partners or the team because they wanted information about those staff who were, you know - they're casual staff doing ongoing work in universities.


Yes, so your questions were directed to pick up those people - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - and to understand their circumstances?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


Now, just briefly:  on table 136, "Do you receive separate payment for marking", did you ask whether the marking was contemporaneous with the lecture or tutorial?‑‑‑No, no, we did not.  I guess the marking - if you, if a student hands in a couple of answers to a question in a tutorial and they're marked in that tutorial time, it wasn't the focus.   It's larger pieces of assessment marking.


Yes, an oral examination in a language subject?‑‑‑Or something like that, yes, that's right.


You're aware that in this sector that contemporaneous marking is paid for - it's not paid for separately?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Your question was directed at separate payment for marking?‑‑‑Yes, that's right, that's right:  it was just to seek information on that as to how many people receive or what proportion of people actually received separate payment for marking - - -


Yes?‑‑‑ - - information-seeking question.

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                            XXN MR PILL


I'll now take you to page 67.  There's a couple of tables about career support.  I want to take you to table 149.  So based on this survey data 76 per cent have access to a work space, computer and phone and a lesser percentage but a majority have a suitable space for student consultation.  Did your survey or research go to - go behind those numbers to understand whether they were a function of policy or a function of enterprise agreements?‑‑‑No, no, we did not believe that the university was interested in investigating further to look to their own situation.  Some of that would vary by university.


Thank you, Professor Strachan;  I have no further questions.



RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE                                                  [12.18 PM]


MS GALE:  Professor Strachan, did the research team include anyone with expertise in questionnaire design?‑‑‑Yes, it did.  It was a five-person chief - five chief investigators in the Australian Research Council grant and Professors David Peetz from Griffith University and Professor Gillian Whitehouse from the University of Queensland are both expert in survey research and questionnaire design.  They were integral in the team approach in developing the questionnaire.  Also then checking with partners:  we did extensive design check with our three industry partners about the questionnaire as well as piloting it.


No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you, Ms Gale.  Thank you, you're excused?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [12.19 PM]


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  We will just take a short adjournment.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT                                                                  [12.19 PM]

RESUMED                                                                                             [12.28 PM]


MR PILL:  Professor Stephen Garton is appearing in Sydney.

<STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON, AFFIRMED                               [12.28 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL                                       [12.28 PM]

***        GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN                                                                                                          RXN MS GALE

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                                          XN MR PILL


MR PILL:  Thank you, Professor Garton.  Can you hear us clearly?‑‑‑I can.


Could you restate your name and work address for the record, please?‑‑‑Stephen Robert Garton, University of Sydney.


You're the provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney?‑‑‑I am.


Have you prepared a statement in these proceedings?‑‑‑I have.


Do you have a copy of that statement with you?‑‑‑I do.


Together with the attachments?‑‑‑Yes.


Have you read that statement recently?‑‑‑Yes.


I understand there are some minor corrections you wish to make.  I'll just step you through those:  at paragraph 5 in the second sentence, "Prior to that time I held", and it currently says, "academic roles."  I understand you wish to include the word, "sessional."  Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


At the end of that sentence I understand you wish to add reference to, "And then a full-time academic role at Griffith University"?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 7 there's a reference to being on academic boards for nearly 15 years.  I understand you wish to change that number to 25?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Now, at paragraph 29 in the third-last line it says, "The entire 52-week" - I understand you wish to change 52 to 48, is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 31 in the last sentence there I understand after the word, "activities", you're missing a word, the word being, "are"?‑‑‑Yes.


So the end of the sentence would read, "directed activities are that are being undertaken"?‑‑‑Yes.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                                          XN MR PILL


At paragraph 49 in the second-last line, between the word, "guidelines", and, "principles", you wish to insert the word, "and"?‑‑‑Yes.


Lastly in paragraph 64 there's a typo in the second line:  I understand you wish to delete the word, "two", so the word that appears after, "lectures"?‑‑‑Yes.


With those amendments is your statement true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.


I seek to tender that statement.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Exhibit 9 - any objection?



MR PILL:  Professor Garton, if you could remain there and Mr McAlpine will ask you some questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE                               [12.32 PM]


MR McALPINE:  Professor Garton, my name is Ken McAlpine and I appear in these proceedings on behalf of the National Tertiary Education Union.  My first question is how - by what means did you become acquainted with what you say is the effect of the proposals of the NTEU in relation to the regulation of academic workload?‑‑‑The matter was brought to my attention by the university and by counsel for the G08.


So the views you express, the views you express about that, are based on your own reading of the claim or upon commentaries prepared by others?  Have you formed your own impression from actually reading the claim itself?‑‑‑I've read some elements of the claim and formed my own impression and I have responded to questions.


Thank you.  Can I take you to paragraph 19 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


The first sentence there you say that academics - to paraphrase - academics' work is largely self-directed and autonomous."  Now, I want to put to you three elements of what I consider to be perhaps autonomy and ask you to comment in relation to academic staff.  Those are what work is to be done, how it is to be done and how much of it needs to be done?  Do you think that those are three different elements of the autonomy for academics?‑‑‑Yes, I think that's a plausible proposition.


So one could be autonomous in terms of the first two;  that is what work is to be done and how it is to be done but not for example - not be necessarily autonomous in terms of what requirements overall apply to the work;  in other words, the output or the size of the output?‑‑‑I'm not sure I entirely understand the import of your question.


Well, the question - I'm suggesting that in relation to an academic staff member considered per se that it is possible that an employee could be autonomous with respect to the first two - that is what work is to be done and how it is to be done, but the actual volume of the work could be something over which they don't have control?  In other words, how much work they're required to do is not something they control?‑‑‑There are other controls on that, yes, and some of them in the enterprise agreement.


Some of them arise - I'm suggesting some of the - I'm not suggesting this is unusual for employees generally:  the employer sets requirements as to how much has to be done, to the employee;  that's correct, isn't it?‑‑‑I think there are qualifications to be made about that claim.


Well, in what way don't you agree with it?‑‑‑Well, there are certain expectations set, I would agree, with respect to research.  But that is about assessment of performance, not necessarily a matter relevant to the hours worked.


But - all right, we'll leave it there.  So you go on - in paragraph 21 you talk about the competition upon universities and you talk about the cost pressures to universities and the potential competition from private providers.  My question is those cost pressures - objectively speaking, those cost pressures mean that the university is under pressure to reduce the costs of employment?‑‑‑No, to look at measures in which we can be more efficient and some of those might impact upon what we do in terms of administration and support services, not necessarily on academic work itself.


Okay, so you don't think that those costs pressures put any pressure on the university to reduce conditions of employment?‑‑‑No, they require the university to look at all of its expenses and all of the areas in which it spends money in order to achieve efficiencies and doing things more efficiently and better.  It's not necessarily a correlation.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Okay, and in relation to your current conditions of employment and employment costs, you would agree that the award is largely irrelevant;  that is the underlying award as opposed to your enterprise agreement is largely irrelevant because you're paying 30 to 60 per cent above the award rates?‑‑‑It's the enterprise agreement, yes.


Yes.  But you would agree that your pay rates are currently 30 to 60 per cent above the award rates?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, do you accept that the NTEU's proposal does not seek to constrain the number of hours an academic can work?‑‑‑That's not my understanding and not my reading of the document that I've seen.


Okay.  So your conclusion is that the proposal by the NTEU would limit the amount of work that an academic was permitted to do?‑‑‑No, but it would require the university under 22.6 of your revised procedures to ascertain and that could, through the administration of the ascertaining of the work required, put universities into a situation where we would have to consider those issues.


But - I'm sorry.  It wouldn't put the university in a position where it had to tell an academic not to perform particular work, would it?‑‑‑It may if the overtime bill was such, arising from the ascertaining that the budget of the university could not bear that level of overtime.  So in terms of administration you would be confronting universities with difficult decisions about how to manage that overtime payment.


I'm sorry, I may not have been clear.  I wasn't talking about limiting the amount of work the university could require somebody to do.  My question was - I was putting a proposition to you that there is nothing in the NTEU's proposal that would limit what an academic could do over and above what the university required of them?  You agree with that?‑‑‑No - I agree with that.


Yes.  So it in no way limits the capacity of an academic to do as much work as they like;  is that correct?‑‑‑No.  That is correct, although it has consequences.


Now, at paragraph 25 you set out I think pretty fairly the provisions of the enterprise agreement.  I'd like to take you to subparagraph 25(b) of your statement:  this is reflected in your practice, isn't it, that each academic work unit will have in place a workload allocation policy?‑‑‑Yes.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Now, why would a workload model - to use that term in a general sense - differ between different academic work units?  What objective reasons would there be to differ?‑‑‑There are different ways of teaching in particular areas of the university.  Some areas would require significant preparation time as set out in the enterprise agreement.  In other areas - let me give you a concrete example:  in the conservatorium of music there is no preparation time required to listen to a student play a violin sonata.  So there are different ways of teaching and there are different modes and different requirements of preparation depending on the particular discipline involved.  Some have group assessments, some have large classes, some have one-one-one classes.  There are a great variety of teaching models and each of these needs to be calibrated around the enterprise agreement 690 hours.


Okay, and even in relation to the sort of content of research and sometimes it's called creative practice and different types of things in relation to research there is also differences between disciplines?‑‑‑In the way they conduct research, yes.


Then if I take you to subparagraph (e), similarly, in looking at workload allocation one of the factors to be taken into account is the staff member's level of appointment.  Why might that be different for different classifications?‑‑‑There is embedded in the enterprise agreement and in our workload systems at the local level dispensations for more junior members of staff or more staff who are newly appointed to the university to build their research career, so having a lighter teaching load.  It is all part of mentoring, part of a process of insuring the wellbeing of our staff so that they can build a comprehensive and meaningful career in the institution.  One would require and expect more service from people at level E and at professorial level and so on and so forth.


Staff - sorry, in relation to paragraph 28 you talk about not controlling or monitoring the hours spent on research and in your statement you contrast that with teaching.  Even in relation to teaching or certain aspects of teaching other than actually delivering the class, the university doesn't dictate how many hours, for example, an academic has to spend revising or preparing a set of lectures, do they?‑‑‑They're all implicit and sometimes very explicit in each of the work units workload formulas, for which we've tabled a number of examples and each of those units determine a figure of preparation time for each hour in the formal classroom.  They are done at the local level because of those disciplinary differences that I talked about earlier and each of those formulas sets out in various ways those sorts of assumptions behind the 690 hours.  The crucial thing is insuring that no member of staff works more than 690 hours in the teaching context - - -


Well - - -?‑‑‑ - - taking into account preparation time, marking time and classroom time.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


And - but in fact although the 690 hours appears as an allocation and we're talking about - sorry:  for 690 hours we're talking about the conventional, so to speak, 40-40-20 academic, is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes, but even in relation to the teaching there is no obligation upon the university to make sure that somebody only spends 690 hours in their preparation teaching.  If a person wants to spend or feels they need to spend more time they're permitted to do it, notwithstanding the fact that you have a formula for determining that, is that correct?‑‑‑It's an agreement between the staff member and the work unit that they are involved in and we would encourage some flexibility.  Some members of staff wish to have more time on their research and negotiate with their local work unit to have more than 690 hours in one semester in order to have less than 690 hours elsewhere.


No, I'm sorry - - -?‑‑‑There might be compensations across different semesters in order to make that 690.


Well, what I'm actually getting at is a slightly different question.  I apologise if my question wasn't clear.  Although there's a notional 690 hours which might be varied for the sort of reasons you're talking about, that's not an instructional requirement to actually limit the work to 690 hours?  If I wish to spend more time revising my subjects for next semester, there is no problem with me doing that.  The university hasn't instructed me only to work 690 hours, has it?‑‑‑But the enterprise agreement says 690 hours is what you are required to do and no more and then allows the local work group to work out the formula by which that 690 hours would be allocated and it's a local work group decision, often collegial and collaborative where they work out the estimates of what they think are the reasonable times involved in delivering on a certain number of hours in the classroom that would be less than the 690 or up to 690.


In fact, at paragraph 28 you say that the principal - sorry, I'm paraphrasing you and correct me if I'm wrong - that the teaching is limited so that people have sufficient time to pursue their research;  that's what you say?‑‑‑Yes, that is certainly the assumption in all of the workload formulas and it's certainly how the university's workload committee monitors the workload formulas for each of the work units.  In other words, there is no specification of what happens in the 690 hours for research and there is no effort to quantify it and there is no request at the workload committee to quantify the issue of the research element of the 40, just that there is proper oversight of the teaching and the service elements to insure that there is 40 per cent available for research time.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Now, you would be aware presumably from publications from universities Australia and many others that there has been a very significant growth in the student to teachings staff ratio since 1993.  That has been across the sector?‑‑‑Yes, although historically not unusual.  Loads were significantly higher in the 1950s, for example.


Now, if I take you now to paragraph 41 of your statement, now, you talk about how knowledge is pursued in an extraordinary array of contexts and situations and might involve a telephone at midnight with colleagues in North America, for example?‑‑‑Yes.


The way this - this flexibility, this flexibility for example, having such a teleconference, is an arrangement that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of academic work?‑‑‑That's the self-directed nature of the researcher;  if they feel that that's what they need to do in order to advance their research then that's what they pursue.


Okay, and in fact you talk about your own experience and you say that on a writing day you'll usually work from home.  That is partly because if you have to concentrate on a sustained piece of work - I imagine particularly in a position like yours - it would actually be much more efficient to perform that work at home than at the university?‑‑‑That's true:  I do all my writing on Sunday afternoon.


Now, I'd like to take you to - sorry, one of the attachments to your statement and that is SG3 - - -?‑‑‑Could you remind me which one that is?


SG3 - I'm sorry - that's the extract from the University of Sydney enterprise agreement management of work and performance?‑‑‑Yes.


I think it's on a page marked 45?‑‑‑Yes.


They're not consecutive page numbers, I'm sorry.  So it's SG - the third attachment, SG3.  Do you have that?‑‑‑Yes.


Thank you.  Now, if we go to paragraph 269 of the enterprise agreement it says there that subject to certain exceptions of agreement with a supervisor the total amount of teaching and related activities - sorry:  the total amount of teaching and related activities for teaching and research will not exceed 40 per cent of the total workload over a 12-month period.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Teaching and research staff is the correct - - -

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


MR McALPINE:  For teaching and research staff, I'm sorry.  So that means that 40 per cent of the total workload in those circumstances should be teaching;  is that right?‑‑‑Yes, and related activities.


If we want to know how many hours' work that is we refer back to 267?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, the term in 267, if I can take you to that one - the term, "required duties", encompasses the teaching, the research and the other duties;  isn't that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


Okay.  So that means that it necessarily follows that there is a limit on the number of hours of required duties that can be required in relation to research, does it not?‑‑‑There is an implication, yes.


Now, the other thing we know in relation to research is that the university in the last five years, six years, has introduced much clearer minimum research expectations for academic staff, is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, although I think it dates back longer than that.


Those minimum research expectations set out by faculty specific research outputs that are required as minima;  is that correct?‑‑‑They're not - they set out what they expect the minimums to be and they were developed by the local work units;  the faculties.


Yes, but the university says that those standards, once adopted locally, are minimum performance expectations;  the meeting of those outputs are minimum performance expectations, isn't that correct?‑‑‑That is the implication of the minimum standards, yes.  They would be the basis for assessing staff performance.




VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Is that a convenient time, Mr McAlpine?


MR McALPINE:  Yes, thank you.



<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [12.57 PM]

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT                                                         [12.57 PM]

RESUMED                                                                                               [2.02 PM]

<STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON, RECALLED                                [2.02 PM]



VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Mr McAlpine and Mr Pill, I should indicate that we will have to finish at 4 o'clock today because there is another matter on at 4.00, so we will go as far as we go, but we must finish at 4.00 today.


MR McALPINE:  Thank you.


So Prof Garton, you can still hear me?‑‑‑I can.


Okay.  Now, I'm just going to return to the minimum standards for research expectations or minimum research expectations as the University of Sydney.  The way those are expressed varies from faculty to faculty, is that fair?‑‑‑That is fair.


But there are some common themes, and I'd just like you to explain a few of these ideas for the benefit of the Bench today.  When people refer to HERDC publications, what are they referring to?‑‑‑They are referring to journals or books or referee conference papers that are accepted by the Commonwealth as inappropriate publishers or journals that would count for the assessment of the provision of research support to the University.


Okay.  So there, would it be fair to explain to a layperson there they are generally publications recognised as having a particular quality?‑‑‑Yes.


Could you just expand on how the university benefits financially if its academics are published in an HERDC‑recognised publication?‑‑‑So in - this is under a previously - it's changing at the present point in time as the government shifts more to a quality indicator, but for the last 10 years or so universities submit all of their publications and if they are deemed as appropriate publications.  They're not republications of already published work, they're in the appropriate venues, they haven't been published before and so on and so forth.  Then there is a financial allocation to each of the institutions to support the general research climate and research environment in universities.  It is part of the indirect allocation of research funding to universities.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Thank you, and that's one way in which the infrastructure costs of the University's research programs are funded to the extent that they are not met by specific grants.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, there are a - there have been over the last 10 years a number of funding schemes to cover the universities for the indirect cost of doing research, although the indirect costs never meet the real costs.


Yes, and we all agree on that?‑‑‑Yes.


Going back to the minimum research standards there are also weightings attached in many faculties to grant income.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That is correct.


And generally speaking, the required output rises as we move up the classification structure, A, B, C, D, E?‑‑‑Yes.


And why is that?‑‑‑One would expect that more experienced researchers with a much greater depth of knowledge and experience and much longer at the research coal face have a higher productivity.


And it might well also be the case that may just, without holding you to the figures, obviously, if a professor puts in five grant applications they might expect to get bigger and a higher success rate, for example, than a person at level B, would that be fair?‑‑‑Not entirely, because there are special schemes in the grant schemes for what we call early career researchers.  I think the problem or the issue - the challenge for universities - is often for what we call the mid-career researchers and C and D, but generally yes, you would expect professors with a more significant track record, which counts in grant applications to be more successful.


So many of the - sorry, I withdraw that.  The faculties generally express the minimum research expectations as some combination of grants received, grants applied for and publications.  Is that fair or am I missing something?  Please tell me if I am?‑‑‑I think you have encompassed one element of it.  I think the crucial thing is that we have asked each of the faculties or disciplinary communities to set their peer expectations of what the minimum research performance is, and it varies by discipline to discipline and you will see from looking at those minimum standards that some faculties place a much higher premium on grants and some on books, some on referee conference papers.  They all have local disciplinary nuances and have all been set by those peer groups about what they think for their discipline would be an adequate minimum expectation.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


But having been adopted, those are ultimately signed off by the University as a corporate body, as binding upon its academic staff?‑‑‑No.  I don't think you could take it that far.  What the University asked the faculties to do was set their minimum standards and bring it back to the University senior executive committee where we basically agreed that they were adequate minimum criteria.


Then they are published.  They are published on the intranet, they are published to the academic staff as being the minimum research expectations?‑‑‑Yes.  It is very important to let staff know.  We are in receipt of significant public funds and administering the funds appropriately so that we can see that there is an outcome, but also it is part of mentoring staff, let them know what the expectations are so that they can really tailor their career to achieving those minimum standards and obviously many of the local disciplinary communities are talking about moving beyond the minimum and saying, "Well, actually we need to mentor your career and you should be achieving better than this."


Thank you.  But in the ultimate, it's clear isn't it, from the University's position that not meeting those minimum standards on a sustained basis would put you into the performance-management stream, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Not in all contexts.  It has to be seen in context, so there are staff who don't meet that minimum expectations because they have legitimate contextual issues, such as they have carer responsibilities or they've had illness and so on and so forth that mean that we assess each staff member within their specific context, but yes, ultimately if over a sustained period of time a person did meet those standards, then obviously supervisors and heads of department, deans, heads of school should be working with those staff to try and get them back on to track and do much more intensive mentoring and support in order to return them to the minimum standards of performance.  They are actually an early trigger warning for those supervisors to work with and mentor those staff members to that they don't fall off the research tree that we keep them and sustain them and build their research careers, because the University's aspiration, of course, is to have outstanding researchers and make sure that every member of staff performs at the highest possible level.


Yes, thank you.  So at the risk of sounding trite, I just need to ask, now performing - meeting those research - minimum research expectations and the specific work outputs required there obviously requires the performance of work by the academic staff member?‑‑‑Yes.


And it would be a pretty idle exercise, wouldn't it, to say - to say to somebody, "I want you to publish a book and I can tell you how many hours that that's going to take.  That would be a fairly pointless exercise, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Yes.


But nevertheless, it must follow from our earlier discussion that the University has to form the view that those minimum research expectations can be met within the 690 hours that's allocated for research.  That's correct, isn't it?‑‑‑That would be the expectation, yes.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


And to form that expectation, one has to form a view about the relationship between this bundle of outputs and certain number of hours.  That is necessarily the case, isn't it?‑‑‑That's why I think it is very important that in the context of the University of Sydney, we have asked the peer group to determine what the minimum expectations are.  The university is not determining what the expectations are, the people in the relevant discipline who know the disciplinary norms and know what would be expected in that rough framework.  They determine what the minimum standards are.  That's why they vary.


But the workload allocation referred to in the agreement is at least - I'm sorry, at least the specific teaching duties and the related duties that people have, the specific service requirements that they are set or agree with their supervisor, plus these research outputs.  If I add those three things together, that's the required duties of academic staff member at the university of Sydney?‑‑‑I think it is very important to keep work performance and promotion as quite distinct categories.  They overlap and obviously they inform each other, but the hours worked is the hours worked.  40 per cent, 690, we would expect that there would be some outcome from those hours worked and given that staff are in receipt of public funds for it, we would expect some outcome.


Yes, and be clear, I'm not trying to suggest otherwise in my questions.  What I am looking at is looking again at SG3 and clause 267?‑‑‑Mm-hm.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


It says the required duties will be such that they can reasonably be expected to be completed in a professional and competent manner within an average of 37.5 hours per week.  Now, what I was putting to you is that while academics might do other things as well, the required duties consist at least of the specific teaching allocation, the specific service requirements, and those minimum research expectations.  Is that correct?‑‑‑No, that is not correct.  So let me explain this.  As you can see from the documents, we have a workloads committee at the University, which has four representatives of the NTEU and four representatives nominated by the University.  Critical in those workload deliberations and the deliberations of that committee is the explicit exclusion of performance criteria from the workload management scheme and one of the functions of that committee has been identifying faculties and schools that have performance criteria as part of their workload scheme and explicitly excluding them.  So the issue there is the focus of the workload committee under the enterprise agreement and with the membership of the NTEU has been to say that hours worked is different from performance and mixing the two is a conceptual error and a conceptual mistake and the workload formula is to say, "We need to leave you a certain number of hours in your working week to do research."  Performance is a different framework altogether and managers, when they look at the performance of the staff, if they are not meeting their expectations, then they mentor and work with those staff to identify issues to ensure that their performance of the duties, both of research and of teaching is improved, but under the workload scheme, when we are really looking at those sections that you've just identified, the workload committee of the University has been vigilant in excluding performance criteria from the workload management scheme.


Well, if I can just - I will ask the question again, because all I was asking you was whether - in 267 it says, "The required duties" - now, we're not talking about performance there?‑‑‑No.


I'm saying - I'm putting it to you that the required duties; that is, the work you have to do, consists of the allocated teaching work and related duties, the responsibilities you have in relation to service and the work required to meet those minimum research expectations.  I am not talking about performance, I am talking about what are the required duties, and I'm putting to you that the required duties might consist of something as well, but they at least include those three elements.  Is that fair?‑‑‑I would have a quibble with your third element.  "Required to meet the performance expectations."  Actually, under the workload formula, it's just that you do hours of research and you may not come up with any outcome at all under a workload formula.  If you don't come out with an outcome at all, you're in a different stream, which is called the performance stream.


Yes, but 267 doesn't talk about required hours of work.  It talks about required duties.  So I'm putting to you that meeting those minimum research expectations is one of your duties as an academic.  Is that right?‑‑‑I hate to split hairs here, but I think you're required to do research.


You are required to do research and research is work?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes, and if I want to know what work I have to do, I can look, for example, at those minimum research expectations as a guide?‑‑‑That would be one of the guides you could refer to.  Yes.


Now, obviously I would - as  a separate question from that, there's questions - being told, you know, I need to get three points when that could be a book or a grant application, I've still got considerable latitude, haven't I, about whether it's a book, whether it's three journal articles, whether it's a grant or something else in most cases.  That's correct?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes.


Okay.  Can I take you back to page 11 of your statement, thank you?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 51 you say that - - -

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Paragraph 51 is on page 13, isn't it?  My page 11 is not paragraph 51, Mr McAlpine.


MR McALPINE:  I'm sorry, it's my fault entirely.  I flipped too far.  It is page 11 I was - I'm sorry.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Which paragraph is it, Mr McAlpine?


MR McALPINE:  Paragraph 45.  I'm sorry.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Paragraph 45.  Thank you.


MR McALPINE:  Now, you would accept that in that concept of required duties that is set out in paragraph 267, there is nothing stopping people - some - sorry, I will ask a different question.  Some people will greatly exceed their minimum research expectations, won't they?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes.  And that is the sort of thing that might assist them in achieving academic promotion?‑‑‑Yes.


And some faculties have, I think it's described as normative or expected, as opposed to minimum research expectations.  Is that fair?‑‑‑Yes.


Thank you.  I just want to take you to paragraph - still on paragraph 45, but on page 12, about two-thirds of the way down the paragraph you said:


As mentioned above, workload allocations set a limit on the hours worked on teaching and service.  Typically six to 12 hours a week.


Now, is the six to 12 hours a week a reference to contact hours or is that a reference to total hours?‑‑‑Contact.


Thank you?‑‑‑In the two 13-week semesters.


Thank you.  And in your enterprise agreement, the way you talk about a full academic workload is by reference to what an employee can perform in a competent and professional manner within a certain number of hours or within a - sorry - average 37 and a half-hour week.  That's correct, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Yes.  So it's - can I put it to you that in both the minimum research expectations and in the application of that clause it is not necessary for the University to make a guess about how long each individual is going to take to perform the work.  What you are doing is you trying to set that by reference to an objective standard of what is a reasonable workload for that type of employee, for example.  Is that fair?‑‑‑I think the norms - and I think you are correct there, if you're setting a normative approach, in this context it's important to know that on the research side of the ledger, those norms are determined by the people in the discipline, not by university management.


Yes, and that's - sorry, I withdraw that.  So in terms of compliance with the regulatory regime in the enterprise agreement, it's no use for somebody to come back, if they've been given what is a reasonable workload; in other words, a workload that can reasonably be expected to be completed in a professional and competent manner within an average 37 and a half hours per week, they can't come back and say to the University, "Well, that took me 42 hours, so you are in breach of the agreement", can they?  That's the point I am making about it being an objective test?‑‑‑We haven't had people come and make those claims, no.


No, but my question is it's an objective test.  So in terms of complying with your workload regime, the test is can a person reasonably be expected to do that work in a competent and professional manner in that number of hours?  That's the question that has to be asked, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes, and I think the normative expectation of those disciplinary groups is that is what you should be able to produce in those allotted hours.


Yes.  And the University adopts what those peers say as its position, in terms of applying the agreement, isn't that correct?‑‑‑It allows the local work group to mentor staff around those sorts of expectations.


Okay.  I'm sorry, if I do need to take you back to it, please feel free to go and look at the clause again, but the last section of that clause 257 says:


And staff will not be required to work more than 1725 hours per year.


Now, I put it to you that that's frankly a fairly meaningless statement, because the requirements upon staff are not to work particular numbers of hours, are they?  The requirements of the University are not expressed in that form, are they?‑‑‑The requirements of the University are expressed and explicitly work through in the workload management committee around teaching and service, but not research.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Yes, but the requirement of the University - nobody ever has their required duties expressed in hours, do they?‑‑‑Only in teaching and service.


Yes, but even then those are notional, are they not?  No, they are certainly not notional.  They are documented, put through spreadsheets, and often published for every other staff member to see, so that everyone can see in the work unit the equitable distribution of teaching and service duties.


Yes, but - and can I just ask a simple question, is PhD supervision included in teaching or research?‑‑‑That is a decision of the local work group.  Some see it as teaching and some see it as research and they adjust their workload formula accordingly.


Yes, either implicitly or explicitly they will assign a certain proportion of that - of the annual hours to, for example, the supervision of PhD thesis.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


And although - - -?‑‑‑On an agreed formula.


Sorry?‑‑‑On an agreed formula that they have agreed.


On an agreed formula.  So they - I mean, I've seen - I don't need to hold you to the figure, but I have seen figures like 50 hours or 40 hours or 80 hours for a PhD supervision, and they say that's a reasonable allocation, and that's the sort of thing you're talking about?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes, but the requirement upon the - of the University or of those peers or however you want to express it, is to supervise the PhD according to certain quality standards, not to just work a certain number of hours.  That's correct, isn't it?‑‑‑There are, as always, performance expectations around any of the work performed.


The requirement of the University to supervise that PhD is not expressed by reference to a number of hours, is it?  You have to do it and you have to do it to a certain standard.  If you can do that in 60 hours, that's fine, isn't it?‑‑‑Again I would insist on seeing the work hours performed and the quality of the work performed as entirely distinct enterprises.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Yes, and what you are concerned about, from the University's point of view is that the PhD has been supervised to an appropriate standard and quality.  That's what really concerns you?‑‑‑Yes, in terms of performance, yes and standards.   Yes, absolutely.


Okay.  Could I ask the witness to be shown a copy of the University Code of Conduct?‑‑‑I have that in front of me, thank you.


Is that a current copy of the University's Code of Conduct?‑‑‑I believe so.


Thank you.





MR McALPINE:  Thank you, your Honour.


I will be just be brief with this document.  This document, would it be fair to say, sets out as concisely as you reasonably can in these things, the core responsibilities of staff of the University?‑‑‑The core codes of conduct expected of staff, yes.


Yes, and why is - so when you say - the way you answered that question, it's a question of conduct, rather than efficiency, or what - I mean, this is about how staff are supposed to behave and what they're supposed to do, is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


Okay.  Now, you've given evidence in your statement about the requirement of casual staff to maintain currency in their discipline?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, I put it to you that the first dot point of point 4, which is on page 3 of the Code of Conduct, it says that all staff and affiliates must maintain and develop knowledge and understanding of their area of expertise or professional field?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, I say that that is a direction and is a direction, in fact, by the senate of the University to all the casual staff.  Is that correct?‑‑‑All staff, yes.  Including casuals.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Okay.  So you would agree that by force of this code, irrespective of your opinion or mine, that casual academic staff are required to maintain, I think it's fair to say, discipline currency.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, and we would expect managers to only appoint casual staff who are people that they have confidence that they understand their area of expertise.


And that would - you'd have more elaborate appointment procedures for ongoing and fixed term staff, probably, but that would also be true of an ongoing appointment, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Yes.


So in both cases, given how quickly knowledge moves, the maintenance and development of knowledge and understanding in a particular discipline requires constant attention.  It's not something that you can just look at upon appointment, is it?‑‑‑No.


And is it fair to say that under the existing enterprise agreement, at least, there is no requirement upon the university at the moment to make any payment to casual academic staff for doing that work?‑‑‑There are implicit preparation hours involved in the casual and sessional payment, to allow them to prepare for those classes.


And your evidence is that that preparation time covers this requirement?‑‑‑When you look at the people who are employed as casuals and sessionals, more than adequate.


Okay.  So if I am an academic staff member at the University of Sydney, say in your discipline, history; let's say I'm in Australian history and a major book comes out questioning some fundamental historiographical principles of Australian history, I would be expected to have read that, wouldn't I?‑‑‑If it was in your particular area of Australian history, yes.


Yes.  Now, I'm not going to take you to the code in detail, but I am going to suggest to you that the Code of Conduct and the other documents referenced in that require staff to at least be aware of the existence of a whole range of University policies and procedures.  Is that fair?‑‑‑Yes, but not necessarily all sessionals or sessionals.


No, and each academic staff member who is appointed at the University having read that would need to make their own professional assessment of what policies they needed to understand in detail.  Would that be fair?‑‑‑Yes, depending on their circumstances.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Depending on their circumstances.  And for some people for example, if I had moved to a position at the University and until say six months ago I lived in China, it might make - take me a lot more time to really get a feel for what the requirements of my job were in a policy sense than for example somebody who had been, say, a PhD student for the last two years at the University.  Would that be fair?‑‑‑It may.  I wouldn't prejudge.  We have got a very efficient policy on line and the Code of Conduct spells out ones that you might want to look at, but some of them would be irrelevant to many staff members, and therefore not need to be consulted at all, until - - -


And some -sorry?‑‑‑No, you go.


Sorry, and some that are highly relevant might not be listed in the Code of Conduct at all.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That's possible, but there are professional staff and supervisors readily available to bring to your attention the appropriate policy on a needs basis.


Yes, and familiarising yourself with the policies might consist of reading them online, or it might consist of making inquiries with those professional staff or it might consist of attending induction sessions or it might be even asking one of the students.  There would a wide range of things that could lead to the familiarisation.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


I have no further questions.  Thank you, your Honour.



RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                                     [2.39 PM]


MR PILL:  Prof Garton, just a few questions.  You were asked some questions by Mr McAlpine at the outset about the NTEU clause and it was put to you in different ways, but the substance of it was that the NTU clause doesn't cap the number of hours that an academic staff can actually choose to work.  If we accept that position for the purpose of this question, what role did that have in the evidence that you give about the academic hours of work clause at paragraphs 38 and following of your evidence?‑‑‑So the implication of capping hours, is that the question you are asking me to focus on?

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                                        RXN MR PILL


I will put the question differently perhaps.  Is the evidence that you give at paragraphs 38 and following, in giving that evidence was it based upon a view that the NTU clause caps the number of hours that an academic staff could choose to work?‑‑‑It was based on first of all the notion that there could be a cap and secondly on the notion that if staff worked above that cap they would be entitled to an overtime claim.


Yes, and you were asked some questions by my friend about the NTEU claim and you gave some evidence about that.  When you've - in answering questions about the NTEU claim, what have you understood you have been responding to?‑‑‑I was particularly concerned with number 22.6, which had an implication that the University would have to ascertain the hours of work involved in research, which I believe would be extremely difficult to administer.  The ascertaining would involve significant administrative overheads and burdens that would be counter, I think.  The self directed research imperative that underpins an innovative economy through the higher education research and innovation.


And at the University of Sydney do you currently undertake such an ascertaining exercise?‑‑‑Absolutely not.


In terms of research activities for an academic staff member, you were asked a number of questions by Mr McAlpine about required activities.  How are the actual research work activities that a staff member will undertake decided?‑‑‑There were - the minimum expectations were set by communities of peers in particular disciplines.  We thought that that would be the minimum expectations within an ordinary working week, but of course at a university like Sydney or any of the other GO8s or any university in the country for that matter, you are always wanting your staff - and the staff themselves are always wanting to achieve research - major research breakthroughs and basically they pursue the research for as long as it takes to make the breakthrough.


Now over what period are those performance expectations - over that period do they refer?‑‑‑We = the minimum expectations are normally over a three year period.  Averages over a three year period. Some disciplines prefer five.


So what is the role of the performance expectations at the University of Sydney?‑‑‑The performance expectations are there both to offer a guide to staff about the sorts of things they should be achieving, to set expectations that if they wish to apply for promotion they should be aiming higher than that and also to facilitate the mentoring of staff, to alert supervisors through the annual performance discussions about the need to mentor staff who might be falling short of those expectations and allow the University to work with that staff member to ensure that they can get their research back on track and achieve their potential in research.  That's really their key = the key aspiration of those figures is to set the mentoring framework to ensure that we can achieve the potential of every staff member that we have.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                                        RXN MR PILL


Now, in terms of research activities, as opposed to the research expectations, how as a staff member are my research activities determined or allocated at the University of Sydney?‑‑‑They are not.  We ensure that your teaching and service is clearly presented in workload formulas and then the assumption is the remainder of the working week is free for you to pursue your research as you see fit, and of course people conduct their research in all parts of the world, in all places, in different environments and in different contexts.


So at the University of Sydney, what's the relationship between the performance expectations and the required research work activities that I actually undertake?‑‑‑Only implicit that we would expect that in a normal working week of 37.5 hours staff should be able to meet those minimum performance expectations, but of course our expectations of staff are far higher than the minimum and we want to ensure that all our staff have the freedom to pursue their research passions as they see fit and not burdening anyone.


If I met the performance expectations in year one the performance expectations are over three years, what does that mean for my subsequent workload allocations?‑‑‑It has not impact on your teaching and service workload.


Does it determine what research I - - -?‑‑‑Sorry, there the teaching and service workload is what is set through the workload committee and through those local workload formulas for each of the schools and faculties.


Now, you gave evidence that the quality and the performance expectations and the hours of work were different and that to combine the two was a conceptual mistake.  Can you explain to the Commission why you say that?‑‑‑I think it's - well, in practice, through the workload committee that's established through the enterprise agreement there is a clear policy and practice of ensuring that there is no performance criteria in the allocation of a workload, because a workload is about allocation of hours of work.


Performance is the quality of the work done in those hours, so it's important to distinguish the hours in which work is performed and the performance of those hours and we have a workload formula which regulates hours and we have a performance framework which looks at teaching and research performance and looks at the quality of the work done in those hours.  So I think in the way that Universities administer themselves, ensuring that we have that distinction is a critical function of effectively administering a university.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                                        RXN MR PILL


So what do those performance expectations then mean for the hours of work?‑‑‑The minimum performance expectations are what local communities believe would be an outcome from doing ordinary work.  Doing that - the normal working week. Now, some academics may achieve those minima in much less than the working week, some academics may take a little bit longer to achieve those minima, but that's why it's a performance criteria, not specifically an hours‑of‑work criteria.


Now, you were asked about different levels and that there is some higher quality expectations at more senior academic levels, level E and the like?‑‑‑Yes.


In your experience at the University of Sydney, does that translate into a higher allocation of hours for research for more senior staff?‑‑‑No.


You were also asked about the growth in student/staff ratios.  How do the workload models address issues of student numbers?‑‑‑The student numbers are irrelevant to the hours.  The hours worked relate to the time required to perform the work.  Usually the student numbers have an impact on marking and there are marking calculations embedded in many of those workload formulas that would account for that additional students in an individual classroom.


I'm sorry, it might have been the audio - I don't want to lead you, but did you say the student numbers were relevant or irrelevant?‑‑‑Irrelevant to the workload formula.  You're in a class, it might be a lecture of 300 or it might be a lecture of 500, you're in a tutorial; it might be a tutorial of 15, it might be a tutorial of 25.  The impact on the work is in the marking and there are separate ways in which the marking is calculated as part of that workload formula.


Right, and are they reflected in the workload models?‑‑‑Yes.  Many of them.


Now, you were asked some questions about the code and you were asked whether sessional staff has to maintain and develop knowledge and understanding of their area of expertise or professional field, and your answer was, "All staff including sessional academic staff."  In terms of what that requires, is there a difference between what that requires for continuing academic staff and sessional staff at the University of Sydney?‑‑‑Yes.  Like I said, there are two issues in the Code of Conduct.  One involves if you are a teaching and research academic, you not only have to keep abreast of developments in your area for teaching, you have to keep abreast of developments in your area to conduct cutting edge research.  If you are a sessional staff member involved only in teaching, you want to keep abreast of the relevant disciplinary knowledge important for conducting that teaching.  There is no research requirement for sessionals.

***        STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON                                                                                                        RXN MR PILL


Now, you were asked about or you gave the evidence in response to a question.  There's professional staff and supervisors.  Are there other supports at the University available to sessional academic staff if matters arise that are dealt with under policies?‑‑‑They have access to all of the unit of study coordinators, heads of school, professional staff, faculty managers, all of the online resources we have for accessing and understanding policies and finding out whether policy is relevant to their situation or not.


So if I'm a sessional staff member and I was confronted with an issue of student academic misconduct at the University of Sydney, how would that be dealt with by me as the sessional academic staff member?‑‑‑Under normal circumstances, I would expect the sessional academic to consult the unit of study coordinator, who would normally be a fixed-term or continuing academic staff member and they would then take the matter in hand and deal with it through the normal policies and procedures framework.


I have no further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you, Professor.  You are excused?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [2.52 PM]


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I think, Mr Pill, the person with fixed availability is Marnie Hughes-Warrington. Is that correct?


MR PILL:  Yes, she is here.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  Well, we will have to finish at 4 o'clock, so if we're part-heard, we are part-heard unfortunately.


MR PILL:  We will try and hurry it through if we can.


THE ASSOCIATE:  Please state your full name and address.


MS HUGHES-WARRINGTON:  Marnie Therese Elizabeth Hughes-Warrington (address supplied)


EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL                                         [2.55 PM]

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                                            XN MR PILL


MR PILL:  Now, Prof Hughes-Warrington, can you state your name and work address for the Commission, please?‑‑‑My name is Marnie Therese Elizabeth Hughes-Warrington and my work address is the Australian National University, East Road, Acton 2601, ACT.


You're the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic at the Australian National University?‑‑‑That is correct.


Have you prepared a statement in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I have.


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


Have you read that recently?‑‑‑Yes, I have.


Can I take you to paragraph 64, 64(c) in the second line "including guidance form the supervisor."  I understand there's a typo there and "form" should be "from"?‑‑‑That's correct.


And with that change is your statement true and correct?‑‑‑That's true and correct.


We tender that statement.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Exhibit 10.  Any objection?


MR McALPINE:  No, Vice President.



MR PILL:  Thank you.  Mr McAlpine will now ask you some questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE                                 [2.56 PM]


MR McALPINE:  Thank you, Prof Hughes-Warrington.  My name is Ken McAlpine.  I am representing the National Tertiary Education Union in these proceedings.  Can I take you to paragraph 9 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


You say at the end of that paragraph that you're responsible for the provision of reports that capture research and education activity and output measures.  Can you tell the Commission in a reasonable summary what is meant by research and education activity and output measures?‑‑‑Your Honours, it's  a just a summary of the activities the school engages in, so the number of students taught, the number of courses taught and in the research area the outputs that are produced by school publications, grants produced, income received from various sources.


And so just honing in more closely and you refer to this at paragraph 13, at the end of that paragraph where you say:


Universities more than ever need to increase flexibility in relation to staffing, increase research outputs and contain costs.


So can you try and give us a list of what the University considers to be research outputs that get measured in that way?‑‑‑Your Honours, there's a whole range of research outputs that the Federal Government measures, ranging from journal articles through to books, through to live performances and also contributions to the popular press.  We follow the guidelines of the federal government in what we classify to be research outputs.


And that includes the HERDC guidelines?‑‑‑Correct.  That includes what we call the HERDC guidelines.


Yes, and what about in relation to grants?  Do you consider a grant application to be a research output?‑‑‑We do not consider a grant application to be a research output, but it is registered in the activity of the school that the staff member has applied.


Okay.  But you count the research grants that are successful?  You count those as research outputs?‑‑‑Your Honours, that's an output because it's been successfully funded.  It's an output of a process, rather than an input, which would be an application.


Now, in paragraph 12, you said that the University more than ever needs to increase research outputs.  Why is that?


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Sorry, it's not paragraph 12.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


MR McALPINE:  Sorry, paragraph 13.  I'm sorry?‑‑‑Your Honours we face incredible competition from overseas, so the university at which I work is ranked in the top 20 in one of the research rankings, but in the top 100 in the others and we are aware that the performance - the research performance of universities overseas and other universities in Australia is continuously improving and we need to do the same in order to maintain our level of excellence.


Yes, but your statement there goes beyond that.  It says "Universities" in the plural, "more than ever need to increase research outputs." Why is that - at the sector level why is that?‑‑‑Your Honours, universities represent the second largest export industry in Australia and the research rankings of those universities determines how many international students will come to Australia.  So it's fundamental to our operating conditions that we maintain excellent research rankings internationally; all universities.


Okay.  And to some extent, as between the difference universities, certainly say in relation to grants, up to a point with some of the big granting agencies, such as the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.  To some extent there's a bit of a zero sum game.  That's a problem at the moment, isn't it, that universities are correctly pushing their staff to apply for more grants, but there's only a certain pool of money, isn't there?‑‑‑There's a pool of money, your Honours, but no university is prohibited from applying and no university has missed out in the past on research funds.  So while the ability to attract a grant may be difficult in some cases, all university staff are entitled to apply.


Yes, and the success rate has been declining over the past several years, hasn't it?‑‑‑The amount of money, your Honours, is fixed in the research funding and so the competition for those research funds has intensified over time.


Put crudely, there are more grants for the same amount of money - more  applications for the same amount of money.  Is that right?‑‑‑There are more applications for the same amount of money.


There is a significant amount of work involved in making grant applications.  Is that correct?‑‑‑There is a significant amount of work involved in a grant application, but within our institution staff are not compelled to apply.


Staff are not compelled to apply, but up to appoint staff are going to be judged by their grant income, aren't they?‑‑‑Staff are able to access grant income from a whole range of sources, including the Australian Research Council, but they could also seek industry funding, international funding.  Many of those sources have higher funding rates.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


But my question was that staff in part are going to be judged by their research, by their grant income, aren't they?‑‑‑Staff in the promotions process at ANU are judged on whether they've actually made an effort to secure funding.  They will not be prohibited or prevented from applying for promotion, and having not succeeded and got the funding.


Now, at paragraph 16 and 17, you talk about the increasingly competitive international and domestic higher education environment.  You say in 17 that you are competing for academic talent and researchers globally.  That is going to be, in part, a function of the salaries and working conditions that the university offers, isn't it?‑‑‑That is correct.


Certainly, since the mid 1990s there has been a significant increase in the student staff ratio of universities in Australia.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Across the sector there has.  At my own institution the student/staff ratio remains at about one staff member per 13 students.


But it's for teaching staff - it's for staff - teaching staff to student ratio has significantly increased over that time, hasn't it?‑‑‑Not a whole sector, but at my institution it has barely increased at all.


And why is it that ANU has managed to maintain that as you claim?‑‑‑The institution has been successful in raising donations and endowment and we have tried to provide funding to protect us from operational problems, but it's getting more difficult.


So I think, according to the figures published by the Universities Australia that teaching staff - sorry, the student/teaching staff ratio at a new is actually 17.8.  Would you dispute that?‑‑‑Look, it is dependent on how it is calculated.


Yes?‑‑‑There is the DEST reportable, one to 17, and there is also - the one to 13 is the ratio we report to the Times Higher Education research ranking.  There are three or four methodologies, so your Honours will forgive me for using one methodology rather than another.


Right.  The one that Universities Australia says was - and I should correct myself - that they suggest - Universities Australia suggest that from 1993 to 2002 ANU went from 14.3 to 17.8.  You don't dispute that, do you?‑‑‑I don't have that fact in front of me and I would need to check it, and that's from 2002.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


Yes.  No, fair enough.  Now, I don't want to get into an argument with you about particular figures, but in paragraph 26 you, over the page on page 6, use the casual sessionals - now, I have a look at the - I had a look at the figures for 2014 and they suggested that ANU had 95 FTE teaching-only staff and I'm - have you actually verified that figure because I'm - I'm confused about that.  It does seem to be remarkable that the DEST figures, or whatever they're called these days, suggest 95 and your - and that is for 2014 and the figure there is 199.  Are you - you're reasonably sure about that figure?‑‑‑Your Honours, I've been provided the figures by the head of HR as I've indicated, and I have the 2015 data and I am able to supply you with the 2016 numbers if you so wish as well.


All right.  Now, at paragraph 33, you open that paragraph by saying:


Academic work is largely self-directed and autonomous.


I'm just going to put a series of propositions to you.  For example, in relation to research, that autonomy is reflected in the fact that, broadly speaking, an academic can choose what the research question is that they want to investigate.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.


And in relation to teaching, for example, I may have been assigned the job, for example, of teaching in Japanese history, but as to the structure and content and reading lists and things, I am going to have a higher level of autonomy in determining what the content of that subject is.  Is that fair?‑‑‑That is correct.  And the methodologies for teaching as well.


And the methodologies for teaching.  And going back to research, having decided a research question that needs to be investigated, I could decide - I could decide the methodology by, for example, I might decide to produce a sort of meta analysis of 50 different studies or do further experimental work.  The methodology to answer the research question, broadly speaking, is within my autonomy.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That is correct, within disciplinary parameters.


Yes.  Yes, and obviously, if it needs a large grant, you've in a sense going to have to get approval for what it is - the methodology as well as the question.  That's correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


Yes.  So in that sense, academic work is autonomous, but as to the actual volume of work that an academic has to perform, that's to meet the requirements - sorry, to meet the performance standards of the University, that's really up to the University, isn't' it?‑‑‑That's not correct.  It is actually subject to disciplinary norms.  So you talk about an output requiring a methodology and a particular - say, a journal article.  The number of hours involved in that will vary from discipline to discipline and so we take the advice of peers around the production of quality work and that will vary from glass blowing right through to protein sequencing.


And when you say "you take the advice from peers", what you mean is in adopting what those standards are, you rely on that advice?‑‑‑Your Honours, in both promotion processes and in workload discussions, we take the advice of peers.


Yes, and you apply that advice?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes.  So it is certainly not the case that a new that an academic decides whether they are going to do research, is it?  It is a requirement?‑‑‑ANU has research and teaching staff.  We do not formally have continuing teaching-only staff.  Research is part of what we do.


Yes, and one of - a teaching and research staff member can't decide whether they are going to do research.  That is a requirement of the job, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.  It is a requirement of the job.


And there will be certain standards, both in terms of output and quality?‑‑‑The University does not have codified standards for output.  Nor does it have performance requirements for output.  It is for each staff member to make their case and promotion on a case-by-case basis.


No, I am not talking about promotion.  I am talking about satisfactory performance?‑‑‑That is also determined on a case-by-case basis.


By the relevant managers?‑‑‑Yes, in discussion with performance development, with the supervisor.  Yes.


Yes.  So your faculties and other bodies, do they have workload models?‑‑‑So the enterprise agreement at a and you, your Honours, says that workload models will be agreed at college level and these will just be done in consultation with the schools and the staff concerned.


And what do those workload models cover?‑‑‑Those workload models cover teaching activities, research and service.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


So how would they cover teaching?  What would they do?‑‑‑So your Honour, the enrolments of the students are considered every year the course is being offered and in both the individual discussion and school discussions there's a determination about how the effort if to be spread across the staff members in the school concerned.


But isn't that done under the model?  There is a thing called the model itself, isn't there?‑‑‑So there's - there's two discussions going on, which is the performance development discussion for the staff member with a supervisor to determine what's appropriate, but there is also discussion about the work effort across the school that happens with the broader group.


Sorry, the workload model itself, what does it consist of?‑‑‑So the workload model will vary according to the schools.


Yes?‑‑‑It simply says that there will be consultation about the workload model.  A workload model may state the number of hours.  It may be a point system.  It may simply be that all workloads are determined between a supervisor and a staff member.


And what sort of point systems exist?  How - what do points measure?‑‑‑That will vary from school to school, your Honours.  It may be that you need to accrue a certain number of points for a number of hours teaching of activities in service, but in things like research, it is extremely difficult to try and quantify things like that, because the effort varies from staff member to staff member.  Point systems are typically unusual.  They might be ours-based,  but the most common workload model is that the supervisor and the staff member will agree on the work to be done.


Okay, can I take you to the - can I take you to the enterprise agreement which is attached to your statement, which is MHW3?‑‑‑I have my copy down there.  Am I able to retrieve my copy of the enterprise agreement?


Yes?‑‑‑I've just got my witness statement.  I have got it down there.




MR PILL:  Would the witness be allowed to leave the witness box?


MR McALPINE:  MHW3, the third attachment which is headed "Australian National University Enterprise Agreement 2013 to 2016"?‑‑‑Yes.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  It's limited to clause 52, not the whole agreement that your attention is being drawn to.


MR McALPINE:  Yes, clause 52?‑‑‑Yes.


Okay.  So I am taking you now to clause 52.4 and that says that:


The required duties of an academic staff will be agreed so that they can reasonably be expected to be completed in a professional and competent manner within an average 37.5 hours per week.


So whatever those work models say need to be consistent with that.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Your Honours, this is a guide to staff across the University.  The important words are "will be agreed", "reasonably expected", and "professional and competent".


So my question was the workload models need to be consistent with this.  This has the force of law, so the workload models and the workload allocations need to be consistent with this, don't they?‑‑‑This is a generally consistent model for staff too, yes, to consider.


Is that "yes"?‑‑‑Yes.


Okay.  So in making that assessment, the words there are - that I am asking you to look at is, "reasonably expected to be completed in a professional and competent manner within an average 37.5 hours per week."  Now, this is a genuine question.  I am asking you whether you consider that that is an assessment of how long that staff member would take to do that work or whether that's what you consider to be a fair average for a person in that position or in that discipline, or in that level?‑‑‑Your Honours, we believe it to be a fair average.


Thank you.  I put it to you that the reason that the words "professional and competent manner" is - is a measure to make sure that on the one hand a person who is very inefficient couldn't say, "That's too much, because that's going to take me 50 hours."  Is that a - - -?‑‑‑That is correct, and we have workload policies to mitigate.


And a person who was incompetent at their work wouldn't be able to hide behind that, because the test is what's a fair average.  Is that fair?‑‑‑It's a fair average, but it requires effort to determine whether someone is professional and competent.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


Yes, yes.  Now, the second part of that sentence - second part of that subclause, sorry, says:


Hence academic staff will not be directly instructed to work more than 1725 hours per year.


Now, at ANU, academic staff are never directed to work in terms of hours, are they?  They are directed to - they might be required to do certain things as part of their workload allocation, but nobody says, "Spend this amount of time on this and this amount of time on that", do they?‑‑‑Your Honours, that is correct.  Our academic staff are highly autonomous.


Yes.  So in fact, academic staff are never instructed to work a particular number of hours?‑‑‑Your Honours, academic staff can be instructed to teach hours, but aside from that no, that is not typical.


So the workload allocation policy referred to in 52.5, your evidence is - and I know I used the word "model" earlier, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that workload allocation policy that's developed in consultation with academic staff, that could simply provide that the workload will be agreed between the supervisor and the employee, nothing else?‑‑‑That is correct.


Okay.  But in other places there will be more elaborate arrangements?‑‑‑That is correct.


Okay.  So the required duties have to be such that they can be done in a professional and competent manner in 37 and a half hours a week.  Now, do you accept that there is a certain level of inflexibility in that, because - sorry, I will withdraw that.  So in relation to professional staff, there could be a workload period that was particularly heavy and the University could decide to employ someone and require them to work overtime, say five hours a week, and pay them more for that?  That's a common thing, isn't it, for professional staff?‑‑‑Professional staff, your Honour, are authorised to work overtime and it is generally workers who are less autonomous.


Yes, but the University could require somebody to work a bigger workload and pay them some more money?‑‑‑The University can ask the staff member, but if the staff member had family duties or outside duties, they could refuse.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


So the employee could agree though, couldn't they?  And the University could say, "We want you to work 45 hours a week for the next six months, because we've got this big project on and we are going to pay you more to do that"?‑‑‑Yes.  The University can authorise and a staff member can agree.


Yes.  Now, for academic staff under your agreement, that's not possible, is it?  Because the implied working hours are always capped at 37 and a half?‑‑‑As you know, to before, the working hours are an assumed average.


Yes?‑‑‑And if - an assumed professionalism and competence is assumed in that place.   In the case of the professional staff, it is authorised and the competence is not assumed.  It has to be ascertained.


Yes, but what I am suggesting to you is that the workload that corresponds to 37 and a half hours a week is the maximum that you can give an academic staff member.  That is right, isn't it?‑‑‑As you noted previously, it's an average, but - - -


Yes.  Yes, but it's a workload that can be done at a competent and professional level at 37 and a half hours a week.  That's right, isn't it?‑‑‑That's correct, but it's not comparable to the professional case.


No, no - so you are precluded under your agreement from saying, "We want to give you 120 per cent of a workload and pay you 20 per cent more."  That's not allowed under the enterprise agreement, is it?‑‑‑It's not allowed, because it's not quantified in the same - in the same way.


Okay.  So - all right.  So why do you think that the agreement - why do you think that an academic employee shouldn't be able to agree to a heavier workload in exchange for more money?‑‑‑Academics are autonomous and their competency is assumed.  In the case of professional staff who can apply for overtime, that competency is not assumed.  It has to be ascertained.  Were we to contemplate discussion of overtime, we would have to ascertain the competency of the academic and that would mean quantifying the effort.


Surely, you would have to ascertain what the workload allocation was and simply say, "This is 120 per cent of a full-time allocation, so we are going to pay you 120 per cent of the salary"?‑‑‑Ascertaining the workload would be extremely difficult, aside from teaching, quantifying the research effort across all the discipline would be extraordinarily labour-some.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


But you have to do that now, don't you, because you have to decide - the workload allocation has to be able to be performed in a professional and competent manner within an average 37 and a half hour week, so you already ascertain the workload in terms of hours, don't you?‑‑‑At minimum, the ascertained workload is between a supervisor and the staff member.  Overtime, I am assuming, would apply to the whole institution.


No.  No, I am not asking you about overtime at the moment.  I am asking you - it's a requirement of the agreement that the workload that's given can be done in a professional and competent manner in 37 and a half hours a week on average.  Is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.


Okay.  So we already - that already requires the workload to be ascertained against a notional average working hours figure.  Isn't that correct?‑‑‑It's ascertained against an average, but it's not - no, it's assumed against an average.  It is not ascertained in a detailed way.


It's ascertained to a sufficient point, isn't it, to make sure you are complying with the agreement?‑‑‑In an average way, yes, but it is not quantified in a detailed way that would allow you to say, with confidence, every five minutes, every half an hour.


No.  No, okay.  Yes. So if you know what a full-time workload is, surely you can tell me what one and a quarter times a full-time workload is?‑‑‑I would have to - that would be with some difficulty.  I could quantify the teaching component of the workload on the basis of contact hours.  It would be on a disciplinary basis that you would know the number of hours associated with research, and service could be similarly difficult to ascertain.


But you are doing that already to determine a full-time workload aren't you?  You are determining that already?‑‑‑An assumed average?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.  So if I wanted to do an assumed average of one and a quarter times a workload, that's not conceptually any different, is it?‑‑‑Once you go from a full-time workload to extra workload, which could be in dispute, I think the University would be then probably needed to move from assumed workload to ascertained workload and we would have to quantify the effort in quite a detailed way to make sure it was competent and professional.


Yes, but you could - but at the moment it is quite clear that you can't do that, because there is just a cap, isn't there?‑‑‑It's just a cap and it is difficult to quantify.


Now, can I take you to paragraph 51 of your statement?

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Sorry, just for my own part, just to clarify that - if you can ascertain as an average 37.5, you could - if, for example, the industrial regime changed and the university wanted to have 46.875, you could then ascertain that, couldn't you?‑‑‑We probably could ascertain that if we were to shift, yes.


So that would just be a 25 per cent increase?‑‑‑Yes, it would be, but at the moment it's an assumed workload.  I think my point - - -


But it doesn't matter.  It could be an assumed output at 37.5 or an assumed one at 40 or an assumed at 46.785?‑‑‑Yes.


Yes, okay.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  And just following from that, they then lead to an environment where time sheets is the only way to review the academic workload?‑‑‑That is correct, your Honour.


MR McALPINE:  So the bundle of workload that you have you have ascertained corresponds to a particular number of hours per week, as a fair average for a professional and competent employee.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.


And that doesn't require the keeping of any timesheets at all, does it?‑‑‑Not at present, no.


No.  There are no timesheets kept at ANU?‑‑‑No, there are no timesheets.


And yet it is possible to work out what a full-time workload is?‑‑‑It is an assumed average.


Now, taking you to paragraph 51 of your statement, first of all I've asked a few people, so I'm just asking just to assist the Bench, the second sentence - the one that starts, "It is also commonly accepted", can you explain what that means?‑‑‑Sorry, this is paragraph?


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  It's not paragraph 51.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  My paragraph 51 starts with, "This has occurred in circumstances where"?

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


MR McALPINE:  Very sorry, your Honour.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Maybe you mean paragraph 51 over the page, "It is also commonly accepted"?


MR McALPINE:  Yes.  That's it.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  The last sentence.


MR McALPINE:  I'm sorry, yes.  The last - over the page on page 12?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


The second sentence.  I am just interested to know what that's - I didn't understand it and I just wondered if you could explain what that meant?‑‑‑So across the entire sector, this is just outlining the average research output for academics across the sector.  The institution at which I work, the average output is 2.27 publications.


Yes?‑‑‑So we are up one end of the sector, in terms of research productivity and there are other institutions at the other end where there is much lower research productivity.


But the second sentence - I'm sorry, not the second, the last sentence:


It is also commonly accepted that the mean modal research publication for academic staff remains zero.


What does that mean?‑‑‑So averaged out across the entire sector, the research output is relatively low for staff, but in my institution it's high.


Sorry, what are the words "the mean modal research publication for academic staff remains zero" mean?‑‑‑So the average research output for staff across the sector.


Is what?‑‑‑(Indistinct) out at zero.


Zero?‑‑‑Or one point - according to HERDC 1.3, but averaged out across to zero.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


I'm struggling to understand how an average can be zero or a mean modal research publications for academic staff remains zero?‑‑‑Your Honours, I would have to go back and consult the underlying figures to check this again.


Okay.  And across the sector, you consulted the figures across the sector and that figure is, I think if I'm correct - yes, it's for 2015, the figure is 1.3 to 1.5.  Is that correct?‑‑‑The figure is for 2014 and it is 1.3 to 1.5, and the figure for ANU is 2.27.


Yes.  And the figure across the sector on a per employee basis is on fairly constant upward trajectory, isn't it?‑‑‑I would have to check the trend data, your Honours, for confirm that.


And is it at ANU on a fairly constant upward trajectory?‑‑‑Your Honours, the output for staff has increased over time.


Yes.  Do you remember any of the earlier years at ANU?‑‑‑I couldn't specify the figure and so would rather not.


Now, I will just take you back to 47 and point (c), it's a reference to the policy and procedure at ANU:


Supervisors who become aware of unacceptably high workloads across their area of responsibility are required to do certain things.


Would you define as an unacceptably high workload?‑‑‑Your Honours, we have for instance a limit for casual employees that's more than 20 hours teaching per week.  So if a continuing staff member were teaching more than 20 hours per week for instance, that would be probably seen as an unacceptably high engagement.


Okay.  Can you think of any others?‑‑‑It would go on a case-by-case basis.  It may be, for instance, your Honours that the staff are operating dangerous machinery, so we have academic staff who do medical research using heavy machinery.  We also have physicists doing the same thing, and so what would be a heavy workload would be determined according to occupational health and safety in those cases.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


And you make a number of comments about the NTEU's claim, in particular you claim that - I think you claim that the cost of overtime is either uncertain or could be very high.  Is that a fair assessment of your position?‑‑‑That is a fair assessment.


So the cap on workloads that you currently have, if that continued, I put it to you it's impossible that - if you are complying with the agreement, it is impossible that anyone at ANU would ever qualify for overtime, isn't it?‑‑‑I disagree.  That's an assumed average.  If this were to come into force, we would have to move to an ascertained effort and time sheets and I believe that that would lead to contestation and dispute.


You are not suggesting, are you that the NTEU's proposal would require or even - would require the use of time sheets, are you?‑‑‑I am not sure how we would ascertain the effort in any other way.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  I think that is what the witness is saying.  That's what I heard the evidence - - -


MR McALPINE:  So your view is that the NTEU's proposal requires the keeping of timesheets?‑‑‑That's how I understand it.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  I think the witness has said that it would go from an assumed to an ascertained and there must be a mechanism for doing that and in answer to the question from the Vice President earlier, the witness agreed that time sheets would be required.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I'll say when the witness is not here - you may be - (indistinct) during the -when the witness is concluded.


MR McALPINE:  Now, can I take you to paragraph 64.  The University has policies numbering more than a hundred.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That is correct.


And if I were appointed as an academic staff member, I would need to read all those policies, would I?‑‑‑That is correct.


Okay.  I would have to look at those policies, however, to decide which ones were relevant to me?‑‑‑No, the University outlines for both casual, continuing and contract staff which of the most important policies to look at and which ones they are obligated to know about.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


Okay.  Familiarising yourself with policies doesn't just consist of reading them, does it?  It might involve talking to other staff, attending inductions and various other types of activity?‑‑‑People learn about the policies in varying ways and they may under different identities.  So a PhD student who is also tutoring may come to know that policy under their identity as a PhD student.


And you say paragraph 65 that:


The discipline currency and reading policies claim would involve a significant cost to the ANU.


You haven't done any calculation of that, have you?‑‑‑So for the number of staff that we would have - so we have about 200 casual staff and then adding the flat rate, yes, that would add extra costs and we would have to find those savings from somewhere.


Yes.  My question was whether you'd done any calculation.  There's - the University has all the - well, let's put it this way, the University has most of the information it needs to make such a calculation.


We would - I would need to go and look at the figures, because you have got a minimum number of hours that you associate with that.  I would have to check how many hours we had engaged a casual staff for.


Yes, that's right.  Now, you talk about the general staff overtime claim.  Do you accept that - I will give you a scenario and ask you what you think.  So if an employee - if an employee was consistently working on Sundays, who normally worked Monday to Friday - if an employee was consistently working on Sundays and was not making an overtime claim, what would your response to that be?‑‑‑The University has got a range of mechanisms for meeting the arrangements - work arrangements of staff.  We do have overtime clauses for ANU nine and above professional staff.  We also have flexi time arrangements.


Okay.  I will ask the question again.  If an employee was working on Sunday, which is outside their normal span of hours, and wasn't claiming overtime, what would you - in your work area, what would you do about that?‑‑‑If the staff member were authorised to do that over time, so it wasn't self-directed work or work not required by the university could authorise overtime for that staff member.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                               XXN MR MCALPINE


So what if it hadn't been authorise?  What if they were just doing it on a regular basis?  What would you do about that?‑‑‑Then we would say to the staff member - we would have a discussion with the staff member to see whether the work was required.  If it were not required, we would suggest that the staff member not engage in those activities.


Right.  So it would be a reasonable - say, for example, a reasonable policy for the University to adopt that employees should work outside the span of hours unless it's authorised?‑‑‑For professional staff an enterprise agreement does talk about staff who, you know, may check email and there are reasonable things that they may do outside of work hours, yes.


Yes, but as a general proposition, if somebody is working on Sunday, for example, for four or five hours, the university should either tell them to claim overtime or it should tell them not to do the work.  Is that right?  That seems to be what you are saying?‑‑‑That's right.


And that would be a reasonable thing to the university to do, wouldn't it?‑‑‑Yes, bearing in mind, we do have some staff that work Sundays, because we have hotel and - - -


Yes.  And you understand that the NTEU's proposal in relation to general staff overtime is in relation to overtime - sorry, additional hours that are being worked that haven't been authorised.  That's essentially the nature of our claim.  It's not about payment, it's about what you do if people are working additional hours and, for example, not claiming the overtime.  You understand that about the claim?‑‑‑I understand that, your Honours, the critical thing is that the staff who are able to claim overtime I deemed to have less autonomy than staff who are at more senior levels.  So their determination of what they engage in should be subject to the supervisor.


Yes, and because they got less autonomy, they are going to have less control over the workflow of the work that is coming to them?‑‑‑That is correct, but also their supervisor should instruct them went to work and when not to work.


Yes.  No further questions, your Honour.



RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                                     [3.39 PM]


MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                                         RXN MR PILL


Prof Hughes-Warrington, you asked a number of questions about academic work and academic work allocation.  At the ANU, does the university allocate the research activities that are undertaken by an academic staff member?‑‑‑No.


So how would the research activities that, if I am an academic staff member at the Australian National University, how is it determined what research activities that I'm going to undertake?‑‑‑The staff member determines which research activities they are going to undertake.


Under the workload models, do any of the models ascertain research activities in hours?‑‑‑No.  Research models tend to quantify in terms of output or expected output.


Now, there were a number of questions put by Mr McAlpine to which you draw a distinction between ascertained and assumed.  Are there any of workload models at - I withdraw that.  Does the university currently ascertain the number of hours that staff perform on research?‑‑‑No.


When there's an assumption that the work that I am doing, including the research that I've decided - when there's an assumption that that can be done within a 37.5-hour week, is that monitored?‑‑‑No.  Not with any strict mechanisms, no.


And is the assumption based upon the actual activities that I am going to undertake as an individual or is it some assumed activities that I might otherwise undertake as an average academic?‑‑‑Sure.  It's a combination of both.  It would be disciplinary expectations, plus what an individual may report.


Now, you gave evidence and started to give an answer and my friend cut you off about codification standards.  Can you tell the Commission where they're - and your evidence was you do not have codified standards or performance, expectations, and you gave an answer and started to talk about promotion.  Does the university have codified standards or performance expectations as part of its work allocations?‑‑‑No.


Now, you were asked some questions about the NTEU proposal for workload allocation.  Can I ask that you be shown a copy of that clause?  This is exhibit J.


Now, can I take you to 22.4, the start?‑‑‑Yes.


So 22.4 starts with:

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                                         RXN MR PILL


This subclause applies in circumstances where the employee's actual hours of work as set by the employer are recorded and exceed an average of 38 over the period of account.


Now, are you able to advise the Commission as to what issues or impact that might have at the Australian National University if you were required to apply that provision?‑‑‑It would be twofold; that it would be seen a serious infringement upon the freedom and the autonomy of academics and they would see that as making their roles - unnecessary interference in their work, and it would make us less competitive against our international competitors who I am not aware monitor hours.  It would also mean significant cost for us in terms of monitoring the inputs and outputs of staff, and that would place excessive burden upon us.


Now, can you turn the page to 22.5:


This subclause applies where the actual hours are not set and recorded by the employer, and where the required work exceeds ordinary hours workload.  In this case, the employee shall be paid an overtime loading calculated as follows -


and then there is a series of provisions as to how one goes about calculating that overtime loading.  Can I ask you first, what impact would the potential for an overtime loading have on the Australian National University?‑‑‑Twofold.  It would, I believe, generate dispute.  There would be staff who would wish to claim overtime and that would move us form assumed effort to ascertained effort and that would be seen, again, as an infringement upon academic freedom, but also impose significant costs upon the University to quantify the effort.


And in terms of ascertaining effort, can you comment to the Commission, based on your knowledge and experience and work allocation on ANU, on how that could be done or how that would be done at the Australian National University?‑‑‑Your Honours, it would be an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, because the number of hours and the kinds of activities people engage in to produce, say, a journal paper or a book could vary wildly.  Teaching is a little bit more codified, but the effort involved in research is very wide and I believe it may generate some anxiety among staff, the thought that we might be trying to standardise research effort.  It may also lead staff to curtail their activities around external service and pro bono work to the community, which they can put towards their promotion applications.

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                                         RXN MR PILL


Now, what systems or mechanisms would the Australian National University put in place in order to comply with clause 22.5?‑‑‑Your Honours, I think we would need to move towards billable hours.


Why do you say that?‑‑‑If a staff member were wanting to claim overtime, we would have to determine whether the effort in the envelope were professionally and competently done.  In order to determine what was professional and competent, we would have to look in some detail to find out what it was staff were doing.


Now, just bear with me for one second.  You are some questions about the workload policy and you were taken to a reference to the capacity for staff to raise issues of their workload being unacceptably high.  Do you recall that?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


Are you able to inform the Commission as to the extent to which issues or complaints had been raised about workload being unacceptably high at the Australian National University?‑‑‑Your Honours, it would be seen as a very rare occurrence for staff to raise workload disputes.


No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you, Professor.  You are excused?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [3.48 PM]


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  The Commission will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 31 AUGUST 2016               [3.48 PM]

***        MARNIE THERESE ELIZABETH HUGHES‑WARRINGTON                                                         RXN MR PILL



GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN, AFFIRMED.................................................. PN4286

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE................................................... PN4286


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL......................................................... PN4304

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN4514

GLENDA JEAN STRACHAN, RECALLED................................................. PN4515

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL, CONTINUING............................ PN4515

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE................................................................ PN4631

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN4634

STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON, AFFIRMED............................................... PN4636

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL.................................................... PN4636


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE............................................. PN4655

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN4704

STEPHEN ROBERT GARTON, RECALLED.............................................. PN4704


MFI #25 CODE OF CONDUCT........................................................................ PN4770

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL................................................................. PN4790

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN4814


EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL.................................................... PN4820


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE............................................. PN4831

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL................................................................. PN4977

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN5000