Safety In recent years, Wyndham has seen a rise in violent crime. An unstaffed library could provide an easy place for criminal activity to occur. Few safety guarantees are being made about unstaffed hours. These safety issues mean that women, families and anyone vulnerable to racial, homophobic, transphobic or ableist violence may be uncomfortable accessing the library when it is unstaffed. People living with disabilities may not be able to access the space due to rules that prevent their carers visiting with them unless they have a membership as well. With no staff to help in a violent incident or medical emergency there is no guarantee the library is a safe place. Would you trust an empty library, late at night to be safe? Would you be happy to rely on the police or ambulance to arrive in time to help you if something terrible did occur while you were visiting an unstaffed library? Fairness Libraries are funded by your rates and tax dollars and are currently available to everybody during opening hours. By design, unstaffed library hours will not be accessible to all. We want increased library services for all. Not just access for a few! Using the library during unstaffed hours requires a separate membership restricted by age and vague criteria such as confidence using the library independently. Additionally, unstaffed hours will not be available at every library branch – if your local branch does not offer extended hours, you’re out of luck. Membership is not guaranteed upon application and can be blocked for any reason. It requires an induction process and agreement to a separate set of terms and conditions. No guidelines have been provided to prevent discrimination or bias in the selection process. Accessing the library during unstaffed hours may be unavailable to you if: • You are deemed not to meet the membership criteria. • You cannot find time to sit through a lengthy induction during staffed operating hours. • You require any assistance using the library. • Not every library branch will have unstaffed hours so one neighbourhood will have better access than others. Introducing unstaffed hours does not address existing geographic gaps in service within Wyndham or community demand for services requiring staff, such as weekend or evening programming and may be used as an excuse not to ever provide these services in the future. There is a great risk that this project will only benefit a small number of people and you may not be one of them! Is that fair and equitable access? Does it seem like a good use of your rates and tax money? Cheaper, lower quality service Unstaffed library hours are being pitched as an enhancement to existing library services at a fraction of the cost compared to extending staffed hours of service, opening new branches or extending outreach services. But as well as serving a narrower section of the community, the proposal explicitly provides a lower quality of service. During unstaffed hours, the library will not provide: • IT or equipment support. • Assistance dealing with library account issues. • Assistance with any issues accessing the library using your Open Libraries membership. • Access to collection items kept behind the library desk. • Library programs or events. • In-person support in the event of an emergency. Libraries in the future Your libraries are currently staffed for all opening hours and librarians spend all day helping people. One concern industry experts have about unstaffed hours is the potential damage to our industry and what libraries can offer our communities in the future. If politicians begin to believe that libraries don’t need librarians, it’s only a matter of time before staffed services are reduced in the name of cost-saving. After the UK introduced unstaffed hours, over 50% of librarians were replaced with unqualified volunteers – or nothing at all. If you love musical and literacy programs for your children, study assistance for your teenagers and IT help for those of us who find advancing technology challenging to keep up with, don’t let your libraries become just a building with books inside.  You deserve a library that has librarians in it – for every hour we are open. Please sign our petition and/or write to your local councillor to show your support for the people who support you. You can write your own email or use this template: Dear (Councillor’s name) I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Open Libraries project at Wyndham City Council.  My concerns are (include your main concerns here) and I believe that without community consultation there is no evidence that this will be a responsible use of the council budget.  I urge you to listen to your constituents and not support this project moving forward. Signed, Your name • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected] • Email: [email protected]

Open letter from Deakin University staff On the restructure, the resignation, and the obligation to do better On 4 June, affected Deakin staff across two divisions of the University – Academic Portfolio, and Infrastructure and Digital – were presented with proposals for workplace restructures impacting 1,830 positions, with 146 job cuts. Those whose positions were unmatched in the new structures were given until 19 June – the close of the consultation period – to submit applications for voluntary redundancy.  On 9 June, staff were informed by email that Vice Chancellor Iain Martin had resigned, effective immediately, with no reasons given. On 10 June, many staff were notified for the first time of the proposed restructure in an email from the caretaker VC, Matthew Clarke. The nature of the proposed changes, the way in which they have been communicated, and the VC's sudden and unexplained resignation compel us to publicly express our deep dismay at the events since 4 June, and the surrounding organisational context.  The human cost The most serious failing in these events is the simplest one: it has been cruel.  Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic Jessica Vanderlelie met with staff online only, presenting a confusing 200+ page document in which individual staff had to hunt for their names on coloured tiles to see if they were facing redundancy. Direct line managers were given no warning or no further information to support staff.  The change documents are a masterclass in strategic fog, replete with corporate language that makes little sense, lacks any evidence-based justification, and fails to acknowledge the human beings affected. People are not tiles on an organisational chart. The fact that this had to be said at all is a measure of how genuinely awful this process is. Massive leadership and governance failure A major restructure affecting nearly 2000 positions requires accountable executive leadership, and yet our VC has departed with no explanation.  Unjustified restructure The MWC documentation provided to staff is literally entirely devoid of any evidence. It is replete with vacuous statements imploring us to be “Vibrant by making space for innovation” and “Confident, connected and future ready.” These are not organisational diagnoses. They are slogans.  There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence provided to support claims around past or future student demands, performance indicators for units, staff or student satisfaction survey findings, or student complaint data. There are no financials. As an academic institution we expect and deserve an appropriate standard of evidence.  Furthermore, there is no substantiation of the nature of the new roles, meaning displaced staff cannot know what kinds of jobs they may be eligible to apply for. All staff – including academics – are in the dark about how the essential work of professional staff will be reorganised.  What we are calling for We are calling on Deakin Council to deliver on their obligations under the Deakin University Act 2009, including to: 1. Order the suspension of the MWC process immediately until a VC or confirmed Acting VC is in place and can be held fully accountable. 1.1. Should a new VC wish to proceed with the proposal, to order the Executive to commit to genuine consultation including: (a) an extension of the timeline for consultation; (b) the establishment of structured dialogue mechanisms, including a working group comprising staff, students and management; (c) empirical evidence supporting the proposed changes; (d) a commitment to meeting face-to-face with affected staff; (e) provision of fit-for-purpose job descriptions for new roles. 2. Involve staff meaningfully in the appointment of new leadership, including the Acting and permanent VC positions.  3. Commission an independent review of executive governance at Deakin. This would examine how a major restructure of this scale was designed, by whom, how it was launched, and how it is being continued under these current conditions of governance chaos. And what accountability mechanisms need to be strengthened, including discussion with those who are responsible and therefore accountable. Deakin has extraordinary staff. Through every previous restructure, through a pandemic, through leadership changes and budget pressures, we have continued to deliver the highest quality research and the highest quality education for students. We deserve to be treated as the institution's greatest asset. We are not opposed to change. We are opposed to change done badly, without evidence, without honesty, and without care for our people who are most affected. * Open letter from Deakin University Student Association (DUSA) DUSA has serious concerns with the University's proposed organisational changes and the inadequate process by which they have been communicated. Notably, DUSA was not formally included in the consultation process, something that should have occurred given the impact this change will have on students. The proposed changes carry significant risks, particularly the shift away from in-house counselling services, which would introduce barriers to access, disrupt continuity of care, and harm vulnerable students. The dissolution of the Disability Resource Centre, which risks diluting specialist expertise at a time when demand is already outpacing capacity, is especially concerning.  These changes are occurring without evidence the proposed model will deliver equal or better outcomes for students, and without the transparent and collaborative process that major decisions of this magnitude require. * Open letter from Geelong Disability Collective and Deakin Disability Neurodivergency Association Disabled students rely on a continuity of support, and disruptions to their established community of care can be detrimental. The lack of transparency and consultation involved in this proposal means it is not possible to determine the scale of impact this will have on the Disabled community.  The proposal is antithetical to the stated targets of the recently updated Disability Action Plan. It fails to embed accessibility and inclusion principles and will erode the quality of currently available supports. The shock and uncertainty caused by how these proposed changes have been communicated is deeply traumatic for those directly affected and demonstrates a disregard for staff wellbeing.

TasTAFE is where thousands of Tasmanians build the skills they need for work and for life. But right now, it’s being cut back—just when people need it most.  With tens of millions in savings demanded and more job and course cuts on the way, students are losing the support they rely on to succeed. These cuts mean fewer teachers, fewer courses, and fewer services—especially for those who already face the biggest barriers.  Students in regional areas, migrants learning English, creatives, and those retraining for new careers are all being hit hardest.  Support services like counselling and libraries are already stretched, and this will only make things worse. This doesn’t just affect students — it affects all of us. TasTAFE trains the workers our state relies on. By signing this petition, you’re standing up for students, staff, and Tasmania’s future.

Queensland state school teachers and leaders carry out one of the most essential, influential, invaluable roles in our community - educating the next generation.     While their work underpins just about everything necessary for a fair, thriving, equitable society, Queensland teachers and leaders are also currently reporting increased stress and anxiety, stemming from issues related to rising workplace injuries, assaults and threats. ·       Teacher and student wellbeing and learning are at risk. Every worker must have the right to attend their workplace safe from harm or violence - teachers should not be any different. A safe and healthy workplace is a legal right for employees and a legal obligation of the employer.  ·       The teacher shortage crisis will only worsen unless educators can be assured of their safety at work. Stress, anxiety, and burnout are key contributors to experienced teachers leaving the profession and the lack of new people joining it.  ·       It’s about government responsibility to ensure the ongoing future of strong, sustainable, equitable public education that delivers on its promise – “Brighter Futures – delivering excellence in every state school.”  Current legislation simply isn’t protecting Queensland state school teachers and leaders as required.   Sign our petition and send a clear message to the Premier - great state schools need teachers and leaders who are safe from occupational violence and aggression. Authorised by Brendan Crotty, Acting General Secretary, Queensland Teachers' Union, 21 Graham St Milton Qld 4064

Parking and transport at Curtin are a serious barrier to students accessing their education. Students are spending up to an hour circling campus looking for parking, paying for more expensive bays, arriving late to class, and struggling to absorb rising costs during a cost of living crisis. Students should not be priced out of attending university because they cannot afford fuel, parking or the time it takes to fight for a car bay every morning. These are practical and achievable solutions. Other universities have already implemented measures like free carpool parking. Instead, Curtin students are being told to wait while simple proposals are bogged down in bureaucracy. The only thing stopping these solutions is the willingness of senior leaders to take this issue seriously. Students are doing everything they can to keep showing up during a cost of living crisis. Curtin must do more to support them.

In collaboration with NTEU, Victorian MP Aiv Puglielli applied to Victorian universities for information regarding senior executive remuneration and contractual arrangements with foreign militaries, weapon manufacturers and fossil fuel companies.    The Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC) has ordered Deakin University to release requested information concerning senior executive remuneration, finding that:  • ‘the public interest weighs heavily in favour of disclosure of information about salaries and salary setting procedures in public universities to support accountable governance’; and  • the Vice-Chancellor agreed (or did not object) to disclosure.  OVIC has also ordered Deakin University to release requested information concerning its contractual arrangements with foreign militaries, weapon manufacturers and fossil fuel companies, finding that ‘where the contract amounts are large . . . disclosure is in the public interest in order to aid understanding of the relationship between a public institution and the business’.    Deakin University has now appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in relation to both decisions of the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and has engaged an external law firm, FOI Solutions, in these appeals.    Our Ask  Deakin University has commenced negotiations for a new enterprise agreement setting staff pay and conditions. Questions of budget, financial sustainability and governance will be central to these negotiations.    As the University Chancellors Council has emphasised, public universities are subject to ‘high standards of transparency and accountability’. Deakin University itself has emphasised the need for universities to have a strong social licence with robust transparency, stating that ‘it is not enough for decisions to be made; the how and why should be available’.    We the undersigned are seriously concerned that Deakin University is not upholding these governance standards by appealing against the two decisions of the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner ordering disclosure. The use of an external law firm raises questions as to appropriate use of university funds especially given the University’s in-house lawyers and public concern over the use of consultants by universities (as illustrated by the 4Corners episode, ‘Campus Chaos'). Both circumstances run contrary to the emphasis on universities having a strong social licence. 

Every child deserves a great education. That depends on schools being able to attract, support and keep great teachers, education support staff and school leaders.  Right now in Victoria, that is becoming harder:  •  Catholic school staff are being denied basic bargaining rights by employers •  Workloads are unsustainable  •  Schools are facing serious staff shortages  This means less time, less support, and fewer opportunities for our children.   Families invest in Catholic education and rightly expect high-quality teaching and support. However, in Victoria, Catholic education employers are spending time and money on a legal battle to deny staff these basic rights, instead of investing in the staff and schools our children rely on. 

The Victorian Catholic Education Authority (VCEA) is seeking to ignore the nearly 19,000 staff who signed a Statement of Support for fair bargaining last year – a clear majority of the 35,000 staff that the VCEA has claimed work in Victorian Catholic education. No good explanation has been provided for this anti-worker stance, and this continued denial of our basic rights is causing deep concern amongst staff in Catholic schools right across the state. As educators, we don’t want to have to take industrial action – but as workers, we know that the internationally-recognised right to do so is what gives us power at the bargaining table, and that without this right we are negotiating with one hand tied behind our back.  

Library workers deliver essential services to 2.8 million people in our community each year. They run information services, connect people online, hold free workshops, develop community connections and foster a safe space for people experiencing homelessness and family violence, and deliver services for children and families.      The State Library's expertise in family history research and access to heritage collections are also under direct threat.     Executives are trying to cut 11 permanent librarian positions, meaning 10 frontline librarians would remain to run Australia's busiest library.     They are also cutting essential Visitor Service Officer, Children and Families officers, plus other frontline roles, and proposing to outsource the library's critical information technology team.     Frontline library staff are the vital link to the library's 5 million items, and librarians are experts in connecting anyone with the information they need, taking more than 50,000 questions and enquiries annually.      Library Executives are also planning to remove public PCs, and visitors will have to order collection items via an "automated system".     Meanwhile, millions of taxpayer dollars are proposed to be spent on deceptive and ill-aligned "digital" roles, pay rises for executives, and flashy websites with no substance.     State libraries with free, uncensored access to information are essential to our democracy. And in a time of information overload, AI and misinformation, we need librarians more than ever.      We need librarians in libraries.     To foster critical thinking skills, to know the stories of where we live, and to navigate an online world increasingly full of falsehoods and manipulation, places like the State Library are essential. Victoria’s State Library should serve the public interest. It must not be allowed to neglect its core purpose of preserving and providing easy access to knowledge. We reject these inept attempts to shift control of our cultural memory, our history and our factual record to private vendors and ill-conceived digital systems.     Tell the acting executives: hands off our State Library!

• Every student’s learning and wellbeing is at risk when schools don’t have the resources to meet the diverse needs of all learners, including more 1:1 support from teachers and education support staff. • Teacher shortages will only worsen, and support staff and school leaders will remain undervalued, unless the state government invests in the profession. • It’s about fairness and the futures of children and young people, who deserve properly funded public schools, not a government that shirks its responsibility while calling Victoria the ‘education state’. We call on Premier Allan and Treasurer Symes to keep their full funding promise and reverse the decision to delay $2.4 billion worth of resources for our schools. Sign our petition and send a clear message to the Premier and the Treasurer: we won’t accept Victorian public schools being the lowest funded in the country. Children and young people – and their families, teachers, education support staff, and school leaders – deserve better than that.

We are concerned that: • academic workloads are already at breaking point. We are concerned about potential efforts to weaken existing workload protections, rather than strengthening them, through Enterprise Bargaining. The introduction of a Block Model has the potential to make a significant problem worse. • professional staff workloads will be negatively affected by the introduction of a Block Model. These concerns include a lack of information on how processes and systems for admissions, census dates and support cycles will be affected. This creates concern that professional staff will be required to accept unreasonable workloads, just to make a Block Model work. • there is not a plan to resource any change, despite clear feedback that significant resourcing will be required. Without it, staff will likely be left to pick up the slack on top of existing workloads.  • UC has a very recent history of financial issues stemming from throwing millions at a shiny new education initiative – this is a concerning path to go down again. • insufficient consideration has been given to what a Block Model means for academic integrity, especially in the age of AI. These concerns include that there may not be time to sufficiently address instances of suspected plagiarism or integrity issues, including through University processes, due of the relentless pressure to turn around marking quickly to reset for the next Block. • there has not been sufficient attention given to prerequisites, course design, and professional accreditation. Some disciplines face significant risks which have not been adequately explored. • a Block Model focuses extensively on teaching, without enough consideration of research. The potential for increases in teaching loads could compromise UC’s research, as well as research-informed teaching for students. • there has not been adequate consideration of placements or internships, and how they would work with a Block Model. • there would be impacts to staff resulting from any decision to embark on more University-wide change, following the job cuts of 2024 and 2025. Now is the time for stability, as constant change and uncertainty affects staff wellbeing. • the introduction of a Block Model would prioritise customer satisfaction over pedagogy and meaningful learning. There is concerning potential for a Block Model to affect course quality and outcomes. This could affect the reputation of UC’s degrees. • any attempt to limit a Block Model to postgraduate courses would likely cause more problems than it solves, as it fails to consider circumstances where undergraduate and postgraduate units are co-taught. Teaching staff may be required to work across multiple inconsistent teaching patterns. Professional staff who support the delivery of teaching would be severely impacted. Both academic and professional staff are concerned this could make effective workload planning impossible. • a Block Model means far greater disruption for staff or students due to illness or misadventure, as a short absence would mean missing more content than otherwise. This makes it difficult to catch up and increases pressure on people to come to campus while ill. • there isn’t a clear rationale for change. UC’s issues are not those of VU or SCU, and the University has conceded that it is not clear that a Block Model would recover costs through increased student load or retention. The potential benefits to the University have not been adequately articulated. The information provided to UC staff thus far has not addressed these concerns. While these genuine and reasonable concerns remain unaddressed, and in the absence of a compelling case backed by adequate and significant resourcing to facilitate the transition, we believe a Block Model should not be introduced at the University of Canberra. 

We work to understand, influence and transform systems to achieve sustainable development in Australia and our region. We do this by collaborating with government, industry, academic and civil society partners, and establish transdisciplinary teams to identify pathways and innovative solutions to help the world achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Our partnership approach has seen us win awards for our impact focus. MSDI aims to achieve sustainable development in Australia and our region by understanding, influencing and transforming the systems that are embedded in our society.