Rhiannon, Sen Lee

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (00:01): There are no winners when a government cuts university funding. The chronic underfunding of tertiary education in Australia over recent decades has placed increasing financial pressure on universities to cut costs. The most recent OECD figures show that of 29 advanced economies Australia is ranked 25th for public investment in universities, as a percentage of total GDP expenditure. Following years of chronic underinvestment by the coalition government this Labor government has made $4 billion in funding cuts to higher education since 2011. In this year's budget, universities were hit with a direct $900 million cut—dubbed an efficiency dividend—as part of the $2.3 billion university cuts that are hurting students and staff. These cuts do hurt students. They damage the quality of our higher education. We have seen a marked rise in the nation's student debt over the past 20 years from a total of less than $5 billion in 1995 to around $30 billion today. In 2012 the average HECS debt of a university graduate was $15,200 and would take eight years to repay. These recent university cuts could see some students debts increase by 50 per cent. Young people should not be burdened with such student debts to earn a degree. Underfunding has led to increased staff-to-student ratios at Australian universities. Student-to-staff ratios increased from about 13:1 in 1990 to more than 21:7 in 2010, an average 65 per cent increase. This includes research staff, who may teach occasionally or not at all, and is an aggregate of casual and part-time staff counted as full-time staff. So the actual body counts of students to staff are likely to be highly undercounted. According to one researcher, the ratio of coursework students to staff who teach is more like 34:1, which is an increase of over 150 per cent since 1990. This directly affects the quality of teaching and learning at our universities. Cuts also hurt university staff, who have borne the brunt of cost-cutting measures with reductions in conditions, job security and career-development opportunities. A key part of my role as a Greens senator is in supporting campaigns for progressive change that are taking place on the streets and in the workplace. One such struggle is the current NTEU and CPSU enterprise bargaining campaign at the University of Sydney, which will have far-reaching consequences for the future of higher education across the sector. In conversations with university staff on the picket lines, long-term unionists have told me that the level of industrial action at the University of Sydney—five strike days over the course of semester 1—is unprecedented. They say they have been forced to take this action in opposition to a similarly unprecedented attack by university management on their wages and conditions, which would negatively impact the quality of education for current and future students. Recently released survey results indicate that the decision by the overwhelming majority of union members to take ongoing strike action aligns with widespread discontent among staff over the direction of the university. The survey found that staff perceptions of management performance were markedly more negative than at other Group of Eight universities. It is not hard to understand why staff feel this way when we look at the objective conditions of work at the university and the approach of management to staff at the bargaining table. One of the key demands by the unions has been for management to reduce their reliance on casual work. NTEU members gave evidence about the demoralising treadmill of casual work at a recent parliamentary inquiry into insecure work, initiated by Greens MP Adam Bandt. The inquiry was told that casuals are in a constant state of anxiety about where their next short-term contract will come from in the face of ongoing and permanent living costs. They highlighted the fact that they receive no leave entitlements and other protections if they get sick, have caring commitments or simply need a holiday and that they are required to take on large amounts of unpaid work. Across the country, around half of undergraduate teaching is now performed by casuals and the trend towards casualisation has been no different at Sydney university. After the fourth strike day this semester, management were pressured into agreeing to provisions that would have a real impact on reducing the trend towards casualisation. However, I was disappointed to find out that unions had been told that these and other wins were conditional on staff accepting a real pay cut over the course of the agreement. University staff have been forced onto an effective wage freeze since January 2012, due to management delaying enterprise bargaining negotiations. Their revised offer of below three per cent per year will not keep up with rising housing, childcare and energy costs in Sydney, ranked in one measure as the third most expensive city in the world. Union rights are particularly significant in the context of the federal Labor government's $2.3 billion budget cuts to higher education, which gained the support of the coalition. Today, casual staff in the Sydney University Casuals Network staged a 'mark-in' where they marked exam papers on desks placed outside the Vice-Chancellor's office. They held placards with parody job advertisements for casual academics, which read: '$15 an hour for marking, half the superannuation rate of permanent staff, little training for teaching, no job security.' This action highlighted the unrealistic workloads, low wages and precarious nature of casual work. Sydney university casual academics are paid to mark 4,500 words per hour and more for exams. Every tutor knows that this is unrealistic. When you take into account the time taken to consult with colleagues on what is expected in the assessment, properly evaluate the quality of the work, provide feedback that students deserve and then process the marks, in real terms casual tutors receive around $15 per hour. This is just one of the many ways unrealistic workloads disguise underpayment of casual academics and demonstrate why a decent wage increase is so important in the current industrial dispute at Sydney university. In bringing along their own tables and chairs, the casuals network also drew attention to the lack of resources and support given to casual academics. For example, casuals at Sydney university are forced to prepare classes, mark assignments and meet students, often in their living rooms, libraries or other public spaces because many of them are not given office space. This reflects a general attitude towards staff by a university management that views its casuals as disposable workers. It is why unions have put job security at the forefront of their enterprise bargaining campaign, and some faculties at Sydney university the proportion of casual academic staff is staggering: architecture has 42 per cent casual teachers; Sydney College of the Arts and music, 34 per cent; dentistry and nursing, 35 per cent; and education 43 per cent casual staff. Increasing levels of casualisation as an appointment strategy is a growing problem across the university sector. When you look at the number of face-to-face teaching hours performed by casual teachers, it is over 50 per cent. Most of the staff will choose to be in permanent teaching positions. I was incredibly disappointed in question time earlier today that the Labor government refuses to support university staff's moderate demands for an above-inflation pay rise and better job security. The minister talked up his connections to the university management. It is management that are using Labor's cuts as a vehicle for slashing pay and conditions. Staff and students are also rightly disappointed that a Labor government would at the same time refuse to support the modest demands of workers and cut funding to higher education. The announcement of cuts to higher education funding in the midst of the industrial dispute at the University of Sydney has crystallised two competing visions of the future of higher education. On one side, the major parties and management teams like those at Sydney University want to place educational opportunities and critical research in the hands of the market; on the other side, we have staff, unions, student activists and the Greens that want our public universities to be places where secure staff and supported students can cooperate through teaching, learning and research to advance ideas to make the world a better place. I congratulate the NTEU and the CPSU for their work on behalf of their members—work that plays a critical role in building a quality higher education sector. On another matter, in August 2006, a wonderful reconciliation took place in a cafe in Shellharbour, New South Wales. Roseanne Beckett, five years out of prison for a wrongful conviction, was meeting with her local member of parliament. A woman, who worked at the cafe, approached Roseanne and cried out, 'Mum! I thought I would never find you again' and they embraced. The cafe's chef was Tracy Taylor. Tracy called Roseanne 'Mum' because her own mother had died when she was five years old, and Roseanne took Tracy under her wing, giving her a job and teaching her how to cook. Tracy recounts how she was wary of approaching Roseanne, because they had not spoken since Tracy testified against Roseanne in a 1991 trial for conspiracy to murder her husband Barry Catt. Roseanne Beckett was Roseanne Catt when I met her in 2000. At the time I was a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council and Roseanne was a prisoner at Mulawa Correctional Centre. I came to visit this prison as I was a member of the upper house inquiry into the increase in the New South Wales prisoner population. Roseanne gave evidence to this inquiry. During the hearing, she requested a closed session with no men present. All the male MPs and male prison staff left the room where the inquiry was being conducted. I found Roseanne's evidence very troubling at the time. The extent of the injustice she had suffered was not fully clear to me. I have come to realise the abuse, discrimination and injustice Roseanne has suffered as an example of extreme sexism. In the current debate about sexist attitudes, we should not lose sight of what happens to ordinary women as well as our women leaders. Six years after the parliamentary inquiry where I met Roseanne, the chance meeting with Tracy opened up the next troubling chapter in how our justice system operates. Wendy Bacon, a professor with the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism has assisted Roseanne and Tracy reveal what they have been subjected to. Tracy signed an affidavit which in part states: Parts of the evidence I give at the trial are not truthful. I went along with the police because I was frightened. I am very sorry for any harm that was caused but I had no-one to help or advise me. In 1990, two police intimidated her with misinformation. Tracy explained: The police said I was a prostitute and that Roseanne was a madam and that I was the one who kept the gun. I said I knew nothing about guns. I had never seen Roseanne with a gun. They also said I was going to be charged with conspiring to murder Barry Catt. She adds: I was threatened into signing a statement that was not mine. I was terrified … I feared for my life and my baby's life. Tracy's affidavit is part of a story which begins in February 1989. Roseanne's stepchildren had disclosed to Family and Community Services that they had been sexually abused by Barry Catt. The Newcastle Police Child Mistreatment Unit charged Catt and another relative with 15 counts of sexual abuse and they were committed for trial. Roseanne was also halfway through proceedings for assault against her husband. Weeks later, Roseanne was charged with conspiracy to murder Catt. The officer most vigorously pursuing Roseanne was Detective Peter Thomas. Thomas had recently been transferred after falsely accusing Roseanne of burning down a shop in an unrelated incident. Thomas had known and drunk with Barry Catt for many years and later admitted he intensely disliked Roseanne. Commenting on these developments, Professor Bacon stated: Back in 1990, the Ombudsman passed the file on to the NSW Police Internal Affairs who recommended charges against the leading detective in the case, Peter Thomas. But the NSW DPP did not proceed with the charges. Thomas was allowed to leave the police force and become a private inquiry agent in Queensland, where he was found to have charged people on insufficient evidence and offered a witness a bribe. On more than one occasion, he has given evidence in court that he was aware of no findings against him. At Roseanne's trial, neither the court nor her lawyers were told of the report's finding against Detective Thomas. Despite much evidence of bias and misconduct on the part of the detective, Roseanne was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in prison. In her summary, Justice Jane Mathews said: 'Either Roseanne was a victim of a terrible conspiracy or an evil and manipulative woman who had concocted false assault charges against Barry Catt and also convinced her children to lie about sexual abuse.' There was already significant evidence of a conspiracy against Roseanne and there was much to follow. Ten years into her 12-year sentence, fresh evidence came to light that proved she was indeed framed by Detective Thomas, and Roseanne was released. In 2004, a judicial inquiry, led by Justice Thomas Davidson, found that Thomas may have planted the gun which was alleged to have been Roseanne's, and she may have been framed regarding the charge of attempting to spike her husband's drinks. Further, Justice Davidson argued that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and that Thomas used improper methods of investigation. Tracy Taylor's affidavit, two years later, would seem to bear this out. As to the accusation that Thomas was biased against Roseanne and was corrupted by his friendship with Barry Catt, Justice Davidson found that the detective had a propensity to use his office to damage Ms Catt, and demonstrated a lack of objectivity, which descended into malice and abuse of power. Detective Thomas had also been accused by a New South Wales judge in another criminal case of acting reprehensibly and using fair means or foul to convict a person. Thomas was also involved in another disturbing case around the same time as he arrested Roseanne. This was a case of Jake Sourian, which I first raised in 2002 in a speech in the New South Wales Legislative Council. Sourian lost his house and other assets after being falsely accused by Thomas of arson, and remains uncompensated for the injustice. Instead of being held accountable, Thomas became a private investigator. There have been other, unsubstantiated arson charges against innocent citizens, leaving him further discredited. Despite all this, the New South Wales government has refused to reopen compensation discussions for Roseanne, which were dropped in 2006. Here we must bring into the story the current New South Wales Attorney-General, Greg Smith, and former crown prosecutor Patrick Power. Power was in charge of Roseanne's prosecution and, before her unsuccessful 1993 appeal, was involved in the children changing their statements accusing Barry Catt of sexual abuse. In 2006, large amounts of child pornography were found on Power's computer, and Greg Smith, Power's colleague at the time, alerted Power to this discovery before notifying the authorities. Investigating the allegation on a tip-off, former High Court Judge Michael McHugh reported that Smith had acted improperly but not corruptly. This is a sordid tale that spans 24 years, involving the highest reaches of the New South Wales justice system. Through Professor Bacon's excellent investigations, I have been following this case and seeking justice for Roseanne since November 2000, when the Greens first called for an inquiry into her case. We have been asking questions since the injustice first came to light and, unfortunately, many are yet to be satisfactorily answered. Who was involved in abusing Roseanne's children? Why was it not vigorously prosecuted? Who threatened Tracy Taylor and why was her story ignored by police? Why did the Crown continue to conduct itself in such a ruthless fashion and rely on the evidence of witnesses already found to be unreliable? Given the example of Detective Thomas's history, what action is being taken by the Crown to find out whether innocent people may be imprisoned because of activities by similarly corrupt officers? Why is New South Wales Attorney-General Greg Smith continuing to resist Roseanne's claims for compensation despite her recent victory in the High Court? While there are many troubling aspects to this story in what it reveals about how some human beings treat others, there are also many inspiring stories about the people who stuck by Roseanne when she was in prison. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Mary Court and Sister Claudette Palmer, who worked tirelessly for years to help Roseanne obtain justice. A critical aspect of any society is how it deals with corruption and injustice, especially when it systematically oppresses women and anyone suffering discrimination and disadvantage. We must acknowledge when something goes wrong, act to assist those who are affected and remedy the problem. It is clear that powerful institutions have wronged Roseanne Beckett. Continuing to hide the facts and delay restitution is unacceptable. Roseanne and her supporters for over a decade have been working to clear at her name. What happened to Rosanne has not just affected her; it reflects poorly on all of us. An inquiry is needed into the Crown's behaviour in dealing with Roseanne. The New South Wales government should be held responsible for the injustice she has been subjected to. It is time the government took responsibility for ensuring Roseanne is afforded justice and full compensation. A speedy and just resolution to this case is important for Roseanne, for all women and for our wider society. Senate adjourned at 00: 21 (Wednesday)