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






Continued from 31/08/2016





MS GALE:  Good morning, your Honour.  The NTEU would like to call Dr John Kenny.


THE ASSOCIATE:  Could you please state your full name and address for the record?


DR KENNY:  Dr John Kenny, (address supplied).

<JOHN KENNY, AFFIRMED                                                            [10.13 AM]

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




MS GALE:  Dr Kenny, have you prepared two statements in relation to these proceedings?‑‑‑I have, Linda, yes.


Have you read them recently?‑‑‑Yes.


Considering the first statement, the larger one, I confirm that you wish to make the following corrections.  Firstly, at paragraph 37, on page 14, to amend the second sentence so that it reads:


A preliminary copy of the survey results is Attachment JK15.




Your Honours, that attachment has been provided in hard copy this morning.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Sorry, could you just repeat the - - -


MS GALE:  At paragraph 37 - - -

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XN MS GALE


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  I understand that but is attachment?






MS GALE:  Now do you have a copy of that Attachment JK15 with you?‑‑‑I do.


Do you adopt that attachment as part of your statement?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


The next correction at page 47, sorry, paragraph 47 on page 27, at the end of that paragraph you wish to change the question mark to a full stop.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Sorry, if I could get there first, 47, did you say page 47?


Page 27, paragraph 47?‑‑‑Yes.


With those amendments, do you say that this statement is true and correct?‑‑‑I do.


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


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  The first statement will then become exhibit AB.



MS GALE:  Turning to the second statement headed Supplementary Witness Statement, I understand there's one correction you wish to make to that, and that's at paragraph 2 on the front page?‑‑‑That's correct, it's a typo I think.


The second last line of that paragraph in brackets where it says, "2009 to 2020", that should read "2009 to 2010"?‑‑‑Yes.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Sorry, could I just have that date again?


MS GALE:  The second date should be 2010, instead of 2020.  With that correction, do you say that this statement is true and correct?‑‑‑I do.


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

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XN MS GALE


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Exhibit AC, any objections?



MS GALE:  Dr Kenny, could you just re-state your name and address for the record please?‑‑‑Dr John Kenny, I work at the University of Tasmania.  (Address supplied)


Thank you.  No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                           [10.17 AM]


MR PILL:  Thank you.  Good morning, Dr Kenny?‑‑‑Good morning.


Now doctor, you teach into science education?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


In particular, primary school science education as I read your statement?‑‑‑Yes.


Has that been the case in your 11 years at UTAS?‑‑‑It has been, yes.


In terms of your workload, I understand from your statement that you've estimated that your current work is approximately 45 hours a week?‑‑‑That would be about right, yes.


Thirty per cent of your time as part of your university allocation is actually spent on the NTEU activities?‑‑‑No longer.  That was the case for a number of years but not now.


Is that because you've ceased to hold that same position with the NTEU?‑‑‑Yes, I didn't stand for re-election.  I was secretary for five years.  I didn't stand for re-election.  I now just have a purely academic role, yes.


Now paragraph 4 of your statement you say towards the end:


I've become very familiar with the operation of academic workloads across UTAS.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL




Do I take it from that that you're referring to you're familiar with the workloads that academics are performing?‑‑‑Yes.


Is it a reference to the models for allocating academic work or is the reference to the work that the academics are actually performing?‑‑‑It's probably a bit of both, because the models reflect or tend to reflect the work that people are doing.


When we talk about academic workload, it's one of those phrases and some people use it to refer to the allocation of hours, some people refer to the allocation of activities and some people might refer to outputs that might be expected or understood to be achieved.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, I think there's all sorts of variations in interpretation of that term.


You accept the three propositions that I put to you that some of those interpretations include people use it to reference allocation of hours, some people use it to reference the activities that are allocated and some people use it to reference the outputs?‑‑‑Not entirely.  I don't entirely accept that.


In what respect?‑‑‑Because when I think academic workload is looking at things in a very holistic way and so it includes all the activities that people do, and the outputs that people bring about.  Not sort of just one or the other.


So all of the activities that an academic staff member does wearing their academic hat?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Now when I talk academic workloads in terms of activities, perhaps I'll use research as the example.  When I'm undertaking a research activity, do you accept that that would involve for example the particular research project that I'm working on?‑‑‑Yes.


The amount of time that that research project takes is a function of a number of things.  You'd accept that there's multiple inputs and things that impact on the time that a research project takes?‑‑‑Yes, I accept that.


Do you accept that if I put the bald question to you well how long does a research project take, you couldn't give me a sensible answer?‑‑‑Well, for any particular project, for any particular individual, no.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


It's a truism isn't it that when we talk an academic research project, no two projects are actually the same?‑‑‑That's correct.


Unless we get into the realm of the plagiarism and those terrible areas that we won't go to.  Now the time then for the research project is also impacted by what the particular research question is.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes.


The nature of the study.  Whether it's, for example, laboratory based study, whether it's a longitudinal study, whether it's a literature review, all of those things impact the time?‑‑‑Yes.


The how I'm going to go about it, whether I'm going to do it alone or whether it's in collaboration with some colleagues at my university or at other universities?‑‑‑They're all factors, yes.


Other real world factors such as the availability of resources, the availability of particular research assistants, the availability of particular research equipment, all impact on the time it might take me to perform the research?‑‑‑Yes, yes, yes.


It's a function of the activities that I'm doing by and large which determines the amount of time that I will spend on that particular research project?‑‑‑By the activity you mean - do you mean some of those specifics you mentioned or do you mean the project as a whole?


The activities that make up my research project by and large determine the amount of time that it will take me to undertake that research project?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


One other significant factor would be how efficient I am as a researcher and my - if I'm short-handed, my quality and experience as a researcher?‑‑‑I guess, yes, there are individual factors that will influence the way in which the project is conducted, yes.  Experience being one of them.


Yes, and two researchers in the same discipline even performing similar projects, one of them might produce a significant number of research papers as a result and another might produce a significant lesser number of research papers as a result.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, that could happen.


You'd accept that there is both a factual and conceptual difference between the activities you do and how well they're done, or the quality of them?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


There's also a difference isn't there between the allocation of work and measuring performance?‑‑‑Yes.


As I understand your evidence, you also accept that there's  a difference between the activities, the sorts of things that I've just gone through, and the outputs of those activities?‑‑‑Yes.


I can't just look to a particular output, such as a particular publication and determine from that, that that will necessarily take X amount of time?‑‑‑That's correct.


That's the case even if I limit that question to within a discipline.  Can't say - whilst it would narrow the potential span perhaps if I'm producing a publication in engineering versus in the humanities, we'd expect there perhaps to be some difference in the amount of time.  But if I narrow it even to one discipline, within that discipline you can't determine from the fact of a publication how much time that it took to produce that publication?‑‑‑It would be very difficult, yes.


Now one of the expectations, as I understand your evidence in attachments, one of the expectations on you and on other academic staff at the university is to try and achieve a certain level of external income?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


For you that's an average of - is it $20,000 a year, on average, over a four year cycle?  Is that the - - -?‑‑‑No, the current as I try and recall, I think there's a figure in there in my statement somewhere, the current - for my level, in my discipline - - -


Yes?‑‑‑I think the current UTAS minimal expectation is approximately $16,000 per year over a - and that's averaged over a three year period.  So each year over that three year period would be about 16,000 - would have to average out to $16,000.


So $48,000 over a three year window?‑‑‑Yes, yes, minimal in total, yes.


In terms of the activities that I could undertake as an academic at UTAS to try and secure external funding, do you accept there's a number of different ways I could try and secure that funding?  There's a number of different applications that I could make?‑‑‑Yes, there's a number of possible sources of funding that could be applied for.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


There's the main ones that we've heard evidence about, commonly called category 1 funding.  So commonwealth government, grant funding under the ARC, so Australian Research Council and NH&MRC schemes?‑‑‑Yes, it'll depend a bit on the discipline but yes, those categories, there's four categories listed in my evidence I think.


Can you take us to those?‑‑‑There's the ARC grants that you mentioned, there's the CRC grants, I'm trying to - there's some community grants and I think there's discovery grants.  I'd have to look at the actual documentation, but there's four categories mentioned in the university documentation, because it's a university document.


CRC is Corporative Research Centres, is that what CRC stands for?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


In addition - well, just sticking with the commonwealth funding at the moment and even if I limit it to ARC, the different sorts of grants that you can apply for a discovery grant or you can apply for a linkage grant?‑‑‑Yes.


Discovery grants are larger grants over a longer period of time?‑‑‑Yes, yes, that's correct.


I can also apply to the state government, I never have enough money but I can apply to the state government for some grants and they make grants available to universities?‑‑‑Yes.


Industry funding, sometimes called category 4 funding is it?‑‑‑That's right, in some cases that's available.


So that could involve me as an academic approaching industry partners, Hydro Tasmania for example, and seeking to partner with them, have them provide me with some money and I would do some research?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


The activities that I am undertaking to achieve my $16,000 a year or 48 over three years, they could include all of those things or a combination of those things?‑‑‑That's correct.


If I bring it down a level, I might decide to make 10 applications to try and achieve that funding or I might make three that are more targeted.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑I do but that'd be a lot of work, 10 applications.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Yes, I'm just picking a number but the number of applications that you make and the combination and the focus of your applications is a matter that the academic would determine?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Similarly, if I am looking to - well in terms of research publications, the expectation, the general performance expectation on a level C in the Faculty of Education is on average 1.5 publications - - -?‑‑‑1.5 per annum.


Per annum?‑‑‑Averaged over three years.


Over a three year period.  So if I produce five publications over three years I'm exceeding the minimum?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


So to produce my five publications, again there's a range of activities that I could undertake to end up with a publication.  Accept that?‑‑‑Yes.


That might involve obviously undertaking a research project and publishing the results of that project?‑‑‑It would include that, yes.


That could be a large project or a small project.  It might be, as we've mentioned before as part of a collaborative team, and it's the case isn't it that at the University of Tasmania, if I co-author a paper with another member of academic staff we both get credit for that paper?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


Is that the case even if there are, say, six authors on the paper?‑‑‑Yes, it isn't universal across the sector but at UTAS that's correct, yes.


I might also produce papers in conjunction with PhD students that I'm supervising?‑‑‑You may.


That's a fairly common outcome?‑‑‑Yes.


Again, in terms of securing my publications, not every article or paper that is submitted is necessarily an accepted publication?‑‑‑That's correct.


So I might decide which journals I'm going to pursue from a list of accepted journals?‑‑‑Yes, you'd usually choose a journal that's suitable to the topic you're researching.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Yes.  I might decide to submit say three papers, or I could decide to try and submit six papers, perhaps just slightly lesser quality journals and achieve a higher publication rate?‑‑‑It doesn't necessarily work like that.  You would be trying to choose a journal that would be a suitable audience for your research, rather than trying to necessary break one paper up into three and increase your numbers.  I mean the - I think the performance measures might encourage that sort of behaviour but it's not the sort of behaviour I've seen largely from academics.


Is it typically the case that, you know, larger research programs that I would be publishing at various stages through the project?‑‑‑It's possible, yes.  A lot of the publications also occur after the project's finished, when you're disseminating information.


That might include multiple publications at that point in time?‑‑‑It may well, yes.


Commonly would for a larger project.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, well I think generally the larger the project you'd probably get - maybe get several more papers out of it but you might also get fewer really high quality papers.  That depends on the project and the nature of the research.


Do you accept that all those different factors that I went through about how you're getting to two publications, so whether it's a research project but I'm partnering with my PhD student, whether I'm submitting five papers or three or more focus papers.  Those matters will have a fundamental impact on how much time it takes me to produce two papers for publication that are accepted?‑‑‑Yes, there's multiple factors involved yes, I agree.


That's with respect even before we get to the quality of the academic in terms of the paper that they produce?‑‑‑What do you mean by the quality of the academic?  I don't understand that.


Well do you accept the proposition that within the same amount of research time different academics, even within discipline, produce different numbers of papers that are accepted for publication?‑‑‑Yes.


Not every professor in education has the same number of papers published?‑‑‑No, no.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


There's a number of reasons for that but obviously one issue about having a paper accepted for publication is that it's a quality paper?‑‑‑Well, all papers are peer reviewed.  They'd not published unless they're peered review anyway, no matter what journal you send it to.


So a high quality researcher, a gun researcher if I can use that term, a gun researcher is more than likely to have their papers peer reviewed and accepted because of the quality of the publication they're producing?‑‑‑Well, I know some gun researchers, to use your term, who have had papers rejected as well and it's blind peer review, and so the process doesn't guarantee - - -


I'm not suggesting at the moment that the particular standing of the academic?‑‑‑Yes.


I'm might come to that but just in terms of in any profession you'd accept that within a particular area even at level there is a difference in the quality and efficiency of the work of the academic?‑‑‑I accept that there's varying abilities in academia like there are in any other profession or occupation or activity, yes.


Again, that might impact on and would impact upon the amount of time that it takes me to secure two publications?‑‑‑It could do, yes.  I mean people do get better with experience in their job, yes.


But even moderating for discipline and level, so all level C or senior lecturers in education, the amount of papers that are successfully submitted for publication varies, and one of the factors is the quality of the academic.  You are more successful in publication than some of your peers?‑‑‑Well, that can happen, yes.  It can also vary from year to year and publication to publication, and project to project as well.


Yes.  Now if we look at all the inputs, all those things that lead to, in my example, two publications, do you accept that if we started actually recording the time you could mathematically come up with an average?‑‑‑I mean it's a difficult thing to quantify.  I think my statement's made that fairly clear.  That, you know, any of the academic activities are difficult to quantify because of the individual variations and all the factors that you've mentioned, yes.


So what I was putting to you is if we started recording the time that I am spending to try and do all these things to produce the two publications, we could come up with a mathematical average amount of time that it would take?‑‑‑Are you talking about using timesheets or something along those lines?

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


I wasn't going to the method of recording time, I was just exploring the concept of an average time to produce two publications?‑‑‑I think it's possible to come up with a realistic estimate of what an allocation might be for some of those activities.  That's a process that we've gone through.  I've documented at UTAS in terms of teaching activities, in terms of administrative activities and in that survey also we included some research activities for the first time to try and see if it was a possibility.




I will come back to your survey and that very issue?‑‑‑Yes.


Let's assume for the moment that we did record time.  We did have timesheets.  There would be a mathematical average - like necessarily it follows there's a theoretical mathematical average, if you record the amount of time of all of those inputs?‑‑‑Some, yes, you could probably come up with some sort of an estimation of what a reasonable time might be for those activities.


Why do you qualify it by estimation in the recording of time?‑‑‑Because any particular individual, any particular paper, any particular research project you can't necessarily say that it will take this long.  But you would - over a number of projects and a number of activities you might be able to come up with a reasonable estimate of what the typical one might take, yes.  So averaging might be a reasonable term to use for that but averaging to me means you're getting a mean number and that might not necessarily be the number you want.  There might be another way of estimating that number.


Yes.  If we use the mean or the average, it's obviously the case isn't it that 50 per cent of the people fall below and 50 per cent fall above it.  That's the definition of mean.  Accept that?‑‑‑Yes, that's why I'm - that's why I'm reluctant to use the word mean or average, because it means something specific.  But some way of estimating, some statistical way of estimating based on some data would be a way of doing that I think, yes.


That estimate would have to take into account to determine what an academic on average would take to produce the two papers, you'd actually have to look at each of the inputs of that particular academic to determine what a competent academic in that discipline would take to produce two publications?‑‑‑I think it would take some reference to what people actually do and what people working in the field actually do, and using that as a basis of forming the estimation.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Yes.  You'd actually have to look at the activities.  You can't just go there's two publications, therefore that equals X amount of time.  Because as we've gone through, the various activities that I might choose to undertake or not choose to undertake as competent academics in my discipline, are really an academic judgment on my part as to how I'm going to produce those two pages.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, there are a number of factors involved in there.


You would also accept that if we came up with an average amount of time, as artificial as that might be, that it's not the case is it that 50 per cent of the academics, those falling below the mean, taking longer, are not competent academics in their discipline?‑‑‑Well, again I'm not using the word mean.  The estimate would be - would to me only be meaningful if it represented what people actually do.  If it doesn't represent what people actually do then it's a meaningless number.


If I can ask you to assume these two things for the purpose of the question, that we look at what they actually do.  So we look at the activities, not the output.  We look at the activities and assume for the purposes of my question that an average has been determined or estimated.  It's not the case is it that the 50 per cent who fall below the average are not competent academics in their field?‑‑‑No, I think the terminology - you're using the estimate to determine competence rather than actual work activity and time involved.  The fact that someone does something faster than someone else in any given activity doesn't mean that the person who's slower is incompetent.  It just means that they may have less experience, for example, or less resources available.  It doesn't necessarily imply incompetence.


So it follows from that, doesn't it, that two competent academics may take different time to do the same activity?‑‑‑In any given activity that might be true.


When we start talking about research activity and producing two publications, there's significant scope for divergence of views about how long that might be?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.


That's true even within disciplines and at levels?‑‑‑It doesn't necessarily imply competence though.


No, I accept that?‑‑‑Yes, okay.


So how would you identify in that context the competent academic?‑‑‑Well, if we accept that an academic role involves teaching, research and service related activities, then a competent academic would be achieving in all of those areas.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Is that that holistic assessment that you mentioned before, there's an holistic assessment of their overall contribution to the university?‑‑‑I beg your pardon, I missed the first part of your question.


I'm sorry.  Is that - you referenced before an holistic assessment of their overall contribution.  Is that what you're referring to there?‑‑‑Yes, I believe you know the workload is something that needs to be looked at holistically, yes.


Once we move beyond what the employer allocates to a staff member and beyond what the employer agrees in terms of particular research activities, and move into as the NTEU proposed clause does move to having to determine what's necessary to achieve a performance expectation.  Do you accept based upon everything that we've gone through there, that the activities that are necessarily required to achieve a particular research - sorry, a particular performance expectation has significant variability, even within discipline?‑‑‑It could well - again, there's a lot of factors that could come into play.  So it's difficult to - it's difficult to quantify some of this, yes.


Whilst to achieve a performance expectation necessarily there's obviously some activity that I have to undertake.  You can't effectively put a particular hour number on it without actually determining the particular activities that the staff member's going to undertake?‑‑‑Yes, I think there's some - probably some key activities that could be identified but yes, there would need to be some sort of way of estimating those - typically what those key activities might involve.


Even before we get to the estimate, we have to work out what the activities are, and once I move beyond what's allocated and agreed with my employer, then it's essentially an academic judgment as to what's necessary to achieve my $20,000 or achieve - or $16,000 or to achieve my two publications.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, well I think the academic - you know, the research is largely self-directed work and so the academics would typically have research interests that are particular to their situation and resources available and contacts and networks that would assist in development of that.  So they would plan - typically plan their research over, you know, a three year period of so based on a number of factors related to their situation.


Having done that, can I put a proposition to you.  It's not realistic, is it, that a supervisor would say to that academic staff member, "No, I think that that research project and the way you're going about it is going to take too long and it's going to take you into working additional hours, and therefore I am telling you, you can't research that question.  You have to produce your two publications in this way"?‑‑‑I think that would be an infringement of academic freedom and a limitation that I don't think any of us are arguing for.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Yes, well you'd accept that if the consequence of the supervisor not doing that was that the academic had to be paid overtime, for which there was no budget in the faculty, but that is what the supervisor would need to do, to avoid an unfunded liability?‑‑‑Just to step back a moment, when you say you know the supervisor directing someone to produce two papers, rather than work on the project, I means that - I don't think that's a very good example because the papers would come out of a project typically - - -


I didn't put to you, Dr Kenny with respect, that the supervisor would say don't do that, research project produced these two papers.  What I put to you is that the academic seeking to produce two pages says I'm planning to do this project, or continue this project with these activities.  The supervisor says well that's going to take 500 hours.  You can produce two publications by doing it in a shorter way with perhaps a slightly different research question and therefore I'm not going to agree to you performing the research that you want to perform.  I put to you that that just doesn't happen in the sector and as you put it, it would be an infringement of academic approval?‑‑‑I think it would be an unwise supervisor that went down that path.  You know, rather than trying direct the research project which is really the realm of the academic, the self-managed part of their work.  The supervisor would be more advised to support that work if they want outcomes, yes.


Even within a discipline whilst the supervisor is in the same broad discipline, the level of expertise in the particular research that the academic's undertaking, they will often be the leader in that particular field?‑‑‑That's correct.  I mean my - if my supervisor tried to tell me what I could and couldn't research in my area my supervisor is not qualified or conversant with the science education literature, and so it would be unwise for her to try and direct what I do within that - my research components or my teaching components of that as a matter of fact.


Or indeed to tell you how long she thinks that that should take you?‑‑‑That's correct.


To the extent that she knows, given the comments that you've just made - - -?‑‑‑I did say earlier that I don't think in any given situation, any given individual, that we can say it will take X hours to do something.  We'll say we're looking at some realistic way of estimating what a typical competent person might do is probably the best way to go in my experience.


But as we've been through you'd actually have to unpack two publications into well what are the activities that you're actually going to do and how are you going to go about it.  Then you'd have to make an estimate of what a competent academic doing each and every one of those activities would do?‑‑‑Well, at least the key activities involved in it, yes.  Because an estimate is just that, it's an estimate.  It's not pinning it down to the second decimal place.  It's what a typical realistic and credible amount of time that this might take.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Yes, and academics within discipline, it's fair to say could have very differing views about that?‑‑‑Yes.


As it was put to me - - -?‑‑‑That was clear in our survey as well.


If it was put - this was put to me if I want five opinions I'll go and ask three academics in the discipline.  Now - - -


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Is that legal academic or - - -


MR PILL:  Now you've attached a number of things to your statement.  The academic workload allocation reflecting some of your answers already is an holistic exercise that seeks to balance teaching, research, community and service.  Is that the nomenclature?‑‑‑Yes.


It's discussed on an individual basis, is that right?‑‑‑That's correct, the performance conversation is an individual and their supervisor, yes.


It involves a degree of negotiation and discussion between the supervisor and the academic?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


In terms of the research activities that I'm undertaking,  you look at it over a four year period based on the guidelines?‑‑‑Yes, at UTAS currently it's a three year period.  It does again vary across the sector.  In that document you've got in front of you, the workload guidelines, that says four year period but that was in - prior to the performance expectations which have been published since, which limited it a three year period.  There are some universities where it's a five year period, so it's one of those things that again isn't consistent across the sector.


Yes, thank you?‑‑‑But the point is it's averaging some sort of - to allow for peaks and troughs in publication, there is some sort of a period of time over which it's assessed rather than an individual year.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


So even if I go back to my examples of producing a $16,000 on average per annum or two research publications on average per annum, because it is considered over a three year period, it doesn't actually translate into well how much time as I going to spend in 2016 on research activity to produce those outcomes?‑‑‑Well, I don't think that's completely correct because I mean, for example, I have two papers currently out for review that I was working on all through last year.  So it does actually have implications beyond the actual year in which the paper goes out, and if those papers come back and ask for revisions I've got more work to do as well to get those accepted.  So it does spread over a long period of time.


Is it the case that in terms of sitting down with your supervisor and determining your research allocation for the coming year, that you take into account the publications that you have achieved over the previous three years?‑‑‑In our current - in our current workload allocation model, as is sort of pretty well reflected in that, my research allocation, in my situation I'm what's called a 40, 40, 20 academic.  So 40 per cent of my time is involved, 40 per cent of my time is involved with research and 20 per cent of my time is service activities.  And so the assumption is within our model that I have 40 per cent of my time to engage in research spaced activity of whatever shape, form that might be and I'm basically judged, my performance is judged on the outputs of that time over a three year period.


What bearing do those outputs have in terms of the allocation of research activity prospectively?‑‑‑It would depend, I guess we haven't actually tested that yet at UTAS because it's only been in - that particular performance regime's been in for three years and so I think the jury's still out on what the actual implications might be but I think some of the indications are that it may well mean that some people receive less research time if they're not meeting the performance expectations.


Can I take you to your JK1, which is the academic research workload guidelines.  Did you have any role in the development of these guidelines?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes.


What was your role in the development of these guidelines?‑‑‑We had a - as a result of the enterprise agreement we had a committee sent up, a joint committee of union representation and managerial representation; three of each, and I was the lead of the union representation.


Can I just ask you a couple of questions about it.  Where does the number 1702 come from?  There's reference to a range of 1702 to 1717?‑‑‑That comes from the enterprise agreement.


Do you know what - - -?‑‑‑As the maximum number of allocated hours for an academic.


Do you know what its derivation was?‑‑‑I think it's something like, the exact number, 37.5 hours times 46 weeks or something like that.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Well that'd be 17.25 - - -?‑‑‑The way in which the - yes, the way in which the - it's come out of that sort of calculation.  What's a typical working week over a typical year and the variation is because of summer, Easter and public holidays and various other things, so it can vary within that band.


Now I'll just take you to a couple of pages.  Paragraph - so my pages are numbered at the top, Dr Kenny.  I don't know if yours are too but my number up the top is 34, page 4 of this document.  Are they numbered differently are they?


MS GALE:  No, no, they are numbered.


MR PILL:  Thank you.  Do you have that document?‑‑‑Yes.


Page 4 of that document?‑‑‑Okay.


Now we've touched on this in your evidence already.  At the bottom of the - well, I'll just look at the table first.  At the University of Tasmania you can be categorised in a  particular way and you've mentioned that you're in the balanced research teaching category there, or the 40, 40, 20?‑‑‑Yes.


Others might have more of a teaching intensive load and others have a research intensive load and there are some research only staff?‑‑‑Yes.


The majority of staff are not research only?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.  The majority of staff would be probably balanced.  I'm not sure of the actual figure but the majority would be balanced researchers, yes.


Under research, measurement and workload:


References that research, teaching and admin workload should be considered holistically.  Encouragement to develop a balanced portfolio of research inputs and research outputs.


So in the context of - and it goes onto say:


This acknowledges that research activity cannot be determined solely on inputs.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


So when you were developing these guidelines what was the intended relevance of the research outputs to the prospective work allocation?‑‑‑Well, the general gist of the conversation was, you know, at that time the university was wanting to judge research performance based on outputs only, and our argument was well, you can't - in terms of workload allocation, you can't ignore the input effort that's required.  And so the aim of this was to say okay well then people need time in their workload to do their research and you'll see there's quite an extensive series of numbers around teaching that have been developed within these guidelines.


Yes?‑‑‑And the purpose of those was to be able to quantify someone's teaching load and be able to quantify similarly someone's supervisory or service roles and so if you can quantify those two then there was space left in the workload for research.


Yes?‑‑‑So it was creating space and at the time also many of my colleagues and many of my colleagues in education were experiencing lots of pressure to teach more, and to take on administrative roles, and it was chewing up their research time.  Yet they were still expected to produce outputs.  So the purpose of this was to ensure that a reasonable amount of time was set aside in any given academic's workload to engage in research activity.


You mentioned the research expectations.  On the next page at point 5 it references:


For accountability purposes the research and scholarship for an individual academic may consist of a range of associated activities as listed in table 2.


That language of accountability, do you accept this that - well, I'll ask you, in your involvement in developing this document why was the term "accountability" used?‑‑‑I think because we all accepted, you know, we as well as the employer accepted that people are going to be given 40 per cent of the time to do research and they need to be accountable for that in some way, some meaningful way.  The danger was that people would be expected to be accountable for research but not have any time to do it and have to do it on weekends or at nights and so forth, and so the document was trying to avoid that situation and say okay, you now can be sure you've got some time in your workload to research so it's up to you therefore to show that you're using that time effectively.  We didn't argue with that, that's a reasonable point.


So to make sure I've understood.  Is it a fair summary to say that there were these two goals from what you were trying to achieve here which was a mechanism to attach  hours to allocated teaching in the service, to enable a residual period of time for research and to set expectations that would hold people to a degree of reasonable account for producing something with their 690-odd research hours a year?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.  That's essentially it.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Do you accept that it is the case unfortunately that there are a cohort of researchers or teaching and research academics who have not traditionally produced research outputs, not secured grants and not published in peer review journals?‑‑‑I do know of some situation that that's been the case but in my experience it's often because the teaching load was onerous, far greater than was indicated.  That's why this document was important in order to quantify the teaching and the service, because if those two things were not quantified they would tend to chew up the research time and therefore it would be unfair to expect people to produce - have research outputs which assume they have a 40 per cent allocation when in fact they don't.


Yes.  Now these workload guidelines are effectively supplemented at the faculty or the school level.  You're aware of that?‑‑‑I'm sorry, the first part of your question again?


Sorry.  These workload guidelines, the University of Tasmania workload guidelines are supplemented at the school or the faculty level of the University of Tasmania?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.  These are generic for the university and provide standard allocations across the university.


Then you're obviously in the Faculty of Education.  As I read your evidence there's one model for education but in other faculties there's actually multiple models for different schools?‑‑‑Yes, well the way in which it is meant to happen is that the individual faculties or cost centres or schools, however it might be divided up, adopt these guidelines and then make - because they're generic activities.  I mean they all conduct lectures, they all conduct tutorials, they all - you know, identified the activities that they would all do and provided estimates of realistic times for those.  But there would be activities within different disciplines which wouldn't be represented here, and they would supplement these with those activities.  For example, it might be a biological field trip, well then it would be up to that faculty to determine what's a reasonable allocation for a field trip.


Rather than the Faculty of Law deciding - - -?‑‑‑Rather than the Faculty of Law doing that, that's right.  So yes, they provided the - they covered the bulk of the activities across the organisation and then they were supplemented by reasonable estimates that were meant to be put in place within each school or faculty for the things that weren't in here.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Do you know how they were developed, the school or faculty level it goes on?‑‑‑Well, I know what happened in the Faculty of Education, we discussed, we had our own local workload committee and we discussed what reasonable - and had union representation and management representation on it, and we discussed what we think would be a reasonable allocation for certain roles that we identified.


I read from the evidence you've been heavily involved at the University of Tasmania in academic workload matters, that's an understatement?‑‑‑Heavily involved, yes.  It's a fair statement.


Can I hand you a document.  This is the academic workload model for the School of Engineering.  Just before I take you to something in it, do you accept as a general proposition that across the schools the way in which they're framed the guidance or the models varies.  Some schools it's a more formulaic spreadsheet basis and in others it's more principle based.  Accept that?‑‑‑I accept that our intention of these guidelines was to provide - and they were to be implemented across the organisation.  I accept that some faculties resisted that and there was - we ended up going to the Fair Work Australia, I think, a couple of years ago to try and have some determination on that.


Is that the evidence in your statement about the Faculty of - sorry, the School of Chemistry and Roe C?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct, yes.


I'll come back to that.  Are you familiar with the document that I've provided to you, you've seen that before?‑‑‑I do - I'm not familiar with this particular document.  I do recall the Faculty of Engineering was one of those ones that was in dispute at the time, when we went to see Roe C, yes.


Well is it still in dispute?‑‑‑I think we ended up having to reach a compromise at the time, which I wasn't happy with because I believe this faculty should have - should have adopted the guidelines as they were in the agreement.  We were unable to resolve it beyond that with the Commissioner at the time.


These supplement the guidelines and indeed reference them.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑I mean I haven't read the document obviously so - - -


Right.  I'll direct your attention anyway to - under 1.2 you'll see that in the Faculty of Engineering or the School of Engineering the way that they've gone about the research allocation is - do you accept this?  They haven't attempted to quantify research activity in terms of time.  They've provided a time allocation within which the staff as it says, the staff member then has complete freedom to pursue whatever his or her interests are during this time.  Only the output is measured against the RPE, which is the research performance expectations?‑‑‑Yes, I see that.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Perhaps I'll put a - given you don't recognise the document, do you accept that in the school guidelines - well sorry, I'll take you to one more document given your comment before.


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


MR PILL:  Look, I'll ask for it to be marked for identification for the purpose of the transcript.  I'm conscious that the witness wasn't entirely familiar with the document.





THE WITNESS:  I might also add that every school was - the responsibility under the agreement was to adopt the guidelines and implement them.  That was the basis of our - at the time when we took the case to Roe C, I can't remember the exact figures but we'd identified quite a number of faculties or schools that hadn't done that.  It was sort of a general reluctance to adopt the guidelines as they were implemented.  So, you know, we had no direct power or influence over those other than to invoke the agreement to try and bring it about.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Dr Kenny, that's a pretty impressive power, isn't it?  You've got the provisions in the enterprise agreement which mandate that the university will have these workload model regimes in place?‑‑‑That's right.


You've got provision in the enterprise agreement which is a dispute settlement clause?‑‑‑Yes.


You've got a mechanism to fix this, haven't you?‑‑‑We do, that's right.  That's why I was disappointed at the outcome and the reasons for that, as I recall, were the actual action had been delayed probably six months longer than it should have been and we were into the bargaining of the next round for the next agreement, and Roe C was reluctant to make a ruling based on the old agreement when the new one was currently in negotiation.  So I was disappointed with the outcome, yes, given those provisions in the agreement.


But in your evidence you say at paragraph 18 that:

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


There were few transparent systems in place to enable my workload allocation to be contested.


Then at paragraph 25:


The only recourse for me as an individual academic is to control the time allocated to my teaching and service roles, so I can be assured of quarantining time in my working week to dedicate to my research.


Having regard to the provisions which are in the enterprise agreement around workload models and dispute settlement procedure, it's just wrong isn't it?‑‑‑No, because that's actually an historical document.  It's documenting things changed - - -


Right, so the new - the 2010/2012 agreement comes in and then your evidence I think at paragraph 30 is that your hours changed from 65 to 45, is that right?  Was that through the use of those mechanisms?‑‑‑Well, those mechanisms evolved.  The mechanisms that are shown in that agreement probably - in the workload guidelines probably evolved over a five year period and when we began, and a lot of my activity began within the Faculty of Education, there was no - and I do have a paper published which I'm happy to provide the details of, which documents the whole case and development of this historically.  But initially when I first went to Tassie in 2005/2006, there was no agreed workload allocation formula.


But where we stand now, if we have a look at the 2013/2016 agreement?‑‑‑Yes.


There are mechanisms in place in terms of workload models which are supported by these guidelines, which are supported by a faculty addendum, and there are mechanisms in the agreement for dispute resolution, no doubt through your good industrial efforts?‑‑‑Yes.


This is all fixed now isn't it?‑‑‑Well, yes and no, Commissioner.


You've got mechanisms there to resolve this if there are disputes?‑‑‑The mechanisms are there in the agreement but it's one thing to have it in the agreement and it's another thing for the employer to actively implement the agreement.


Well, you can force them to.  You can take them to the Commission.  You've got processes there?‑‑‑Yes, yes, and I certainly have - - -

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


If you don't use them - - -?‑‑‑I certainly pushed - - -


- - - how can you blame the employer?‑‑‑I pushed for that to be the case, yes, and for that to happen.  Unfortunately the way in which the timing went at the time was just - I think Roe C was reluctant to make a definitive ruling on that.  But yes, I do think the provisions in there are reasonable and do protect, but my experience is that the employer was very reluctant to actively implement the agreement and so short of pushing for documentation to be provided to this committee, it was very hard to get that out of the human resources department, they wouldn't put it forward necessarily, so we'd have to push and push and push at every step of the way.


Well it might be like dragging teeth - pulling teeth but - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - the mechanisms are there, aren't they?‑‑‑They are.  They are - in theory now they're there and I certainly - obviously you try to resolve these things internally as best you can.  You can't be running off the Commission every five minutes so we did a lot of negotiations internally to try and bring it about, but in the end we had to go because there was just so much reluctance to actually implement the agreement as written.


Thank you, Dr Kenny.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  We'll take the adjournment at this point, Mr Pill.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [11.15 AM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT                                                                  [11.15 AM]

RESUMED                                                                                             [11.59 AM]

<JOHN KENNY, RECALLED                                                           [11.59 AM]


***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


MR PILL:  Dr Kenny, there was discussion about the dispute which was taken to the Fair Work Commission before Roe C, and it related to a number of the school and faculty workload models.  Do you recall which ones?  Did it include engineering and chemistry?‑‑‑I think engineering, chemistry, I think there may be one or two others, I'm not completely - I'd have to look at my notes to be completely sure of which ones they were.  But it was - the majority were I suppose acceptable, some of them I still wasn't - I had basically in that submission I think I'd identified three categories.  Ones that were totally compliant with the guidelines, ones that were not compliant but were acceptable given the circumstances and ones that were not acceptable, and that was the - engineering was one of those.  I thin chemistry was another that was one of those.  I can't recall the other one.


Have you got your second statement there, which is AC, exhibit AC?‑‑‑Yes.


Can I take you to paragraph 6 of that statement.  See in the last sentence there:


Dispute led to recommendations by Roe C which resulted in the school based models which were in dispute being brought into compliance with the time allocations in the AWG.


?‑‑‑Some of them - some of them during those negotiations were but I think that's slightly inaccurate from my memory.  There was a couple that weren't.  I mean essentially I guess we had to reach a comprise in the end and as I said earlier I wasn't happy with the outcome, because I felt all models should have been compliant with the guidelines but - so I think that's slightly, my memory was slightly off on that particular statement.


So you wish to correct that last sentence?‑‑‑Yes, certainly the majority of the models were acceptable.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  How do you wish to correct that past evidence, given that you have sworn this material previously earlier today?  Can you tell us how you wish the sentence to now read?‑‑‑I beg your pardon?


How do you now wish that sentence to now read?‑‑‑I'd say the majority of the statement - of the models complied with the guidelines.


MR PILL:  The dispute hasn't been continued?‑‑‑No, no, this dispute wasn't - - -


It's 2013?‑‑‑Yes, the dispute wasn't continued, no.


Which of the minority school based  models were not brought into line?‑‑‑Again, I'd have to consult my notes to be really clear on that.  There was a - there's something like, I don't know how many models across the university, but there was - in that middle category I guess is what you're referring to, the ones that were acceptable but not quite compliant.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Dr Kenny, it's your statement, I'm just trying to ascertain - - -?‑‑‑Yes, yes, I'm just - I'd have to consult my notes on that to give you an accurate answer, but there was - the majority were acceptable.  It was a - - -


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Dr Kenny, did you use notes when you prepared your statements?  Do you refer to your notes when you prepared this statement?  Did you refer at other material?‑‑‑Yes, except, Commissioner, I'd just come back from over - I've been overseas for the last two months and so when I was preparing this final statement I  was relying on my memory while I was overseas.  The notes I have are in my office and I only got back from overseas two days ago.


Well at the time you swore this statement, which was 11 July 2016, which you affirmed - which you today accepted as being your statement, you were of the view the dispute led to recommendations by Roe C, which resulted in the school-based models, which were in dispute, being brought into compliance with the time allocations of the AWG.  You now say that that is wrong?‑‑‑I now say the majority of them were.  There was a few of them that were negotiation to be compliant from non-compliance, but engineering was one of those ones we were unable to bring for compliance.


Yes, Mr Pill.


MR PILL:  When did you go on leave, Dr Kenny?‑‑‑Last week of June.


Can I hand you a document.  I'll hand you two together in the interests of efficiency.  Now I've handed you two documents, the first one I'll take you to is the portrait one headed School of Chemistry Workload Guidelines.  So these are currently on the University of Tasmania intranet.  Are you familiar with these documents or are you familiar with that document?‑‑‑I have seen them in the past at some stage.  I think this statement I think I've seen that and I think this spreadsheets - I think I've seen that.


The spreadsheet's identified October 2013, attempted allocations for 2014, yes.  I'll ask for both of those to be marked.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  MFI32 will be the School of Chemistry Workload guidelines and the table will be MFI33.


***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL



MR PILL:  Can I put it to you that these are documents that post-dated the resolution achieved through the Commission process with Roe C.  Do you agree with that?‑‑‑I suspect so, yes.


Do you accept that - well, in terms of the second document it identifies for the School of Chemistry, essentially staffed by an anonymous letter down the left-hand side, A through W, with some casual at the bottom, and then indicates an allocation in hours for - as it reads across the top, lectures, tuts, demonstrating travel including those - perhaps those field trips that you mentioned, coordination which presuming is unit coordination, preparation and marking.  You'd agree with me that this compliant workload model in the School of Chemistry doesn't attempt to regulate research?‑‑‑That's - yes, that's - I think that's the case, yes.


What it seems to do is to attach a number of hours and by reference to various subject codes, KRA314 and the like, an allocation of teaching and the number of hours to pick up the work associated with that teaching and associated activities.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes.


So do you accept that in the supplementing of the workload guidelines there's obviously differences across the schools and at least a number of the schools have adopted a set of guidelines developed in conjunction with their staff that do not attempt to regulate, research activities by attaching a particular number of hours to them?‑‑‑Yes, I accept that historically when this process began a number of schools had a way of allocating work for their staff, particularly teaching.  The question was, was it compliant with the agreement or not.  Was it compliant with the guidelines or not.


You've got no reason to dispute on the fact that that was compliant with the guidelines?‑‑‑I'd have to look at the numbers, just to look at that they've allocated for the lectures and various other things.  You know, I do accept that they were trying to put hours in there but were they compliant with the guidelines, it's just something I'd have to relook at it closely to see if it mirrors the numbers that are in the guidelines.


I'd just like to ask you some questions about the performance expectations.  Can I take you first to JK5?‑‑‑I'm sorry, which - - -


So JK5?‑‑‑JK5.  Do you know what page that is offhand?


Unfortunately, it appears following 86 and it's entitled "University of Tasmania Teaching Performance Expectations Framework"?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


It has a graphic on the front?‑‑‑Yes, I've got that.


At the University of Tasmania there's performance expectations in relation to those four areas of research, teaching, community and service?‑‑‑Yes, yes, there's currently a document that - - -


These are the ones that relate to teaching?‑‑‑I think they're still to some degree being developed by UTAS but yes, this is the document that probably most people are familiar with.


Looking through it, do you accept that it's directed at improving the quality of teaching?‑‑‑I accept that's the intention of it, yes.


It's not directed at increasing the number of lectures that are delivered?‑‑‑No, not directly, no.


Can I take you back one exhibit to JK4, page 75?‑‑‑Page what, sorry, 70- - -


Seventy-five?‑‑‑I think my pages are mixed up now.


Got that?‑‑‑75, JK4, yes.


It's headed "Research Performance Expectation for Academic Staff 2014".  Now these performance expectations are available on the intranet and indeed they're available on the internet as I checked this morning.  Now if I turn to the page to page 3 and I look down and I find education, second row, when we've been talking this morning about research expectations for you that's where we've drawn them from.  Is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


So level C up the top, 1.5, 16k for income, load - now load in that context, is that HDR supervision, high degree research supervision?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


So on average you need to be supervising one HDR student on average per year over the three year period?‑‑‑Yes.


Completion is essentially HDR student Masters or PhD finishing their - completing their subject?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Or completing their degree.  Now were you involved in the development of the research performance expectations?‑‑‑No.


No?‑‑‑It was largely done by the UTAS management and a team of people there.  We had some limited opportunity to provide feedback during that process but it was largely done by the UTAS management, without any reference to the academic working group that I was involved in.


Well, when you say without any reference, you just gave evidence that you had the opportunity to comment on it?‑‑‑Yes, well sort of - certainly made our opinions about it known to the management, yes, during the development of it, yes.  Through the academic centre largely, I'm involved in the academic centre which is another governing body of the university and they call for feedback on occasions, and we provided feedback to try and improve - I mean what actually resulted was improved by our efforts but - - -


So they made amendments in response to the feedback?‑‑‑Well, it's hard to know if it was directly in response to what we said but we had an opportunity to provide feedback, yes.


Following that feedback there were amendments made but - - -?‑‑‑The final, the final product was better than the original product in my view, yes.


In what way?‑‑‑Well, for example, you mentioned earlier about if there's four authors on a paper that they each get a point for a publication.  The original version had that if there's four authors on a paper they'd each get one quarter of a point on a paper.  That was one area where we suggested an improvement to be fairer and there's a couple of other areas.  I think another one was to do with the - what was it, to do with the publication - publishing in high quality journals.  Initially, there was an idea that I think that that would only count in certain quality journals, and we said well, you know, rather than penalise people who publish in other journals, because they tend to be rated, that there should be bonus points allocated to people publishing in higher quality journals, to encourage that sort of behaviour really.  So in essence, we weren't opposed to the idea of having performance expectations, we just wanted them to be fair and reasonable and to encourage people to do well, rather than penalise them.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


You accept these weren't developed in a vacuum, that they were developed having regard to both the national ERA, so excellence in research Australia qualitative and quantitative data.  Aware of that?‑‑‑Well, it was difficult to know how they were developed.  We were told there was some sort of benchmarking process that went on against some comparator universities, but I wasn't involved in the development of these at all.  My concern with these was that they were fair and reasonable for someone who only had 40 per cent of their time to research.


On the first page of that document in the last paragraph above heading number 2?‑‑‑I'm sorry, what page again?


On the very first page of the document, fourth paragraph down?‑‑‑Where it says the RPE's?


Yes?‑‑‑Yes, okay, yes.


I appreciate your evidence is you weren't directly involved and only gave feedback.  On its face the RPEs were determined to take into account a number of things that are listed there?‑‑‑Yes.


You'll see that it doesn't take into account my clients, the Group of Eight.  My friend points out it does say, "It selected" in brackets, "mostly none Go8", so I should qualify?‑‑‑Yes, I mean again - - -


Are you aware of why it didn't consider the Go8?‑‑‑Sorry?  I can only - I can only surmise what the thinking was based on what was said, it's said in places like that.  I think their attempt was to set benchmarks that were appropriate to the nature of our institution, as opposed to the - to what's appropriate to the Go8s, but as I say I wasn't involved in the process so I don't really know.  It was a benchmarking process of some sort, they said that quite clearly.


Do you accept if I take Monash University as an example.  Monash University has 40, 40, 20 academics.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑I presume so, yes.  I think it's fairly standard across the industry.


They actually have a provision in their enterprise agreement which provides for an allocation within 1645 hours and so on its face the outputs that you'd expect from - well, let me put it this way.  Do you consider that the outputs from a group of eight institutions from a teaching and research academic will exceed those of people at your institution in the research space?‑‑‑Not necessarily.


Given your answers that you've given, do you accept that one of the reasons for introducing the research performance expectations was accountability?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


It was also to try and improve the quality of research output?‑‑‑I think it was certainly to try and drive research - more research awareness and behaviours, yes.


Potentially to help steer people in terms of their research efforts, and you mentioned quality journals before, to produce research that would be capable of publication in such a document?‑‑‑Yes.


Obviously you had a distinction between whether it's an incentive or a potential penalty, but that was obviously an overt part of the reason for the RPEs, was to increase quality in research publications?‑‑‑Again, I think that was the intention of the university, to lift its research game, yes.


It's also potentially an objective measure to assist the university in identifying staff who are not producing research outputs, to potentially lead to a conversation about whether they should be a 40, 40, 20 academic or should potentially focus on being a teaching focused academic with a higher teaching load and less research outputs?‑‑‑Yes, that's true and that's what we suspected would be part of the purpose of these things, to assist in that sort of performance management conversation, yes.


In terms of the actual - sorry, can I ask you to turn to page 4, and it's a page numbered 78 at the top?‑‑‑I'm sorry, page?


It's numbered 78 at the top?‑‑‑Yes.


And 4 at the bottom, and it has a table and it's got a heading midway down 2.2, "Measuring performance against the RPEs"?‑‑‑Yes.


Based upon what's there, the assessment was made on an aggregation across the publications, the income, the HDR load and the HDR completions, essentially allocating a way to your points to total 1.0?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.  That's the way it was formulated.


When we look at the bottom there's a horizontal graph to the right, turn - under table 2, "measuring performance against the RPEs", there's essentially a points weighting that can be given based upon what your outputs have been?‑‑‑That's right.


This is a retrospective consideration only?‑‑‑Yes, it's based on the outputs.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Based on what you're achieved, what you've done?‑‑‑Yes.


If you fall between 1, 1.5 or meeting the minima, if you're between 0.75 and 1 you're in here, and if you're above 1.5 to 2.25 you're good on its face?‑‑‑Yes.


Is that how it's applied at the University of Tasmania?‑‑‑Well, this is - this is again, I mean as I said earlier, with any of these things having the documentation is one thing, having it implemented is another, and my experience is that it doesn't always work out as such.  This regime, this particular regime has been in place now for three years and on my request to send it last year I asked for a review of how people are going against the RPEs, and the results showed me quite a number of academics were struggling to meet their minimum expectations.


What's happened to those academics?‑‑‑Well, this is the stage we were at at the university of trying to still - SEGA was a new policy, you know, it'd take time just for it to actually come to fruition, what it all means in practice and it's at the stage where it needs some sort of revision and review.  Let's say it was basically a three year trial if you like, and so I was interested in well okay, what does the evidence show?  Have these things been said at too high a level or have they been said at too low a level, and  again it assumes that people have a 40 per cent to do their research, and the university was unable to present workload data and the provost of the university admitted this to senate, that the workload data wasn't robust enough for them to verify whether people had a 40 per cent research load.  In other words, if people were overloaded with teaching or overloaded with administration then it was bound to affect their research output.  The data systems at the university were not robust enough to answer that question.


Yes, and in part that's because it's true isn't it, that academic time is not recorded or measured?‑‑‑Well, to the extent that the guidelines were applied, there could have been an estimate of the amount of teaching and administration people were doing, which would at least be able to verify the amount of research time they had.  If the guidelines were applied across the organisation, yes.


You accept the proposition I put to you?‑‑‑Sorry, repeat your proposition, sorry.


That the time of the academics is not recorded or measured?‑‑‑I don't know because it depends on how a particular faculty or school records their - I mean obviously they allocate teaching and they allocate work at some point, in some way, but it varies as you can see a couple of examples you provided here, it varies in a couple of faculties.  I know in my own faculty the - it is  sent - the teaching is certainly centrally recorded by the head of school.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


When you say recorded, you mean the classes are recorded?‑‑‑She allocates the teaching load to the staff and has a spreadsheet of what those hours are.


Dr Kenny, are you aware of anywhere in the University of Tasmania, can you tell this Commission anywhere in the University of Tasmania where the University of Tasmania is recorded or measuring hours of academic staff, as opposed to estimating or allocating?‑‑‑You mean in terms of their teaching load?


In terms of their academic work.  Outside of casual staff, are there anywhere in the University of Tasmania, where the University of Tasmania is measuring or recording the working time of academic staff?‑‑‑In terms of recording their actual working time, no, the estimates are based around the use of the guidelines or not as the case may be in some other places, to estimate their teaching load in terms of hours, and to estimate their administrative load in terms of hours.  Now in terms of this scale, can I put to you that if the staff member is under - it's a signal for a discussion that occurs as part of that holistic discussion about their contribution to the university?‑‑‑Yes.


Takes into account things like their personal circumstances, do you accept that?‑‑‑(No audible reply)


You just need to say yes for the transcript?‑‑‑Yes, well there is a conversation with each staff member with their supervisor about the performance, I guess, each year.


You would accept it would take into account all of the activities that the academic's been performing?‑‑‑Well, it's meant to, I think.  It's meant to.  I mean I - again, we haven't designed the performance regime of the university and we don't apply it.  We've made recommendations to the university about how the workload guidelines could be incorporated and used in order as part of that conversation, but you know the university hasn't necessarily applied that prospectively across the university, and I think as I said earlier, when I asked for that review of the performance outcomes across the university, they were unable to provide robust data.  Now that's - to me that's a failing of the university management rather than us.  Because the mechanisms are there, they could quantify people's certainly teaching and administration based on those guidelines across the university if they so wanted to do.


Well, in terms of the process that actually does happen and you're aware of, rather than negative assumptions based on a lack of information, there is an annual discussion between the staff member and the supervisor?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


On your evidence you believe there is a number of staff who aren't meeting the research minima at the moment?‑‑‑Based on the evidence that was put to senate by the provost of the university, that indicated that there was a number of academics in several faculties who were not - I think it was up to 40 per cent of academics and, you know, some of them senior academics like professors and so forth, who are unable to meet the minimal expectations as they were there.  So to me as an academic that would say well okay, then we need to review this process because if it's saying 40 per cent aren't meeting the minimum, then to me it's saying something serious about this document and it needs to be readjusted in some way.


Well, in terms of the process that is in place, there's a discussion with the supervisor where all of the circumstances are taken into account, whether I've been impacted by family circumstances, whether I've got a significant teaching load, whether I'm intending to potentially move to be a teaching focused academic or a research focused academic.  All of that would form part of that conversation.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Well, it's an individual conversation so it's difficult to know what goes on in the individual situation.  So it's each individual academic with their supervisor and you know that's one of the - one of the issues with this whole process is you put an individual in a situation with someone who has more power than them, then it isn't necessarily an equitable discussion or negotiation.  But the intention of the document is for that.


Now you'd accept given that there's an aggregation of points that even if we're just looking at the research dimension, without taking into account all of those other circumstances, it's not the case that if I miss on publication or I miss on HDR that I'm unsatisfactory.  It's holistic even within the research paradigm?‑‑‑There is some scope in there to compensation, so you might have a few more publications which might make up for an inability to get the dollars, for example.  There is some scope within there for that.  Again, I think that's one of the improvements I think we argued for as well during the consultations.


If you can put that document to one side.  Now can I take you to - can I just get you to confirm your current work allocation.  You're teaching a unit coordinating in two subjects this year, is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that was my workload as it was initially organised this year, yes.


In terms of your service allocation, what's in your service allocation?‑‑‑It's largely for me at the moment it's the - I'm representative on academic centre, an elected representative, which means I attend numerous meetings on the senate and read documentation this thick associated with that.  And then, you know, contribute to the discussions at the academic centre about six or eight times a year.  Also I'm on the workload committee of the faculty.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Yes?‑‑‑I coordinate a unit and they're the things that come to mind at the moment.  There's a variety of things.


What are your contact hours during the semester for the subjects that you're teaching?‑‑‑I have - last semester I think I had a one hour lecture and two two hour tutorials per week in a semester one and I've been on leave since the end of semester one basically, so.


Is this ESH250, is that the subject?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


What is that subject?‑‑‑It's a second year primary science subject in the Bachelor of Education.


I think you mentioned before, you no longer have a service allocation for your NTEU role?‑‑‑Yes, I no longer - I no longer hold that office, yes.


In terms of research and it maybe last year, I'm not sure, possibly this year, the university agreed to the research in relation to academic workload.  So the survey that you did to actually form part of your research contribution, is that right?‑‑‑Well, the university didn't agree to that, I chose to do it as part of my research into that area, yes.  But I had - I had, you know, my research allocated, I'm self-directed research like all other academics and so I research into - through my work at the union, I researched into academic work and through my science education I research into that.


That forms part of your research allocation?‑‑‑Yes, I have a 40 per cent - normally I have a 40 per cent allocation for research and I undertake whatever projects arise or I get invited onto or, you know, within that time.


It's probably an appropriate opportunity to turn to - well, can I just confirm, in terms of teaching periods you're only teaching the two periods - well this year one period?‑‑‑This year one period, only because as I say - - -


You're on leave?‑‑‑I've taken long service leave so that document was as it was at the start of the year and the other subject that is listed there, didn't run as it turned out.  So it was - it fitted in nicely with me wanting to take leave anyway, so I took the opportunity to take leave.


Why didn't it run?‑‑‑I just don't think there were enough students applied to do it.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


I'll take you to paragraph 36 of your first statement.  You give evidence about this survey that you've done with the NTEU in both statements so I will have to jump backwards and forwards.  But can I start with 36.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Mr Pill, are we going to work with JK15 for this part of the questioning.  Is that the way you're going to do it?


MR PILL:  That's the additional attachment that was - - -




MR PILL:  Yes.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Have you got JK15 in front of you?‑‑‑Yes, I'll try and find it at the bottom of this pile of papers.  That's the survey, isn't it?


MR PILL:  I intended to ask some questions about the statement before I go to the survey questions.  The survey questions, yes?‑‑‑I do have it somewhere.  Here it is, yes.


So this survey and I'm looking at paragraph 36 of your statement, and I think you've acknowledged it's not a random survey?‑‑‑That's right.


It wasn't conducted by an independent third party, independent of you or the NTEU?‑‑‑No, it was conducted by myself, yes.  With the support of the NTEU but it's conducted by myself and a colleague.


In terms of the support of the NTEU, who from the NTEU assisted?‑‑‑I think Matt McGowan was my main contact, the assistant - - -


So assistant national secretary?‑‑‑Assistant national secretary and I think Michael Evans.


What support did the NTEU provide?‑‑‑Really sort of access to the SurveyMonkey, that's a way of providing online surveys, so we could get access to members, a number of members.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Do you accept that of the 8000 academics that it was sent to that NTEU members were over-represented relative to the academic population?‑‑‑Well, it's probably likely, I mean they were targeted.  It wasn't - I mean I would suggest most of them are probably NTEU members, yes.


In terms of the actual questions and the design of the survey, did you do that?‑‑‑Yes, I largely did that, yes.


Let's come back to the question.  In terms of the security measure about the responses, were you responsible for that as well?‑‑‑Well, that's working through the NTEU, through their - I don't know quite how to describe it for the way in which they conduct their surveys to members, and the - usually with those surveys it's emailed - the survey link is done online and it's emailed to the target audience, which in this case was a selection of members.


Yes.  So I take it from that answer that you weren't yourself involved in the security concerning the responses?‑‑‑Well, it's the usual security associated with those sorts of surveys through SurveyMonkey, yes.


Dr Kenny, the question I'm putting to you is you weren't personally responsible for that or personally involved in the security measures for the responses?‑‑‑No, only to the extent that I used SurveyMonkey.  I don't quite get the gist of - like the gist of your question is alluding me a little bit.


With respect, you don't need to get the gist of them, you've just got to answer them.  I was just asking about what you personally did and did not do in relation to the survey?‑‑‑Okay, well I developed the survey and then put it into SurveyMonkey through the NTEU's access to that, it's a paid - it's a paid access, and then they made it available to the selected group of people, 8000 members.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  When you say selected group, Dr Kenny, what do you mean by that?‑‑‑Well, the - I've been trying to get a survey of this type up for quite a while, Commissioner, and after negotiation with the NTEU at that particular time it was in 2015, earlier that year they had conducted a full survey of members to ask them about various conditions of work and so forth which was a very comprehensive survey, and went I think to 26,000 members or whatever it was at the time.  One of the questions in that survey was would they be prepared to be contacted again for further information, particularly around academic work.  So that was - question was built into the prior survey and they were the people that we targeted in the follow-up survey.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


So the initial survey of 26,000 I think you mentioned, was that solely directed at NTEU members or the academic cohort?‑‑‑I'm not completely sure.  I think it was targeted mainly at NTEU members but I'm not completely sure, because I didn't actually conduct that survey.  I just had provision for a question in it, in order to maybe have this follow-up one.


So in essence, there's an element of self-selection, if I can put it that way, in terms of emerging from the first survey that you've alluded to - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - as to who your survey was directed to?‑‑‑Yes, and I certainly don't claim that this - the results of this survey are necessarily application for the whole profession or so forth.  It was really - as much as anything it was an attempt to develop a questionnaire that might address some of the issues I was concerned with, and get some indicative data of what might be happening out there.  Because as far as I'm aware there is no survey of the nature of that one we're referring to been done anywhere in the world.  There's been a number of studies that have addressed the hours of work of academics but as far as I'm aware there's been no study that's actually tried to break that down  into the various activities that might make up that work hours.  So I was trying to develop something that might provide some indicative data about that and maybe hopefully eventually develop into a more randomised study at some point.


Thank you, Mr Pill.


MR PILL:  Thank you.  As a consequence of the survey you have not published any results?‑‑‑Not as yet, no.  I've been on leave for the last two months and we're starting to - we're only starting to analyse the data now really and you know I'm hoping in the next couple of years there will be a couple of papers coming out about that.


You would accept given your qualifications and comments that you've already made that it would not with respect pass muster for a peer reviewed journal about the quantitative - sorry, I'll withdraw and start the question again.  You'd accept it wouldn't pass muster as a study in relation to quantitative measures of academic work in a peer review journal?‑‑‑No, I don't accept that.  I accept it might form the basis of a paper that discusses those issues and identifies certain areas of concern but with qualifications associated with it.  I mean all research have ethical issues to address and all research has qualifications associated with the findings, and this would be no different to that.  Would be published with the limitations and the qualifications made clear upfront, and that would be - it wouldn't get through a peer review process without acknowledging those potential biases, for example, that you've already pointed out.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


In this process did you apply for ethics approval?‑‑‑Yes, I have ethics approval for the university to conduct research into academic workload.


But not specifically in relation to this particular survey?‑‑‑I think it applies to that survey, yes.


Now in terms of what - I'll take you to your questions in a moment but just to provide a little bit of an overview - do you accept this that you have provided - we don't have before us all the results from the survey?‑‑‑No, no.


We don't have the data and we don't even have a summary of most of the answers to the questions?‑‑‑No, as I say there's a preliminary run through the data which has been provided in, you know, in some of the comments.  But as I say it's very much preliminary at this stage and more will be revealed as we - as we get into the data.


Yes, and I accept that.  But nevertheless you have chosen to select particular parts of it and to highlight them in your statement and in your supplementary statement?‑‑‑Yes, as some sort of preliminary indicative material that's come out of it, yes.


The selective nature of that is to focus on those that identify academics working long hours?‑‑‑Well, I think if you look at the - if you look at the percentages there, I mean some of the percentages are quite clearly - - -


Well I'll come back to the percentages?‑‑‑Yes, it's not necessarily selective.  It's indicative of the data.  There's people with responses in - response rates in the 80 and 90 per cents.


But just to pick one example, Dr Kenny, you've asked a question - this is for example question 77 of your survey which is now exhibit JK15.  I don't need to take you to it, I can read it to you:


In your experience, what are the main strengths of the current approach to the allocation of academic work at your institution?


Now there's no preliminary indication of that in your statement?‑‑‑Maybe not, no.  As I say it's sort of selective - - -

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Not maybe not - - -?‑‑‑ - - - it's some selective statements that have come out of the survey.  It's not intended to be a full summary of the survey.


No, and you don't represent it as such?‑‑‑That's right.


The proposition that I'm putting to you is you have selected matters to buttress and support the other matters that you've put in your statement?‑‑‑Selected matters that are representative of some of the data that's in there, yes.


Now can I take you to page - paragraph, sorry, page 15 at the top?‑‑‑Of sorry, which document are we looking at?


Sorry, I'm in your statement.  I'll ask you some questions about your statement and then I will come to the survey questions?‑‑‑Okay, yes.  So question - at point 38 are you talking about or point 39?


So I'm at the top of page 15, the first point is:


78 per cent claim that the time allocated for their research is inadequate.


I'm on page 15 of your statement.  It's got a chart in the middle with lots of dots?‑‑‑78, yes, at the top of the - yes, top of the page, yes.


The question I wanted to ask you, do you accept that - withdraw that.  In your statement you indicate the number of different ways that academic staff are seeking opportunities to have more research time.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑I'm saying in my statement that academics need some way of estimating - and this is what - this is behind the UTAS guidelines, that if their teaching is kept under control in some way and their research - sorry, their administrative tasks are quantifiable, then there's space left for research.  The purpose of those guidelines was to ensure people would have at least 40 per cent of their time in order to conduct their research.


Do you accept the general proposition that teaching and research, academic staff are passionate about their research?‑‑‑Certainly, yes.


Your own statement refers to the fact that your teaching workload got pushed up to 50 per cent because you were developing a new curriculum?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


You reference the fact that you will be seeking to have compensation for that in the form of a lower teaching allocation in the subsequent years?‑‑‑Yes, and that comes directly from the way in which the industrial agreement and the performance - research performance expectations are meant to gel.  They're meant to balance out over a three year period again allowing for peaks and troughs, balance out over a three year period that I would have 40 per cent of my time for research.


Yes, and as a teaching research academic you would strongly resist I'd suggest if the university came to you and said we want to allocate you 90 per cent teaching because we think that's the most effective use of you at our university?‑‑‑Well, certainly, yes.  I mean that was the - that was what I encountered when I first went to UTAS, as my statement says.  I was provided - I was normally on a 40, 40, 20 load and I was after given a 90 per cent teaching load and still expected to produce research outcomes.  So it was demonstrably unfair and unreasonable, hence I became active in this area.


Yes.  Part of the reason for that is you are passionate about your own research as well?‑‑‑Yes, absolutely.  That's why I'm an academic.  Otherwise I'd still be a teacher.  I'm a teacher and a researcher, yes.


Whilst there are some academics who might have a preference towards teaching focused academia, that'd be in the minority?‑‑‑I think generally.  I mean most academics have to have a PhD, and a PhD implies that you're trained to be a researcher and most people would come into academia with the hope of being able to do some research.  But there are individuals who for whatever reasons decide they'll focus more on their teaching.


You're not aware, for example, of any disputes where an academic's gone to the university and says you've given me too much research time and not enough teaching?‑‑‑No, I think that would be very rare.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Mr Pill, we'll take the adjournment because there's a 1 o'clock matter on.  How long do you think you'll be?


MR PILL:  I'll be about 15 more minutes or so.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Because of the 1 o'clock Full Bench matter we can't proceed.


MR PILL:  Yes, yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  This afternoon there's also a matter on a 4 o'clock, so we'll need to finish at four again today, because two Full Bench matters are happening.


MR PILL:  If the Commission pleases.



<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [12.51 PM]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT                                                         [12.51 PM]

RESUMED                                                                                               [2.11 PM]

<JOHN KENNY, RECALLED                                                             [2.11 PM]



VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I appreciate it was lunch, Mr Pill, but some of us didn't.


MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.  Dr Kenny, I was asking you some questions about your survey.  Can I just pick up the question that you were asked by the Deputy President.  The survey was sent to about 8000 employees who were a subset of a broader set of survey respondents of some 26, 27,000, who had answered a question saying that they wished to receive or participate in a further survey about working hours.  Of those 8000, you had 2000, approximately 2000 respondents?‑‑‑2060 thereabouts.


2059, to be exact according to your statement?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Now it's the case isn't it that you didn't have to answer every question?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


Was there any indication as to when you should or shouldn't answer a question?‑‑‑The survey contained instructions that you should only answer a question if you have direct and recent experience in that particular line of work.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


So for example in your first statement, you have given evidence at pages or you've included evidence at pages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 through to - I'm sorry, it goes further than I thought.  Through to end of 25.  That was in response to a line of questions, but in relation to that question more than half of the respondents didn't actually answer it?‑‑‑Yes, well the number of responses are indicated there on the sheet for each question.


Yes, so you accept my proposition that more than half of the respondents didn't answer the particular questions that you have extracted there, or answers that you've extracted?‑‑‑Yes, well as I say it was - people were asked to only answer questions they had direct and recent experience in.


Right.  Now at paragraph 40 you give evidence that:


Due to the methodological constraints including survey participants who are not a random sample, these results do not necessarily translate into an accurate statistical picture of the workforce.


You say:


Nevertheless the survey provides reliable evidence that a significant majority of the academic workforce is working longer than a 38 hour week.




Now you agree with me that's not a new phenomenon?‑‑‑Yes, yes, that's right.  There's been a number of studies that have indicated similar results to what was shown here.


Yes.  Now at 39 you give evidence - paragraph 39 of your statement you give evidence that the respondents on average report working 52.3 hours per week, and then you've included a chart.  Can I take you to the actual questionnaire, and this is JK15.  Can I take you to question 9 to start with.  You got question 9?‑‑‑Yes.


It starts with:


The standard working hours for most of full-time Australian employees are 38 hours a week.  Regulation of standard working hours for academics is less clear.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Now if I pause there, you'd accepted that the question then suggests or pre-supposes that there are standard working hours for academics?‑‑‑No, I suggested there are standard working hours generally in the Australian landscape but there doesn't appear to be, even though our industrial agreements are based around a 38 hour week, I gather one of the reasons we're here is because of - there seems to be something that's a bit out of kilter with the general working population.


The proposition I'm putting to you, Dr Kenny, is look at the second sentence, "regulation of standard working hours for academics", it goes on, "is less clear".  Now your question pre-supposes that there are standard working hours for academics?‑‑‑Well, if we look at the industrial agreement it says a 38 hour week is the basis of the industrial agreement.  So drawing on that,


This is your 2010 agreement which introduced that?‑‑‑I think there's a - there's a I think maximum hours clause in pretty well every agreement these days.


Yes.  Dr Kenny, you're referencing the Tasmanian agreement in 2010 in your previous answers that you just gave about standard working hours?‑‑‑I think so, yes.


Do you accept that traditionally there has not been a concept for standard working hours for academics?‑‑‑I accept that there's been difficulty in quantifying working hours for academics.


But you don't accept the proposition that traditionally there has not been a concept for standard working hours for academics.  You're rejecting that?‑‑‑Well, as I said there, it's less clear.  It's unclear and I think what we're trying to do here is clarify that situation.


Yes.  It then goes on:


In your experience are 38 hours a week sufficient to perform your actual academic workload and meet your performance expectations?




That language, "actual academic workload".  Is that defined or any guidance provided in the questionnaire as to what we're talking about there?‑‑‑I'm sorry I missed the middle part of your question.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


That term "actual academic workload", which you've then got in brackets (AAL), is there any guidance in the questionnaire or any definition of that that provides guidance as to what the term refers to?‑‑‑I don't - can't recall whether there was actually a preface to this question or not in the actual survey.


Well isn't this the actual survey?‑‑‑Yes, yes.  I don't think so, I thought maybe the question was probably self-explanatory.


Do you accept that as an academic pursuing my vocation that everything I do in my discipline area is likely to be considered by me as actual academic workload?‑‑‑Everything you do?


In pursuing my discipline is likely to be considered by to be part of my academic workload?‑‑‑I suppose that's probably true to a large extent.  I do have some reservations about saying everything but I think generally the statement is true.


Then we've got this compound proposition of "your actual academic workload and meet your performance expectations".  Now by that presumably you meant - well did you intend to mean to meet the university's performance expectations of you, the academic?‑‑‑Yes, the requirements - the performance requirements that are placed on the academic by their institution.


Yes, as opposed to the academic's view of their workload and performance expectations of themselves?‑‑‑Yes, well I think often the academics try to exceed those performance expectations if they can.


Now over the page at question 10, it then says:


Please give an estimate of the average number of hours you work per week.


Is there some reason why you used a different formulation to question 9?‑‑‑Because it was trying to get down to some specific numbers about what people actually do in their view, in their opinion.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Yes.  Well I put it to you that both the sequencing of the question, so you've got question 9 that says essentially you're an academic, you've got standard working hours of 38, the lack of clarity around academic and your workload and what's meant by your performance expectations.  You then followed up with a question with a different formulation.  Hours you work.  Now you again accept that when I'm an academic considering my hours of work again, everything that I do in pursuit of my discipline I'm liking to consider part of my hours of work?‑‑‑I mean it's - yes, it's quite - I mean as I say it's a very difficult area to pin down and that's why, you know, surveys like this haven't appeared before.  So I guess many academics present - get involved in activities related to their work, a whole variety of activities, you know, community engagement activities, reviewing journals, marking examinations which aren't necessarily directly related to their immediate work but support the profession.  So there's a range of things people get involved in, and I guess how that directly relates to their performance as far as the institution's concerned is a bit fuzzy, it's a bit debatable.


I'll take you to one more, if you can go to question 11 over the page again:


I have to work in the evening and/or weekends to get my job done.


Now on its face you'd accept that that doesn't indicate how often, whether it's once, twice or 52 weeks of the year?‑‑‑No, it doesn't indicate that.


Now if I go back to 40, this sentence:


Nevertheless the survey provides reliable evidence that a significant majority of academic workforce is working longer than a 38 hour week.


It's the case isn't it that academics have not traditionally been employed to work a 38 hour week, or indeed a 30 hour week or a 60 hour week.  They're employed as an academic to be an academic and pursue the creation of research and deliver lectures and teach?‑‑‑Yes, that's traditionally been the case, yes.


It's also the case and it continues to be the case that for example if I look at your employment contract, it doesn't specify hours, it doesn't say that you're going to work 9 to 5, or any particular number of hours of the week?‑‑‑I'm not too sure about that.  I think sometimes a contract specifies the number of hours of work and an hourly rate.  I might be corrected on that but my understand of contracts generally is that's what they contain.


Are you recalling your contract or are you referring to say a sessional contract?‑‑‑No, sorry, I thought you meant contract work as opposed to - my contract, I'm an ongoing employee, yes.


Yes, and your contract would specify an annual salary?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


That's the salary that applies to you irrespective of whether you work 30 hours or 60 hours a week?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Now can I take you to the attachment to your second statement, which is JK14, and can I ask that you turn to page - sorry, just to put this in context, you give evidence at paragraph 20 in the attachment to your supplementary statement, JK14:


I provide some preliminary analysis of data from national survey of 2059 academics asking for estimates of the time involved in completing various research teaching and administrative tasks that they perform.


And you reference back to your earlier statement.  Now if we then go to Attachment JK14, and I'll take you to the second page, and this is the page numbered 8 on my copy at the bottom.  First of all we've got workload and we've got similar evidence to what you've given in your previous statement.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Mr Pill, we're having trouble ourselves with JK14.  We don't seem to have it.


MS GALE:  Exhibit AC.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Exhibit AC but we don't have - - -




VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  But we don't have the attachment.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Whilst we're talking about attachments, there's also a reference to Megan Short having provided her work - her allocation.  All I have is the email, I don't seem to have the attachment which had her teaching allocation.  It looks as though there was an attachment to that email but I have only got the covering email.


MR PILL:  If it assists the Commission in our version it precedes that email.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  Just wait, it's being photocopied, right.


MR PILL:  That's apparent, I shouldn't - I don't have direct knowledge of the document but that's apparent on my version, I think.  I'm not quite sure.  I'll let my friend - - -

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


MS GALE:  At attachment JK10 - - -




MS GALE:  It should at page 121 through to 123 have the spreadsheet and then 124 is the email.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  The problem is in mine I have - I don't have pages 120 and 121.  That will be the reason.  Maybe just during a break they can be provided.


MS GALE:  Yes, I can supply those.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I think that's consistent with all members of the Bench, we don't have 121.  We have 119, the next page is 122.


MR PILL:  Can I ask whether the Bench now has a document which has got Attachment JK14 and starts numbered 151, 152 through to 156?




MR PILL:  Thank you.  Dr Kenny, can I ask you to turn to the second page of that, so document 152 - page numbered 152.  I want to ask you about the matters that appear under the heading "Estimated workload for specific tasks":


Questions asked respondents to estimate the amount of time it took to perform standard academic tasks related to teaching, research and administration.  The first question illustrates the range of responses.  Academics estimated the time in hours to undertake the unit planning activities (on campus teaching) for a totally new unit (for one you have not taught previously).


Then it says:


The mean and standard deviation from the 1157 respondents that answered the question was 121 and 142 hours respectively.  Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses which indicates the individual responses varied considerably.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


See that?‑‑‑Yes.


If I turn the page we then have this distribution of the responses?‑‑‑Yes.


I just want to step through it where the most common response marginally is naught to 50 with on its face slightly more than 30 per cent of the respondents indicating that there's their estimate.  Is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


Then next to that we don't have an exact number but slightly less than 30 per cent estimated somewhere between 50 and 100.  Then we have a range that varies out to persons estimating 450 to 500?‑‑‑Yes.


It's the case isn't it that if I look at JK - the questionnaire, which is JK15, and this is question 96.  I'm sorry, it's not question 96, it's question 17, sorry.  On page 18 or 82?‑‑‑Sorry, which question again?


So question 17?‑‑‑17.  Yes.


This is the question that your material in JK14, the document that we were just going to that the distribution relates, and under question 17 what we know based on this document, the questionnaire document is we had 1300 people answer it.  That appears under the - sorry, 1312 people answer it, that appears under the question, 1750 skipped it.  Then we have essentially their responses; 92 per cent of those gave an answer in relation to the question that we're now looking at, so 1217.  Now you go on to say under the table:


The scattered nature of the data underscore the individuality with which many academics approach their work, or that some respondents may have had different interpretations of the question.


Then you give an example:


In framing that question it was presumed delivery for the new unit would be three contact hours per week over a 13 week semester, which may not apply universally.


Now just to turn to the first half of that, it is readily apparent isn't it looking at that graph that there is fairly significant, very significant divergence of views as to how many hours they estimate it would take them to do this particular task?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Which is development of a unit that either is new or one that they haven't done before.  Now you go onto give evidence in the next paragraph that in the tables below, and I'll get to those tables over the page in a minute, you ignored the outliers.  See that?‑‑‑Yes.




Because they were few in number but could distort the data analysis, and the median figure to represent the consensus of estimated unit plan time.  In this case the median was 96 hours.


Now the median is the middle score as opposed to the average?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


Is that right?  I just need you to say yes for the transcript?‑‑‑Yes, yes, that's right.


You'd accept that that reference to it being a consensus of estimated unit planning time, that it's far from a consensus?‑‑‑Well, it's a - yes, it's one way of representing the data but whereas I say it's a preliminary analysis of the data, that's all.


Just looking at the raw data on its face, less than 30 per cent of the respondents would actually agree with you that that was the consensus of the estimated unit planning time.  You then say in the next paragraph:


All the tables which follow have used the same methodology to provide initial estimates of the time academics say they need for the tasks involved in their work.


So I just wanted to ask you about that.  In each of those - the same methodology, you mean you've looked to the median score?‑‑‑Yes.


In each case there was a range of responses.  Now if I go back to the questionnaire, following question 17 we have a number of questions where staff are estimating time for various things?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


They include lectures, including preparation, tutorials et cetera, and question 30 for example asks the respondents to presumably estimate.  It just says:

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Student consultation (average minutes per student per unit).


You'd agree with me that the academic cohort responding to that will at best be giving a best guestimate, best estimate as to how many minutes per student, per unit, they have spent in consultation?‑‑‑Yes.


So effectively they'd have to be considering their email responses, the more traditional come to the academic's office and then looking to the numbers of students per unit to come up with some estimate.  Accept that?‑‑‑Yes, they'd be some sense they would have of that, to answer that question.


Based upon that sense - because you'd accept that of the various questions, including for example in relation to research which we'll get to for a moment, it's essentially their sense of it rather than a record of time that they have kept and calculated a mathematical average?‑‑‑Yes, well I think it's - somehow each individual's probably come up with a number.  I mean who knows how they've done that but it would - certainly I would doubt it would be a measured time as such, yes.


Now it's the case, isn't it, that neither your statement nor these documents other than this range you've given us here for the unit planning activities, we haven't - you haven't given the Commission that similar data for each of these other questions?‑‑‑No, no, not yet.


So if we turn the page, we've got these tables and we see in the first row we've essentially got the estimated time in hours to undertake unit planning activities, and the first sub-row there, "On campus teaching", that correlates with the table that we were just looking at.  And so you have the median score of 96 being the number there that correlates back.  Do I read anything into the fact that a number of these cells refer to average time as opposed to the median?‑‑‑No, I think they all refer to the median because it was the same methodology.  We put that one there as an example to explain what we'd done, at this initial stage of the analysis and then applied that same methodology to the other questions.


So the staff member estimates their average time and then you pick the median - the average?‑‑‑Yes.


When I look to the bottom of the page there and we've got:


Student consultation, average time to assess and get feedback, average time it takes to moderate a student assessment item,

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL




You'd accept on its face we have nice round numbers.  They're typical of an estimate - a general estimate based upon a sense rather than any calculation?‑‑‑Yes.


Twenty, 25, 60, 60, 30, 60.  Now in relation to research, can I get you to turn two pages.  One of the questions you asked was about the typical time and this relates to question 39 in the questionnaire, in relation to A1 refereed article in the scholarly journal?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


Again we've got about 1100 academics answering this giving estimates of time.  Now I wanted to clarify, this is an estimate of the time to actually draft the article as opposed to the underlying research that might be involved, that's led to the article?‑‑‑Yes, it's drafting it for submission for peer review.


It's the case isn't it that you didn't ask a question about the typical time to undertake the activities that would enable or precipitate the drafting of the article?‑‑‑Well, it's - that's assumed within the preparing an A1 article for peer review.


Yes, and my question is, there's no question that it's sought to have the academics estimate how long it's taken me on the research project that's led to my ability to write this article, or how long I've spent supervising the PhD student that I'm co-authoring the article with?‑‑‑No, no, it's just a typical figure.  It can vary considerably from paper to paper, academic to academic, yes.


Even if we're just looking at the task of drafting, this was the median score.  Do you recall what range was given as an indication from the respondent?‑‑‑I don't know at the moment, we haven't broken the data down to that extent.  This is a very preliminary analysis of it.


When you say you haven't broken the data down, you've identified a median?‑‑‑Yes, but I don't have that - - -


Presumably you have - - -?‑‑‑I don't have that in front of me.


You don't have it?‑‑‑No.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


You'd again accept on its face that we've got nice round numbers and if I go back a page we've got estimates of time given in relation to preparation of grant applications and again they're - well, these are median scores, so the median was a bald park estimate by a particular staff member who fell in the middle?‑‑‑Well, it's a median of whatever the range of responses was.


Yes, do you recall the ranges for any of these items?‑‑‑No, I don't have that information in front of me.


Are you able to indicate - you'd accept though that there was a range?‑‑‑I accept there was a range, yes.


Are you able to give any indication, was it in the tens of hours, hundreds of hours?‑‑‑Again, I don't have that information in front of me.  All I have is what you have there.  It's a very preliminary first cut analysis of the data.


If I go back to the one that we do have the data for, you'd accept on its face that if we were confronted with the question of an academic as part of their workload doing unit planning activities, and to say well how long will a competent academic in your discipline level take, it would be very difficult exercise to get a consensus on that, based upon that data?‑‑‑It's been the same for everything associated with academic work.  It's very difficult to quantify a particular situation or particular activity.


Yes, and if I'm the academic and I'm of the view it's going to take me 250 to 300 hours and my supervisor falls in the majority and says no, it's something like 40 hours, there's likely to be significant tension between the two?‑‑‑Yes, well I guess the goal of the task is to try and identify realistic and fair estimates of the time that could be applied - - -


You say that's the median.  Is that why you've calculated the median.  Do you say that's the median?‑‑‑Well, we're looking at the data and looking at how to analyse it best, and so we've chosen the median to play with that at the moment and see what those shows us.  It's because the data is so spread out it is sort of difficult to decide on which measure of central tendency to work for.  We could also consider the average of this set of numbers as well, and you could imagine, you know, the average will be sort of -with the first three categories there, includes 75 per cent of the numbers.  And then the numbers at the other end would tend to skew that upwards if you did an average.  So - - -


Yes, but you've actually given the mean on the previous page of 121?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


Is there a reason why you were selective in only providing this particular example and none of the other data, given its relevance to these proceedings?‑‑‑Well, one because as I was about to go on leave we just did some initial analysis of it.  It's not - you know, it's going to take quite a while to actually pull all this data together and I don't suppose it was necessarily something the Commission would want to look at other than sort of some of the indicative patterns that are coming out of it.


Yes.  At page 154 it identifies the tables with the various medians was prepared on 7 April 2016, several months before you went on leave.  Now can I ask that you go back to the questionnaire - can I take you to question 49?‑‑‑Question 49 was it?


Four nine, page 50 of 82.  The question that was asked is:


I am able to self-manage my research workload.


Now again we've got a certain number of answerers, respondents.  We've got 1370, 692 skipped it and on its face mathematically we've got about 21 per cent disagreeing, maybe a little more than, 22 per cent.  A majority strongly agreeing or agreeing that they are able to self-manage their research workload?‑‑‑Yes.


Accept that?‑‑‑Yes.


Can I take you to 59, on page 60.  Yes, 59 on page 60, and the question:


Research expectations may describe aspirational levels of performance above the minimum which are clearly not mandatory.


On its face that was supported again by a fairly clear majority, or do we just read that, that that is the case.  That research expectations documents may so describe?‑‑‑I'm just looking back to the preface for that.  Yes, that was - it's asking people to I think consider the way research is - research performance is looked at in their institutions.


I'm not clear what your explanation is?‑‑‑I was looking for the - if there was a - in the survey itself, whether there was a preface to that group of questions but that comes - it finishes with the teaching activities and then it shifts to the research activities.  There would have been a preface at the start of those questions which doesn't seem to be here, which would set the context for the responses.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes, Ms Gale, that does seem to be a problem with the annexure.  Are we going to get the preface as part of the evidence in these proceedings?  Because the questions are just out of context, it seems that there is a lead-in statement before each question.


MS GALE:  We can provide that, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I think it would be useful.


MR PILL:  Perhaps can I clarify.  The preface that you're talking about was a preface to the series of questions?‑‑‑Yes.


There wasn't a lead-in question - a lead-in preamble to each and every question?‑‑‑I think there was a lead-in preamble to each section.  So there would have been from - and I haven't looked at the survey for quite a while so there would have been a statement prior to the questions about research.  There would have been a statement prior to the questions about teaching and so on.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Mr Pill, I'm not sure whether in light of that answer, whether it's preferable that we get the material and you may have to either recall this witness at some point, because it is important material it seems.  Would you have the material by tomorrow?  It's just the actual survey itself, the survey document.


MS GALE:  Yes, your Honour, I believe we can.


THE WITNESS:  It's probably on the website I think, still.


MS GALE:  I'm sorry, Dr Kenny may be returning to Tasmania this evening, in which case would it be possible to - - -


THE WITNESS:  No, tomorrow actually, tomorrow.


MS GALE:  Tomorrow.



***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


MS GALE:  We will do what we can to get that material.




MR PILL:  Perhaps I'll finish off the other unrelated questions.  You can put that to one side, Dr Kenny.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Just before you do that, Mr Pill.  If Dr Kenny's going tomorrow, we are able to do Tasmania video links in this matter if you need to have further questions arising from the survey material.


MR PILL:  If your Honour pleases.  Now in terms of policies at the University of Tasmania, you'd accept that even continuing academic staff are not required to read all of the University of Tasmania policies?‑‑‑Are not fully cognisant with the policies, did you say?


Are not required to read all of the University of Tasmania policies?‑‑‑No, no, that's right.  I think most wouldn't probably.


So your answer is most would not?‑‑‑I'd imagine most wouldn't necessarily be aware of it.


You yourself haven't read all of the policies?‑‑‑I've read the ones that I think are pertinent to me, the pot plant policy doesn't necessarily interest me for example.


Now it's also the case that if a matter that was covered by a policy arose, there's a variety of supports that are available to you as a staff member, to potentially deal with the issue.  You don't necessarily have to go and find the policy and read the policy.  So to give you an example, an issue - a health and safety issue might arise, there are health and safety advisers in the university?‑‑‑Yes, there are some available within the university, yes.


There's, for example, student and wellbeing advisers?‑‑‑Yes.


If it relates to employment issues, there's HR both within your faculty and centrally?‑‑‑Mm-hm.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                   XXN MR PILL


It's also the case, do you accept this.  It's also the case that a significant number of the casual or sessional academics are doing marking, demonstrating or lecturing or tutoring, a significant proportion of them are also students, PhD students and the like?‑‑‑There would be some.  Not so many in our faculty.  I think that would tend to be the same in science maybe more so.


Science, technology, engineering, those faculties in particular?‑‑‑Yes, many of ours are practitioners, teaching practitioners, for example, who do a bit of work or sometimes it's PhD students, yes.


Just bear with me, Dr Kenny.  I've no further questions.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY                                    [2.52 PM]


MS PUGSLEY:  Dr Kenny, I have only one question for you and that is further to the last question that Mr Pill asked you.  Are you aware that the current enterprise agreement provides for paid induction for academic casual staff?‑‑‑Yes, I think that's the case.


I'm happy to hand a copy of paragraph 19.7 of the current enterprise agreement to the witness.





Thank you, Ms Gale.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE                                                    [2.53 PM]


MS GALE:  Thank you, your Honour.  I'll start by providing the currently missing pages.  Dr Kenny, you were asked a number of questions about the complications of estimating research time meaningful and I think you said that such an estimate would only be meaningful if it describes what people actually do.  Do you recall that discussion?‑‑‑Yes.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                         XXN MS PUGSLEY

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                RXN MS GALE


Do you think that it is possible to develop a meaningful estimate for research time?‑‑‑Well, the survey was applying  - the methodology applied in the survey was something we developed when we were developing the - we used when we were developing the academic workload guidelines at the University of Tasmania, by exploring the range of existing times that people claimed they spent on certain things and then applying a median value to that, and then using that as the basis of determining a realistic estimate of what it typically might take someone to do.  We basically just applied that same methodology to in this case, in this survey, the research activities that we could identify.  So it is possible.  At UTAS we didn't actually do it, we did it the other way by saying well we can quantify the teaching once we define that quite easily and we can quantify the administrative roles with the associated tasks quite easily, and that leaves space for research to be done.  In some respects I think that's a preferable way to go because it does become a very difficult task to break down these complicated activities into small numbers, and you can see the number spread is usually quite wide.  It's possible to come up with some estimates using the same methodology, yes.


Do more experienced academics provide guidance to other colleagues on more efficient methodologies or approaches to undertaking their research?‑‑‑That's actually written into the role descriptions of professors and associate professors to some degree are meant to do that.  I mean it does vary a bit from I guess individual to individual how much they do that, but it is written in as part of the role of senior researchers.


There was extensive discussion between yourself and Mr Pill about the relationship of the research outputs in the RPE document, the research performance expectations documents, to workload allocation of time for research.  Can I ask you to refer back to the engineering - academic workload model for the School of Engineering which was MFI31?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


I think you were taken on the first page of that to 1.2 Research, where it says:


Every staff member is allocated two days per week to perform research during the year.

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                RXN MS GALE


Can I ask you to also look at page 76 of your first witness statement AB.  This is the research performance expectations for academic staff document and the table that sets out - I think you describe the performance expectations for different faculties or different discipline areas and at different classification levels.  Now there's reference there to engineering about two thirds of the way down the page.  Can you explain how you understand the interaction between those performance expectations and the reference to time for research in the school workload model - the faculty workload model?‑‑‑Well, the - I mean I have some concerns with the engineering document as it is and I always have, as I mentioned earlier.  Historically we tried to have it changed.  It's taken the broad brush description of a 40, 40, 20 academic and basically said 40 per cent of your time is teaching, 40 per cent of your time is research and 20 per cent of your time is those other service duties, and so it's saying okay, well if you're level - engineering academic level C for example, your minimum requirement is two publications, $48,000, one supervision and one fifth of a completion if you like over a three year period, on average.


Yes?‑‑‑So it's saying to these academics that that's what's expected of you in terms of your research, depending on what level they are within that scale.  But it does presuppose that the 40 per cent time for research, which is nominal in here, is actual.  This document says a 40 per cent research time and it assumes therefore that the teaching is also 40 per cent and that the other duties are about 20 per cent.  I think what's provided here in terms of my concern with this one was that the teaching - the description of the teaching there isn't consistent with the workload guidelines, because it isn't specified in terms of hours.  It's specified in terms of units of work.  One of the problems with that is the unit can vary enormously as it says in the paragraph there.  Typically first and second units have much higher enrolments than does fourth year  units for example.  So someone who's teaching a high volume in first year unit will have - could have hundreds and hundreds of students in the unit, therefore lots of tutorials, a great deal of marking and various other things.  So there's no way of actually translating that necessarily into hours equivalent unless you break down the activities as we tried to do in the guidelines to get some sort of estimate of what those hours might be.  Which would then apply transparently across all of the academics and get some sense of equity, as well as fairness.  Because one of the things it mentions there also is they're trying to create a level playing field where staff more or less have the same teaching load.  Now that's certainly one of the purposes of having a workload allocation policy but everybody could be equally overloaded on that basis.  So unless we have some way of actually quantifying what that means in terms of hours, because the enterprise agreement talks about maximum number of hours.  So it has to be translated into hours somehow in order to meet the requirements of the enterprise agreement.


Thank you, no further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you.  Dr Kenny, you're excused for the moment but you might be recalled after we receive the survey material at another time?‑‑‑Okay.  Sorry, Commissioner, does that mean tomorrow or sometime in the future?


It's a matter for the parties, it could be tomorrow if you're available and Mr Pill's ready to cross-examine on that material, but that might be unlikely?‑‑‑Okay, thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [3.02 PM]

***        JOHN KENNY                                                                                                                                RXN MS GALE


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Sorry, Ms Gale.  The missing pages were 120 and 121.  We seem to have been provided with 121 to 124, so 120 is still missing.


MS GALE:  Sorry.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  That's all right.  I just don't have anything on 120.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  In my version, Ms Gale, page 120 is just Attachment JK10.


MS GALE:  That's correct.  It is the cover sheet for the attachment.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  That's fine, I'll just write that down here.


MS GALE:  Does that complete the set then?




MS GALE:  Good, thank you.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  We've got version control under control.




MS GALE:  The next witness, your Honour, is Professor Michael Hamel-Green.


THE ASSOCIATE:  Could you please state your full name and address for the record.


PROF HAMEL-GREEN:  Michael Eric Hamel-Green, (address supplied).

<MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN, SWORN                                 [3.04 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE                                       [3.04 PM]

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                                     XN MS GALE


MS GALE:  Thank you, Prof Hamel-Green.  Could you state your name and address again for the record please?‑‑‑Yes, Michael Eric Hamel-Green, (address supplied).


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


Do you have a copy with you?‑‑‑I do.


Have you read it recently?‑‑‑Yes.


I understand there are a few small corrections to be made?‑‑‑Correct, yes.


The first is on page 7, at paragraph 22.  In the second line where there is a comma after the word "changes", the word "and" should be added there.  So it reads, "other administrative changes and a gradual requirement"?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 24, the number 2015 in the first line should actually read 2014?‑‑‑Correct.


At paragraph 53 - no, I'm sorry.  I'm sorry, in the attachment at page 53, Attachment 3 at page 53, two pages from the back, the student names in that table should be obscured.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Correct.


They were inadvertently included in that attachment and should not be.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Well, you might have to just give us a fresh set because this material gets loaded onto the website and we need to have that blacked out.


MS GALE:  Yes, we will do that.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Just make sure the transcript records that properly.  Page 53 of exhibit AD, there is to be a redacted version loaded to the website.


MS GALE:  With those changes, Prof Hamel-Green, do you adopt this as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I do, yes.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                                     XN MS GALE


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


Can that be marked, your Honour.




MS GALE:  AD, thank you.  No further questions.




CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY                                    [3.06 PM]


MS PUGSLEY:  Good afternoon, Prof Hamel-Green.  You retired from Victoria University or VU in 2014, is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


Now you have the role of emeritus professor still with VU?‑‑‑Yes, correct.


What sort of entitlements do you have as emeritus professor?  What are the benefits that are provided to you?‑‑‑The benefits, I in practical terms have a desk and a space at Victoria University.  I have a commitment to continuing research on behalf and so my research outputs are mutually beneficial for the university and for myself, and I can be invited to give guest lectures.  No conversation other than, you know, being invited to give guest lectures.  I consult as a mentor in many areas that I have experience in.  It enables me to continue to maintain collegial and research network contacts within VU and further afield in terms of the support I have from VU and in terms of what I can contribute, both in terms of research and in terms of the role of academics in intellectual debate and discourse in the wider community.


So your passion for your particular field doesn't cease when you retire in a formal sense?‑‑‑No, no, it doesn't, no.


You continue to research and publish?‑‑‑Yes, exactly.  As you'll see in the publications I have, publications this year as well.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                            XXN MS PUGSLEY


But for the purposes of the VU enterprise agreement, you're not an employee as such covered by that agreement?‑‑‑No.


You were dean between the years of 2008 and 2012?‑‑‑Correct.


There were a number of - there were 30 general staff in your faculty?‑‑‑Correct.


How many of those reported directly to you?‑‑‑The general staff working in the dean's office reported directly to me.  That's the faculty manager and secretarial staff there.  You know, I had a personal assistant as well as other staff, including marketing staff.


In paragraph 10 of your statement, you say that it's - in terms of research it's up to a particular academic what their research will be about and what form that it will take.  What are some of the forms that research can take?‑‑‑Research can take the forms of, you know, preparation of original development and original knowledge in areas that are covered within the faculty and, you know, in general arts, humanities, education, exercise science and sports, social work, community development.  So we're, you know, looking at a range of areas of researched - you know, you can have you know book level and journal level articles, contributions to conferences.  In the scientific area, you know, experimentation and field studies.


Perhaps create outputs as well?‑‑‑Yes, creative - yes, in the Faculty of Arts we have professional writing and creative works including PhDs that involve an exegesis, novel plus exegesis, yes.


At paragraph 13, you refer to staff at VU being characterised as research active or not research active?‑‑‑Yes.


Are you aware that there's been a recent change at the VU?‑‑‑Yes, yes, a refinement of the previous research active index policy, yes, yes.


So you're aware that that change essentially like many universities requires most staff to be more research active than they have been before, and so most staff are required to be research active but they're also teaching scholars under the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑Yes, I'm not fully familiar with all of the details having, you know, resigned two years ago but that's broadly what I understand, yes, yes.


You have the MORA attached to your statement?‑‑‑Yes.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                            XXN MS PUGSLEY


That is the - can you just remind us of the MORA stands for?‑‑‑It's the - - -


Measurement of Research Activity?‑‑‑Yes, the - Measure of Research Activity, yes, yes.


Would you agree that the MORA doesn't determine research allocation for an individual?‑‑‑What do you mean, doesn't determine the topic of the research?


It doesn't determine how research requirements are allocated in an individual workload.  It sets a benchmark for measuring research activity.


It sets a benchmark but the benchmarks are then incorporated into the workload models that were utilised when I was certainly there, yes.


Are you aware that - - -?‑‑‑And so if you - if you did not reach the benchmark you would not be declared research active unless there was some other arrangement, like a transition arrangement where it's acknowledged that you couldn't reach the benchmark for reasons beyond your control.


If you weren't research active, what would flow from that?‑‑‑Sorry?


If you weren't research active, if you were deemed not be research active, what would flow from that?‑‑‑What would flow from that is that you would have to make up your annual workload by additional teaching generally speaking.  Before the workload models were adopted, I mean they're fairly recent innovations in some way the detailed ones, the 100 point system at VU, there was a rough rule of thumb that if you weren't research active then you would teach two extra contact hours a week.  So a non-research active staff before these newer models were developed would on the average be teaching 14 contact hours a week, and the research active 12.


Would you agree that when looking at universities in Australia as a whole, VU would be a more teaching intensive institution than most?‑‑‑No, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.  The nature of research at VU is more applied possibly than some other universities but it was clearly understood the foundation of VU that we would be a research and teaching university, and the workload models seek to build that in, yes.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                            XXN MS PUGSLEY


So you don't think that a maximum of 14 hours - contact hours per week for teaching is relative high around the sector?‑‑‑I don't know the answer to that, yes.


On that same topic, on page 6 of your statement at paragraph 21, you have the higher education study dates for VU?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


With relatively short breaks between them.  I suggest to you that that is a reflection of VU as a teaching intensive university that there are more likely to be more semesters with fewer breaks between them?‑‑‑I don't think that necessarily reflects - if you're talking about the system as a whole you have other universities who tri-semester models.  I believe Deakin has a tri-semester model.  In actual fact the bulk of the teaching at VU is done in semester one and semester two and only a relatively small proportion in those other semesters.  I personally did teach in the summer option and the winter option and I'm aware that there was relatively few other courses being taught at those times.  So I don't think there's a huge difference between Victoria University and other universities in this respect.


At paragraph 28, why is it that you say that academic work can't be constrained to a 9 to 5 working week?‑‑‑The nature of the various categories of academic work just cannot be achieved within the time allocated under the 38 hour week notional requirement.  The time taken to prepare lectures to keep your subject up to date, this is in the teaching area or the demands in terms of assessment, the rising numbers of students and class sizes, the increasing demands in terms of online and new administer of the systems, the impact of all those means that it can't easily be done within the normal time.  That's in teaching.  In terms of research which is one of the key aspects of the academic role, the workload system at its best would be giving you an average of - if you're research active, something equivalent to, you know, close to six hours, 5.9 hours a week for research.  It can't possibly, particularly at the senior levels, achieve the kind of research outputs under the MORA, the benchmarks.  You can't possibly achieve that very easily in terms of doing all of those aspects of research, you know, the initial applications for funding or project design, the actual field work or experimentation, the actual writing up and then the - all the time required for that goes well beyond six hours a week.  Then you've got the problem within the notional working days, of a 38 hour working week of trying to do that with competing demands on you from your teaching role.  Beyond those teaching roles and beyond the research roles is other roles that the university expects of you as an academic.  You know, the governance roles, the student liaison roles, participation in curriculum development, course restructuring and organisational restructuring.  It means  in effect that it can't possibly be done within the 38 hours that is notionally allocated and on which the various allocations ultimately based.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                            XXN MS PUGSLEY


If a staff member at VU, academic staff member, considers that they are overloaded both in terms of their formal work allocation and that they are working excessive hours, there are mechanism aren't there for them to talk to their supervisor about moderating their work?‑‑‑Correct.  They can talk to their supervisor, the problem is that everyone being overloaded there's a sense that you don't want to by under - in seeking less overloading for yourself increase loading for somebody else.  You're aware that the whole enterprise, the importance of the you know quality education for the students and for the region your serving.  So all those factors mean that the most important criterion in terms of whether you're being overloaded is whether you're being unfairly overloaded, not whether you're being overloaded per se.  So there is the - you can talk about it with your head of school.  If you're not satisfied at that level, you also within VU, I don't know whether it still exists right now but you had options of a discussion with a wider committee that included both union and management representatives to discuss any unfair allocation of load. Also taking into account of course we have a number of policies about not discriminating against women in academic employment, against people with disabilities.  There's all sorts of reasons why there might be overloading in terms of those sort of criteria that need to be considered, yes.


I just wasn't sure of - I just didn't quite understand your last answer about discrimination?‑‑‑Well, if a staff member's been given a workload that's not taken into account certain limitations for you know, sort of a research allocation that doesn't reflect, you know, deemed to be non-research active as a result of being absent from, you know, sort of having children, family responsibilities there.  Under our policies we would need to be taking that into account.


So your policies would take that into account, wouldn't they?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Just returning back to the general or professional staff, you mentioned that you did have some general and professional staff working for you who were working long hours?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Now that you have the benefit of hindsight, if you had your time again would you take more active steps to talk to them about the hours that they're working?‑‑‑Yes, I would.  I was keenly aware that - well, in terms of junior - less senior, below HEW 7, you know, HEW 6 and below, I'm reasonably confident that they were compensated for any work over and above the normal 9 to 5 hours or the flexi hours that are allocated.  In the case of more senior staff I was well aware that they were working well and truly beyond the call of duty and I do in retrospect agree that I didn't adequately pursue that and ensure that they were correctly compensated, yes.


So in relation to the more junior staff up to HEW 7, you say that they did receive overtime?‑‑‑Up to HEW 6, yes, yes.  Overtime up to HEW 6, yes.  So long as they applied for the overtime in advance.  I mean there was a strong esprit de corps in the whole faculty at the time I was the dean and there was a general willingness to work overtime but in the case of junior staff, there was an effort to compensate for that, yes.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                            XXN MS PUGSLEY


So it wouldn't surprise you to know that over the last three years from 2013, VU has paid over $3 million in overtime?‑‑‑To what level of - - -


Well, I think that the bar stops at HEW 7?‑‑‑Yes, yes, yes, well, that's perfectly consistent with my experience, yes.


In relation to the more senior levels of staff, they do have access to some flexible working arrangements don't they?  There's a flexible working arrangements policy?‑‑‑They do, yes, yes.


You refer at paragraph 42, issues of discipline currency with regard to academic staff.  Would you agree that if you're passionate about your discipline, then you're going to be doing the reading or some of it irrespective of whether it's required for your work?‑‑‑Yes.


You also talk at paragraph 21, or you refer to at paragraph 21, the requirement to read policies?‑‑‑Paragraph 21?


Sorry, 41?‑‑‑41, sorry.


VU, the large library of policies and academic staff are required to know and comply with certain - with the policies that are relevant to their work?‑‑‑Yes.


You might not be aware that relatively recently the university has instituted a paid induction program for academic sessional staff to provide them with the essential information and training necessary to assist them to be inducted in VU's values and integrated into the broader VU workforce, which comprises an online compliance module, an induction to teaching and learning, and that staff are paid three hours at the all other duties rate.  So you probably weren't aware of that - - -?‑‑‑Yes, I'm not aware of that.  That wasn't in place certainly when I was the dean and it was a major problem that sessional staff were not paid for induction processes of that nature.


Paragraph 43, you refer to the need for sessional staff to be aware of the range of student supports services.  Who would they contact in the event of student misbehaviour or mental health problems?‑‑‑They would contact the student counselling service and the student advocates depending on the nature of the circumstance.  Sessional and other staff would also potentially discuss that with the head of the discipline area or head of school.  Yes, certainly absolutely vital because it's a regular occurrence, yes.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                            XXN MS PUGSLEY


In relation to mobile telephone, you chose not to have a mobile telephone provided for by the university?‑‑‑I did indeed, yes.


But it would have been available to you had you wanted to?‑‑‑It would have been available to me, yes, yes.


Thank you.  No further questions, your Honour.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                              [3.26 PM]


MR PILL:  Just a couple of questions.  Prof Hamel-Green, I represent the Group of Eight universities in this proceeding?‑‑‑Yes.


Now you've obviously had a long history with the university, you go all the way back to the Western Institute amalgamating with the Fitzroy Institute of Technology back in the 80s?‑‑‑Correct, yes.


You'd agree with me that relative to say my client at the University of Melbourne, the research output Victoria University is significantly less per academic than at the University of Melbourne?‑‑‑Highly likely, yes.


I apologise, and the average research output for academic staff at Victoria University would also be significantly less than at my client's -  between Victoria, University of Melbourne and Monash?‑‑‑If you're taking an overall I'd say yes.  If you're looking at particular areas of research I'd be less certain but in some areas yes.  Take sports and exercise science, you may find that Victoria University does exceed the similar research outputs at Melbourne University.  And also possibly in the area of literature, oddly as it might sound, VU has made a speciality of writing novels with exegesis.  I'm not sure that Melbourne University could quite equal that but I'm, you know, a previous graduate of Melbourne University so I appreciate the various faculties there, yes.


Are you being modest that - and I didn't pick up the word you used, but in that humanities area you were the dean in humanities.  Is that your area that you were referring to?‑‑‑Yes, the faculty - VU's been through restructures practically four or five years.  The faculty I was responsible for was an extremely diverse one that included humanities and education and the creative arts and literature and professional writing, those sort of areas as well as sports and exercise science and science and psychology.  It's a very diverse faculty, yes.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                                     XXN MR PILL


In terms of research outputs, if I can use that term?‑‑‑Yes.


Using yourself before you became dean, are you able to give an indication as to the sort of publication outputs that you were achieving?‑‑‑I have, yes, in the literature at the CV at the end there.  It's number 1 in the - you'll see from page 18 in the first appendix, is it?


Do you accept that your research output, if we jump forward to current day?‑‑‑Yes.


Would have exceeded the minimum expectation requirements for a professor in - - -?‑‑‑In the final year of study if you look at my workload, I was just below the expectation of a professor at .4 in the MORA or the RAI as it was called at the time.  I had I think 3.4 points rather than 4 points as a professor.  But in the - I mean that covers the output in the previous three years which include the years when I was, you know, full-time administration as dean, yes.


So notwithstanding you were dean of the faculty, full-time CEO of the faculty?‑‑‑Yes.


You were close to meeting - - -?‑‑‑Yes, very close and in recognition of that I was given the transition allowance when I returned to full-time teaching, yes.


A transition allowance to - - -?‑‑‑To be research active, yes.


Some accommodation in relation to outputs?‑‑‑Yes.


Now again with respect, you've obviously been an academic for a long time.  You'd accept that there's been a significant number of technological advancements in relation to research?‑‑‑Yes.


In a number of ways, have enabled greater research productivity?‑‑‑Yes.


The all-pervasive internet?‑‑‑Yes.


Now means that you don't need to go to Cypress and dig through archives if you're researching in Minoan art?‑‑‑So long as the archives have been digitised, which is not always the case.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                                     XXN MR PILL


Beyond access to information, technological advancements in things like science, technology and engineering, also mean that research activities that took a long time in the past are now done much more quickly, enabling greater research productivity.  Accept that?‑‑‑In some - in some areas, yes.


So for example, it used to take three months to a year to map the human - to do a DNA sample.  I can now go down to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and run it in less than 30 minutes?‑‑‑Yes.


Conversely, research has in some ways added to academics' workloads.  Do you accept there's a balance in terms of technology, both enabling an academic to produce more research but also in some ways adding to their workload?‑‑‑Yes, yes, yes.


Now can I take you to paragraph 34 where you give evidence about the general staff hours of work, you reference working closely with the faculty manager and school managers.  Now these are senior professional staff positions in your faculty?‑‑‑Correct, yes.


The faculty manager is the most senior professional - - -?‑‑‑Yes, generally HEW 9, something of that order, yes.


A HEW 9, will you accept that a HEW 9, they're in receipt of a salary of six figures?‑‑‑No.


So the current HEW 9 rate at the University of - Victoria University at the - and it's got three incremental steps and I essentially progress annually?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


Once I've been there for three years I'm at step three which is $113,000- - -?‑‑‑It wasn't the case at the time I was dean.  That's all I can say.


So we've had inflation and we've had bargaining processes as well?‑‑‑Yes.  Correct, yes.


At a HEW 10, I'd suggest to you that your faculty manager was actually HEW 10, not a HEW 9, but at a HEW 10 it's $116,934.  Are you aware of that?‑‑‑I can't confirm or not confirm that because at the time my recollection was HEW 9 only at that faculty manager level.  But the separate faculties, like the Business Faculty at VU may have negotiated a different level for their manager.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                                     XXN MR PILL


And being the Business Faculty they'd like it to have been higher rather than lower?‑‑‑Possibly, possibly, I don't want to comment.


Business Faculties generally attract a premium because they attract more students?‑‑‑Yes, yes, yes.


Your other evidence, you reference enormous pressure on HEW 7 to 9.  If I go to HEW 7, step five, they currently receive in excess of $90,000?‑‑‑Yes, well that's certainly an increase over what I recall.


Now you've given evidence in your statement at the end of paragraph 34 that:


In retrospect I recognise I was delinquent in addressing this issue as their manager.




Is it fair to say that effectively what you're identifying there is that you did not apply the university's systems in relation to hours of work issues, flexi time and TOIL?‑‑‑Yes, yes, correct.  I mean there were options I suppose of giving time in lieu that I should have pursued in retrospect, yes.  There are precedents at VU, I don't know whether they're at other universities but academics, for example, who participate in open day activities are given some time in lieu in compensation for that.  You know, it's unusually on a Sunday, so I had my general manager often doing work on a weekend and I regret not fully thinking through all that, yes.


Can I backtrack slightly.  Ms Pugsley asked you about your role as an emeritus professor?‑‑‑Yes.


Having retired from employment with the university?‑‑‑Yes.


You said that you continue to produce research outputs that are of benefit to you and benefit to the university?‑‑‑Yes.

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                                     XXN MR PILL


Can you expand on how they're a benefit to you?‑‑‑I have a longstanding research interest in regional nuclear disarmament and the - I am part of international research projects in this area, including in Japan, and being able to pursue this in an emeritus professor role is beneficial for those projects that I am committed to, in terms of my own research interest.  In terms of the university, I think it still contributes to their overall research allocations.  The grants that the universities receive for general research outputs yes.


Yes, they can count your publications in their report to the - - -?‑‑‑Yes, yes, precisely, yes, yes.


In terms of the benefits to you, it assists you with your overall academic standing in the international community?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


It assists you in picking up other roles as you've mentioned?‑‑‑Yes.  Even today the research office at Victoria University is indicating grants I can apply for in terms of my particular research interests, yes.


Have you also been offered opportunities for consultancies with business and other organisations?‑‑‑Not with business organisations but that's not - my area of interest is not one that would normally be of interest to business organisations.


We don't have too many nuclear disarmament companies here in Melbourne?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


No further questions.




MS GALE:  We have no questions, your Honour.


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

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [3.37 PM]


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  What would you like to do next, Ms Gale - Mr McAlpine?


MR McALPINE:  Your Honour, I'd like to call Prof Michael Leach.


THE ASSOCIATE:  Could you please state your full name and address?

***        MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN                                                                                                     XXN MR PILL


PROF LEACH:  Michael Patrick Leach, (address supplied).

<MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH, AFFIRMED                                  [3.38 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MCALPINE                            [3.38 PM]


MR McALPINE:  Thank you, Prof Leach.  Can you just state your full name and address once more for the record?‑‑‑Michael Patrick Leach, (address supplied).


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


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


There's a couple of corrections I want to take you to.  In paragraph 23, on page 8, should the words "academic staff periods" read "academic staff take periods"?‑‑‑"Take periods of leave", that's correct.


Yes, "take periods of leave"?‑‑‑Yes.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Whereabouts in that paragraph?


MR McALPINE:  Sorry, it's the second line on page 8.




MR McALPINE:  "Academic staff take" - - -?‑‑‑"Take periods of leave".


- - - "periods of leave"?‑‑‑Insert the word "take".  I found another one on page 9, in 26(b), in 1, 2, 3, 4 - on the fifth line that should be "her" not "here".  "Her", "10 per cent of her workload".


"10 per cent of her workload"?‑‑‑Yes.


On page 10, in the last sentence of paragraph 26 there's a correction there that it should be "in many circumstances not be considered"?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.  Quite a change actually, but it should have the word "not", yes.  So the sentence should read:

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                    XN MR MCALPINE


Nevertheless, such work might in many circumstances not be considered part of the employee's required academic work.


Thank you.  You've read that statement recently?‑‑‑Yes, I've read it again today.


Is it true and correct?‑‑‑Yes.


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


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Is the work address being inserted into the document?  Mine's blank.  Work address, paragraph 1?‑‑‑Yes, that is my work address, yes.


Well no, the version that we've been given is blank.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  I can't remember why it's been redacted.


MS GALE:  Your Honour, if I may.  I think you will have the version that went onto the website, that was put onto the website by the Commission.  When we emailed it to the Commission it did have an address in it.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Can we have the address then for the record because it's not on our version.


MR McALPINE:  Yes, the address on - sorry, the work address on the one I have here is at 400 Burwood Road, Hawthorn in Victoria.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you.  That will be exhibit AE.  Any objections?



Thank you, Ms Pugsley.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY                                    [3.41 PM]

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                   XXN MS PUGSLEY


MS PUGSLEY:  Good afternoon, Prof Leach?‑‑‑Good afternoon.


You're currently the chair of your department?‑‑‑That's correct.


That's a three year appointment?‑‑‑Yes, I've just been extended for another two but it is a three year appointment initially.


So that's get rotated amongst the various staff at your level.  Is that how it works?‑‑‑Yes, or not in this case I've been reappointed but yes, it's rotatable, yes.


What are the extra duties required of the chair of department?‑‑‑Yes, so I spend a lot of time in a service role.  It's a 60 per cent service role and I workload - one of my primary duties is to workload the other staff in my department.  But there's many other duties; following up on teaching administration, research performance and those sorts of things but work loading is a key - is a key aspect of my role.


I'm going to hand you a document called the Swinburne Academic Workload Procedure?‑‑‑Thank you.


On the second last page there, which is page 20, there's a heading "Leadership and service activity"?‑‑‑Yes.


And "Allocation of hours for specified leadership and service activity"?‑‑‑Yes.


In accordance with 11.1.2:


Hours allocated for specific leadership roles; e.g. department chairs and centre directors specified in the role descriptions approved by provost and the dean of school.


So what sort of allocation do you get for your role as chair?‑‑‑My allocation is 60 per cent of an annual workload, which is 180 x 6, whatever that is.  You'll have to work that out.  60 per cent of 1800.


Before you worked at Swinburne you were at Deakin University?‑‑‑That's correct.


You've been promoted all the way through from levels A to E?‑‑‑That's correct.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                   XXN MS PUGSLEY


Can you recall how long it took to progress from - between each level?‑‑‑Yes, although that's a very individualised piece of data but in my case, if that's what you're asking me, I can.


Yes?‑‑‑So in 2001 I was appointed at level A, that's no longer standard.  If you had a PhD you would be appointed at level B but in those days it wasn't so.  I was there for two years, then I was at level B for must have been five.  I went up in 2008, four years.  Level C for three years and level D from 2011 until this year.


You say it's very individualised as to how people move between the levels?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


Of course some people don't choose to apply for promotions?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.


Is part of the reason why it's so individualistic that some staff would prefer to move up more quickly?‑‑‑Yes, some staff would have, you know, more - greater ambitions to promotion.  A lot of staff finish their careers at level C, for example, that's not uncommon.  There's a bit of a funnel from C to D where it narrows.


So you'd be publishing faster than your peers if you want to progress quickly through the levels?‑‑‑If you want to progress quickly you would be publishing than your peers, you would probably ideally have, you know, better teaching feedback than your peers, your service record would ideally be somewhat superior to your peers, all those three areas you'd be focusing on for promotion.


At the moment you currently supervise 40 non-casual academic staff?‑‑‑Yes.  When I wrote this I supervised 40, there's been a change in my department from the Department of Education and Social Sciences to just the Department of Social Sciences in the last month, so now I supervise 30 as we speak but when I wrote this document that was true, 40.


So you're responsible for both their workload allocation and their performance review?‑‑‑Yes.


With regard to workloads, do you sit down say once a year with each of those staff to plan their workload?‑‑‑Very much so, yes.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                   XXN MS PUGSLEY


Can you describe how that happens?  How long does it take to have that meeting?‑‑‑Yes.  So there will be - at the discipline level there will be some allocation of units to certain persons but the actual allocation of work to those staff members would take place in a short meeting with me, where I am sitting there on the computer with the workload tool.  Their name comes up, we allocate teaching tasks to them.  Well firstly, we work out what their research workload is and any service requirements that they are performing, because that will generally - when you allocate those obviously we're talking about 100 per cent workload, that reduces the workload available for teaching.  What's left is the teaching workload which we then allocate.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Sorry, can I just then ask, Prof Leach?‑‑‑Yes.


When you starting with the research component, as I understand it research is output based as opposed to input based?‑‑‑Yes.


So do you convert that somehow to hours?‑‑‑That's right.  So there'll be a document that's provided by the university, which is itself an artefact of a negotiation that takes place with the union to some degree.  There's a research expectations performance criteria.  So your percentage allocated to research will be based on, as a rule, your performance over the previous three years in relation to publications, grants and higher degree by research students completions, PhD completions.  In other words, there is also another component that's about real time, current time, how many students do you - how many post graduate students, PhD students do you have today and what grants do you have to perform today if you've actually got the grant money.  But basically you're looking at the last three years and then some stuff to do with this year.  There'll be a performance criteria table and you'll work out that that person is on a 10 per cent research load or up to 40, depending on their performance.


But you the do convert that into input hours?‑‑‑Absolutely.  So 40 per cent say is 40 per cent of their annual workload that's now research and I don't allocate that to teaching you see, so, yes.


Thank you.


MS PUGSLEY:  So is that what you would describe as the 40, 40, 20 model?‑‑‑Well, that's a very dated model unfortunately but yes.  Yes, so back in the day there was, you know, a common model of 40 teaching, 40 research, 20 service.  That no longer pertains, that would be an out of date.  You'd be doing very well if you were on 40, 40, 20 these days.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                   XXN MS PUGSLEY


The Commission has heard a lot of evidence so far in this matter and there are still a lot of academics who are on 40, 40, 20?‑‑‑There are certainly some.  I could name three in my department but they would be a minority, yes.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  So what would the - you'd be doing very, very well if you were on 40, 40, 20?‑‑‑Yes, if you have a 40 per cent research loading today at Swinburne, I can't speak for the rest of the sector, you would be doing quite well.


What do you mean by doing quite well?‑‑‑Well, I mean that you were probably in the top 10 per cent of - you've got a larger research workload than 80 to 90 per cent of your peers.  If you had 40, yes.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Part of that is the particularly way Swinburne is operated?‑‑‑Yes, I mean that's right.  I mean in previous years when I've been at Swinburne the same performance might have netted you 60, and in fact did.  You know, I mean there's been some change in that.  You might be aware that this is a model that pertains to 2016 and you might be aware that there are some changes proposed for next year as well.  You might also be aware that these were not the same model as 2015, you probably are aware of that.  So I'm speaking about this year.


Speaking for myself, I am aware because I deal with Swinburne regularly?‑‑‑Right, okay, so yes.  So we're talking about this year, yes.


So MFI 35, so we don't lose track.



MS PUGSLEY:  Prof Leach, would you describe Swinburne as a teaching intensive university?‑‑‑I wouldn't go as far as to describe it like that but there is certainly a trend towards greater teaching intensity in the work loading, yes, that I've just I think effectively documented.  That the same - the highest levels are not as high as they used to be, yes.


I'm going to hand you an extract from the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑Yes.


That deals with the workload process.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  How long do you think you're going to be, Ms Pugsley?

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                   XXN MS PUGSLEY


MS PUGSLEY:  I beg your pardon?


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  How long do you think you'll be?


MS PUGSLEY:  Five to 10 minutes.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I just want to take a short adjournment to see what happening with the 4 o'clock matter if you don't mind.


MS PUGSLEY:  Thank you.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  We'll take a short adjournment.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [3.50 PM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT                                                                    [3.50 PM]

RESUMED                                                                                               [3.53 PM]

<MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH, RECALLED                                 [3.53 PM]



VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you, Ms Pugsley.  I've resolved the 4 o'clock matter but that's not an invitation to go for another hour.


MS PUGSLEY:  Prof Leach, do you have a copy of clause 15 of the enterprise agreement in front of you, the workload process?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph (e) on page 27?‑‑‑Yes.


This is typical of most universities as the Bench has heard, that there are academic workload models put together  at local levels?‑‑‑Yes.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                   XXN MS PUGSLEY


The university - I beg your pardon - the workload model at (e) shall allocate hours other than for self-corrected work for each element, which represents a fair, sufficient and accurate estimate of the time that a staff member would take.  How does that fit in with the total accountable hours of 1800 and not more than 1620 is being allocated?‑‑‑So as you say, the first thing that happens is that 10 per cent is taken off unallocatable as opposed to unallocated, and then the time is allocated between the three components, and as I explained to you typically or the most efficient way to do that is to work out their research loading first to take that off, because that varies on performance.  Then any leadership roles they might have, service roles, and then we see what's left.  Of course in the workload model that we're talking about in 2016, there's a 65 per cent cap on teaching as well.  So that's another factor, it can't go above 65.  That's the process.


What do you mean by self-directed work?‑‑‑Okay, so in academic life there are, as I say in my submission at various points, there are some required work, there is required work, whether it be explicitly or implicitly required around teaching and your research performance that you would commit to in your PDR, in your personal development statement for a year, that would reflect your research loading, your service roles and then your teaching roles.  Self-directed work, there's also work that academics would be committed to and some of that I go to in my statement, give some certain examples there that might be considered likely to advance your career, things that you're involved in; community organisations and so on, that we know most academics do, especially if you're going to get a - what's called an ARC linkage grant, which you might be familiar with here, which involves a community organisation.  You put a lot of hours into building a relationship with that organisation in order to get the research funding.  If we were to stick every hour of those on a workload model they'd very quickly exceed 1620, so there is some self-directed work as well.  But - yes.


Do you as an academic supervisor ever direct any of your staff not to work any of those hours that go above what's referred to in the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑No, I don't.  I don't direct them to do that, no.  Because they would be doing that for reasons to do with their desire for advancement and promotion.  What I do do is make sure that the required work that we have is as allocated in the normal way, that there's an expectation on them coming from us around teaching and research and service.




MS PUGSLEY:  Thank you.



You refer at paragraph 29 to general staff in your general work area?‑‑‑In my statement?



***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                   XXN MS PUGSLEY


Of your statement.  Do you directly supervise any general staff?‑‑‑No, I don't.  So I have general staff that work under my direction as chair but their line manager is the general staff manager.


Are you aware that Swinburne has a range of flexible working arrangements for general staff, so that in some cases they can work from home or leave early for childcare and make up the time later, for example?‑‑‑I'm not overly familiar with the conditions of general staff to be honest with you, but that doesn't surprise me to hear that.  But I, yes, I mean now I'm not responding to your question but I have a view of that, where I've stated in this document that I think it's expanded the amount of hours that general staff are working in recent times.


With relation to your ICT use at home, I think you refer to in your statement?‑‑‑Yes.


Do you claim that on tax?‑‑‑I do claim that on tax, that's right, yes.


Are you aware that Swinburne also has a scheme whereby staff can purchase ICT equipment at a special rate?‑‑‑I am aware of that scheme, yes.


What's that called?‑‑‑I can't remember the name of the scheme but it's got a rather limited range of products associated with it is what I can tell you about it.  But that may not be strictly relevant.


Involves computer hardware, for example?‑‑‑That's right, yes, yes.  Yes, they have such a scheme, that's right.


Thank you, I have no further questions.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                              [3.58 PM]


MR PILL:  Thank you, just a very limited number.  Prof Leach I'm representing the Group of Eight in these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


You were asked a question by the Commissioner, Johns C, about research.  Can I take you to MFI 35, which is the academic workload procedure, and as I understand your evidence when you sit down annually to allocate the percentages you look to research first at Swinburne?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                             XXN MR PILL


Your evidence was that you look back over the previous three years and look at their research contribution and outputs over that time?‑‑‑That's right.


There's also some consideration of their prospective HDR supervision?‑‑‑For that year, yes.


For that year?‑‑‑Yes.


You were asked a question about converting it to hours?‑‑‑Yes.


I just want to clarify that.  If I am an academic and I have sufficient numbers of publications to be research active, then I receive an allocation of 40 per cent if I'm a teaching and research academic?‑‑‑Well, you'd be doing rather well, yes.  But there are a number of academics who have done reasonably well who got 20 this year, or 30.  Early career researchers for example got 30.


Yes?‑‑‑The ones who are doing really quite well on a sliding scale got 40.  This particular year that we're talking about, being 2016, 40 was as much as I could award anybody and that was not true in previous years.


The people you're awarding 40 to, it's fair to say that within them there is a variation in their research contribution?‑‑‑That is true but they all would have reached a particular level, where they triggered 40, yes.


It's not the case is it, that you seek to convert - you've got 10 publications, you've got 15?‑‑‑Yes.


Therefore you get X hours and you get X plus a few more?‑‑‑No.  I mean that is true but depending on where you - where the levels are set.  You know, 10's pretty good, I think we all agree, and both those parties would end up with 40 on this model, yes.


So there's not a direct correlation between the number of publications and the amount of time that you're allocated?‑‑‑Well, there is at lower levels.  So if you were talking about three instead of 10, you might be down around 10 or to 20 per cent instead.  But there's actually also grants to take into account and ADR completions but yes.


So you look at their overall research contribution?‑‑‑Yes.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                             XXN MR PILL


Not just the publications?‑‑‑That's right, yes.  Not just the publications.


That includes their activities to obtain external grant incomes?‑‑‑Funding, yes.


Number of HDR supervisions that they've done?‑‑‑Well, completions this year but yes, in the previous three years, yes, yes.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  So in that sense you look at that research contribution in the past and how they're currently doing and so forth?‑‑‑Yes.


You might say well that's worth 30 per cent?‑‑‑That's right.


And then you say 30 per cent of 1800?‑‑‑That's correct.  You know you're right, 30 per cent of 1800, which would be 180 x 3, 540.


Thank you, because the way I phrased it earlier was you look at their output and you convert that into hours but there's this sort of middle piece of - - -?‑‑‑Percentage.


Percentage?‑‑‑Yes, there is.


Yes, I understand.  Thank you for the clarification?‑‑‑That's all right.


MR PILL:  It's not the case that you go back and say well you produce that output, so therefore we're going to allocate retrospectively 30 per cent.  It's used as a predictor of what the university is going to allocate you in terms of research time?‑‑‑In this year.


That's the case whether you end up producing, with respect a lesser number of a significantly greater number in that time?‑‑‑You're right but of course that will come back on you the following year if you don't.


So one of the functions or the purposes of that is to identify staff with lesser research outputs and to allocate them a greater proportion of teaching?‑‑‑Well, in effect, yes, it's a performance based reward system if you like, high research, allocation for those who perform.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                             XXN MR PILL


If I am a high performing researcher, if I can use that terminology, there's an opportunity to have a discussion about shifting to being a research focus staff member?‑‑‑Yes, look in this particular model there was an opportunity to have that discussion and some staff did.  They didn't in my department but what I did have was early career researchers apply for the 30 per cent which was a special loading, more generous than they would have gone just on evaluating their performance because that was a special allocation for early career researchers who haven't had the opportunity to establish themselves.  They need time for a different reason to actually establish themselves.  So that is a different logic if you like to the other one we've just spoken of.


So I can essentially put forward a case to say I want to develop my research further.  Here's a plan to do that?‑‑‑That's right.


Give me less teaching?‑‑‑Yes.


Give me more research?‑‑‑Yes.  Even though I haven't earnt it on these criteria yet, here's my plan.  So it's a very logic, yes, for the early career researchers.


It's fair to say isn't it that it comes back to an holistic discussion, if I can use that term, about your overall contribution to the university?‑‑‑That's right.   Technically, all staff had that opportunity to put a case forward but it was the early career researchers who I suppose had the easiest path for that, in my opinion, yes.


Thank you.  No further questions.



RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE                                         [4.04 PM]


MR McALPINE:  Thank you.  You talked about a research plan and the research allocation.  How might the plan for - prospectively, the plan for the research load or research commitment in the coming year be expressed?  How might that be expressed or recorded following a discussion with the employee?‑‑‑Yes, so it's been awarded to them on the basis of the previous three years performance in the main, except for the ECRs and the other people who applied for a special - how do we then - you're asking me how we then fill that out and detail it?

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                 RXN MR MCALPINE


For the coming year?‑‑‑For the coming year, yes.  So that would generally take place through the process of PDR, which is different process, so - which we call YPD at Swinburne but it's performance review.  So you'd sit down with your performance manager and you would prospectively - now we're a prospective, what am I going to do with this 30 per cent, say I've got it, prospectively detail what I intend to publish three referee journal articles, two book chapters and a couple of conference proceedings and apply for this grant.  Then the performance manager, who is often me as well, but not always, would rank those at that time  to its minimum.  You know, you just make it over what you - and then, you know, probably active and then outstanding.  You know, three's three categories.  So they're committing in January or February to say if I do six instead of four it's going to be outstanding.  If I do five it's going to be active and if I do four it's going to be minimum.  So it's a different process to work loading.


So when you - I suppose my question is when you say you used a notional 6, 5, 4?‑‑‑Yes.


What are the actual things that you're expressing in that plan?‑‑‑Well, the plan covers teaching service and research but you're just - - -


Yes, but in relation to research?‑‑‑You're just asking me about research, yes.  So there would be publications, would be a key one, and applying for grants, applying for grant applications and HDR supervisions.


Would that expression be generic or would it be reference to particular things?‑‑‑Yes, look, I would note it down as generic.  They go and do three journal articles.  They have probably told me what they're about but it's a document that is used at the end of the year to evaluate their performance, so I tend to just put down the actual performance indicators.  Did you submit these articles?  Were they published?  Bering in my the staff member doesn't control whether they're published.  They can only control submission, so yes.  So there'll be numbers of articles, numbers of book chapters, numbers of grant applications that were put down in terms of their aspirations in January/February for that year.


What would happen if I were to have a 10 per cent work - 10 per cent research allocation and I came along to you saying I was going to solve some mathematical - well not in your area but I was going to - - -?‑‑‑I'd say you're in the wrong department mate but go on, yes.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                 RXN MR MCALPINE


Sorry.  Say I came along and said I was going to publish six papers or write a book or something else that was - that appeared to you to be in excess of that?‑‑‑Yes, yes.  Well I would be, you know, supportive of the staff member's ambitions.  You know, I'd say look that's a weighty ambition and, you know, but I would probably have a chat with them about being realistic given their teaching load and I would say to them, look you've got a 10 per cent - you're saying this person has 10 per cent, which is possible, a lot of people do.  10 per cent research allocation I would say you know the expectations on you for research outputs are not as great as somebody who has 40, you do understand that, you know?  But of course they might decide that they feel in order to - this is what would normally happen to this sort of person.  They would be thinking I actually want 20 or 30 per cent, this is killing me, if I could speak frankly.  They'll say how do I get to 20 or 30 and I said well, you've got to publish more or put in grant applications and I said well that's why I'm doing that.  So in a sense it's self-directed but it's also an attempt if you like to get a better research allocation next time.


But would you adjust the research expectations to what they had said or would you?‑‑‑Yes, I would, I would.  If somebody has 10 per cent I would say let's drop the minimum down from four to one.  You've only got 10 per cent, you know, and let's put active at 2, and outstanding at 3.  It's a different circumstance to somebody got 40 per cent.  I want to put those numbers higher with somebody with 40 per cent.  That would be my advice to them.  Am I going to stop them writing more articles?‑‑‑ No, I'm not, you know.  That's not in my power and they have their own ambitions and so on, but I would certainly advise them that it was out of kilter with what they're receiving and they should perhaps adopt more modest goals for the YPD, for the PDR.


I'm not asking you to speculate on something you don' know.  Have the - would you say over your time at Swinburne that the average allocation for research has gone up, down or remained the same?‑‑‑It's gone down this year, yes.  It has gone down this year in my assessment but it's a little bit more complicated than that because I think the people at the top are doing worse this year than they were previously, which is - and - - -


What do you mean they're doing - - -?‑‑‑Yes, so the very top performers used to get 60 per cent.  That was the top research allocation, and this year it's only 40.  I couldn't give anyone more than 40.  My sense is if you averaged everybody, did it go down, maybe not as much as that but yes, it certainly had that effect on top.


The constraint that you allude to you there that you couldn't give anyone more than 40 per cent?‑‑‑Yes.


Is that a reflection of past performance?‑‑‑No, it was a reflection of the new maximum.


So how did that - where did that new maximum emanated from?‑‑‑It emanated from the research expectations document for 2016 that we are required to work to.

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                 RXN MR MCALPINE


So how does that document come about?‑‑‑Well, that document comes about as a product of workload planning.  So research expectations.  How much time do you get for this performance X, Y and Z, that was like a certain way in 2015 and it changed in 2016.  So there were people who I go 40 per cent to in 2016, that for the same three year performance I would have given  60 in the previous year but it wasn't open to me to do that.


Is that a faculty decision of an institutional decision?‑‑‑Institutional, it's University wide, those benchmarks are university wide.  There is some tailoring to the disciplines.  You can go into that document and look at a slightly more tailored faculty by faculty version, and some things - particular measures will change, yes, yes.  But the 40 per cent was most as I could give.  That wasn't true of previous years.


I think the last question.  So if there - well, you've said what you said about the research allocations.  Do you have any information either about your own area or about the university more generally, about the actual research inputs.  What people are actually telling you?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


What's happening to that?‑‑‑Do you mean in the previous three years?  Can I go and check what they've done.  Is that what you're saying?


No, no, no, I'm talking aggregate.  You've said - well you've said what you said about the research allocations that have - that people receive?‑‑‑Yes.


What I'm asking is about either within your own work area or across the university, have the research output, the actual outputs gone  up or down, stayed the same, blah blah?‑‑‑Or otherwise, yes.  Yes, we can access that data, there's a tool online that allows us to do that.  I can't tell you in my area whether there was - in a net aggregate sense they went up or down or otherwise over the past year but I will - by the end of this year I'll be able to tell for 2016.


No further questions, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you.  The Commission will adjourn.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [4.12 PM]

ADJOURNED UNTIL FRIDAY, 02 SEPTEMBER 2016                  [4.12 PM]

***        MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH                                                                                                 RXN MR MCALPINE



JOHN KENNY, AFFIRMED............................................................................ PN5660

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE................................................... PN5660


EXHIBIT #AC SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOHN KENNY............................................................................................................................... PN5685

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL......................................................... PN5687

MFI #31 ACADEMIC WORKLOAD MODEL FOR THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING............................................................................................................................... PN5843

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN5864

JOHN KENNY, RECALLED........................................................................... PN5864

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL, CONTINUING............................ PN5864


MFI #33 TABLE.................................................................................................. PN5883

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6016

JOHN KENNY, RECALLED........................................................................... PN6016

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL, CONTINUING............................ PN6016

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY................................................ PN6172


RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE................................................................ PN6176

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6187

MICHAEL ERIC HAMEL-GREEN, SWORN............................................... PN6201

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE................................................... PN6201

EXHIBIT #AD REDACTED WITNESS STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR HAMEL-GREEN............................................................................................................................... PN6218

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY................................................ PN6219

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL......................................................... PN6265

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6312

MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH, AFFIRMED................................................ PN6316

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR MCALPINE........................................ PN6316


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY................................................ PN6340


THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6385

MICHAEL PATRICK LEACH, RECALLED............................................... PN6385


MFI #36 CLAUSE 15, ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT.................................. PN6394

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL......................................................... PN6405

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE.................................................... PN6437

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6459