Abdullah Muhsin - Iraqi trade unionist

Hear
Abdullah Muhsin

Iraqi trade unionist

Abdullah Muhsin is the International Representative of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers and a former student-union activist who fled Iraq in 1978 to escape Saddam Hussein.

Abdullah Muhsin will be speaking about the courage and dedication of Iraqi teachers and trade unionists in their attempts to reconstruct that country’s education and social system in spite of violence, sectarian interference, international terrorism and the failure of internal Iraqi political forces to work together in reconstructing civil society.

Date: Thursday 29th November 07
Time: 7.00 pm
Venue: TUC (1st Floor 199 Armagh St)
Refreshments will be provided

Abdullah Muhsin is the International Representative of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers, formerly known as the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), whose 200,000-strong membership is drawn from a wide range of ethnic and religious communities organised throughout Iraq’s core industries.

A former student-union activist, Abdullah Muhsin fled Iraq in 1978 after Saddam Hussein waged his campaign of terror against that country’s civil-society organisations independent of Ba’athist control, including trade unions, student groups and women’s organisations. After spending a few years in Italy, Muhsin moved to England, where he has lived ever since.

From exile, Muhsin was active in the Workers’ Democratic Trade Union Movemen (WDTUM), an underground organisation that resisted Hussein’s Ba’ath Party until its collapse. The WDTUM, a collection of trade unionists, intellectuals, liberals, communists and civil-society activists, collected information on Hussein's crimes against humanity and publicised them to trade unions around the world.

At a recent Education International Congress in Berlin, Abdullah Muhsin spoke of the courage and dedication of Iraqi teachers in attempting to reconstruct that country’s education system in spite of violence, sectarian interference, international terrorism and the failure of internal Iraqi political forces to work together in reconstructing civil society. He criticised the failure of the Iraqi government to effectively address education and other social issues and told delegates of the personal hardship and suffering experienced by teachers, students and ordinary families in their struggle for survival and to establish reasonable living standards.

Abdullah Muhsin has co-authored a book on the history of Iraqi unions, Hadi Never Died: Hadi Saleh and the Iraqi Trade Unions. At it’s launch in July Mushin described Iraq’s economy as pulverised by Saddam’s wars, bled by sanctions and further devastated by the invasion, looting and rampant corruption. He said that Iraq’s economy needs emergency investment and widespread reconstruction, adding that free and independent unions will play an important role in making sure investment in Iraq provides quality jobs and decent public services.

Abdullah Muhsin has an Honours degree in Sociology and Masters in Politics and Government, and has taught Trade Union Studies at University London Metropolitan.

The emerging signs of vibrant civil society, such as organisations of women, trade unionists and students, present a real opportunity to end the occupation and isolate the forces promoting sectarian, communal and religious violence.
Abdullah Muhsin,- ‘We are nobody’s pawns’, Guardian, 23 October 2004

Read More...

Summary only...

Remits for National Conference

There are now eight remits to be presented to the National Conference.

• Remit 1, Union Density
• Remit 2: Union Fees
• Remit 3: Status Differentials
• Remit 4: Academic Titles
• Remit 5: Intellectual Property
• Remit 6: Freedom of Association
• Remit 7: Terrorism
• Remit 8: Scholars at Risk.

Conference papers are available on the AUS website, including Remit papers, National Budget, Proposed rule changes, Amalgamation paper, and PBRF policy paper.

Read More...

Summary only...

Submission by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions – Te Kauae Kaimahi on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007

SUBMISSION

by the

New Zealand Council of Trade Unions –

Te Kauae Kaimahi

on the

Terrorism Suppression Amendment

Bill 2007

1. Introduction
   1. The NZCTU is the internationally recognised trade union body in New Zealand. The CTU represents 39 affiliated unions with a membership of over 350,000 workers.
   2. The NZCTU is opposed to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007.
   3. In particular, the CTU has 4 concerns with this Bill:
      • There is no need to make committing a terrorist act a crime in its own right.
      • Removing of the High Court’s role in the extension of designations by the Prime Minister compromises the natural checks and balances in the New Zealand political system.
      • Removing protection for advocating democratic government or human rights in terms of financing and making property available is counter-productive and undermines legitimate political activity.
      • The broadening of the definition of participation to negate the need for intent is unusually punitive.
   4. The NZCTU was opposed to the Terrorism Suppression Bill in 2001, the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill in 2003 and the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill in 2005.
   5. The NZCTU continues to believe that these laws, in the name of fighting terrorism, have eroded fundamental human rights and civil liberties. The NZCTU also continues to believe that vigorous democratic societies are the best way to counter terrorist threats and that the struggle against terrorism is one part of a larger struggle for global social justice.
   6. Following from this, the NZCTU is opposed to this Bill because it tries to further place issues of terrorism and its definition beyond the scope of New Zealand’s sovereign decision-making and/or outside the normal checks and balances of the New Zealand constitutional system.
   7. This bill extends a crude and increasingly wholesale definition of terrorist entities and their supporters. It ignores the politicised reality of the term “terrorism” and the blurred lines, within organisations and over time, between legitimate activities of protest and resistance and illegitimate acts of violence.
   8. This is not to say that illegitimate acts of violence do not occur, just that this categorisation does not help to counter them. As Labour MP Jill Pettis noted during the first reading of the Bill, “yesterday’s terrorists are sometimes today’s heroes… what constitutes terrorism is different for different people, and events that occur can be viewed as terrorist activity in some people’s minds but not in the minds of others.” (Hansards, Thursday 29 March 2007)
2. Creating the Specific Offence of a Terrorist Act
   1. The NZCTU is not convinced that there is any need to specifically define a terrorist act as an offence above and beyond any offences that already exist under New Zealand law.
   2. As the NZCTU’s submission in 2001 on the original Terrorism Suppression Bill noted, the definition of terrorism is not as clear cut as advocates of greater powers to “combat” terrorism would like.
   3. In that submission, the NZCTU pointed out that there have been numerous legitimate protests, demonstrations, acts of civil disobedience and direct action in New Zealand – as well as internationally-applauded resistance and liberation movements overseas – that could fall within the definition of a terrorist act under New Zealand law.
   4. As examples the NZCTU cited:
      • The New Zealand Waterside Workers Union demonstrations in 2000/2001.
      • The Maritime Union of Australia demonstrations against Patrick’s Stevedoring in Australia in 1998.
      • The 1981 Springbok demonstrations.
      • The mass demonstrations which preceded the collapse of Eastern Europe.
      • The mass “anti-globalisation” demonstrations which accompany World Trade Organisation meetings, G5 and APEC meetings throughout the world.
      • The CTU transport boycott against Fiji in 2000.
      • Attempting to cut down the tree on One Tree Hill.
      • Damaging the America’s Cup.
      • The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.
      • The independence movement in East Timor.
   5. That the state has the power to suppress such activity already still concerns the NZCTU. Allowing such legitimate activity to be criminalised – and incur a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – raises further questions about the protection of fundamental rights in New Zealand.
   6. While the Law Commission specifically excluded implications in relation to terrorism from its recent consideration of sedition, there are clear parallels that could be drawn with this Bill. In their recently tabled report, the Law Commission noted, “seditious offences… are overly broad and uncertain. They infringe on the principle of freedom of expression, and have the potential for abuse – a potential which has been realised in some periods of our history, when these offences have been used to stifle or punish political speech.” (New Zealand Law Commission, “Reforming the Law of Sedition: Consultation Document”, October 2006; p8) The Commission’s findings – that undue breadth, threat to political freedom, disuse and other more appropriate laws mean sedition should be removed from the statute books – equally apply to this Bill. Is the definition of a “terrorist act” a 21st Century’s version of sedition – destined to become an equally outmoded and abused in the near future?
   7. Already, the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 gives the executive arm of government sweeping powers, most of which operate outside the scope of parliamentary or judicial review. That those powers could be attached to a sweepingly-broad, politically-defined “crime” is all the more disturbing.
   8. Beyond any activity that is already legally defined as a crime and that may occur concurrently with a legitimate protest or action, advancing an ideological or political cause with the intention of forcing a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from any act, which may cause serious damage to property or interfere with an infrastructure facility (to use the language of the act), is not – and should not be – a crime.
3. Reviewing the Designation of a Terrorist Entity
   1. The CTU believes the current law requiring the High Court to review terrorist designations made by the Prime Minster after 3 years is an appropriate check on a significant power. Equally, changing this to allow self review by the Prime Minister is insufficiently robust.
   2. The NZCTU’s submission on the Terrorism Suppression Bill in 2001 noted that: “To empower the Prime Minister of the day to exercise a discretion as to whether or not to designate as “terrorist” a person or organisation or group (and the potential criminalisation of large numbers of people) is an extraordinary move which requires rigorous justification. To the extent that it is proceeded with, such a power must be as minimalist as possible to achieve legitimate objectives, and must be consistent with the maintenance of a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law. It is not a step to be taken lightly and certainly is not a decision that can be rushed.” (New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, “Submission of the NZCTU on the Terrorism Suppression Bill”, December 2001; p 11)
   3. As advocates of stronger anti-terrorism measures in New Zealand have noted, the Prime Minister has not yet used the power to designate a terrorist entity. Given the power is so little-used, there is no evidence or justification for such a reduction in necessary process.
   4. As Green MP Keith Locke noted during the first reading of this bill, “We see an almost universal revulsion at the treatment by the United States of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, where due process has been very limited. A common concern of the critics has been that the executive branch of Government has been given excessive power to determine whether people or groups are terrorists, with little judicial constraint or due process.” (Hansards, Thursday 29 March 2007)
   5. Requirement for the High Court to consider such extensions is a sensible step in the process. It is recognition of the constitutional importance of the separation of powers in our system of government and an affirmation of New Zealand’s sovereign rights.
   6. Equally, it is not enough to point to the option of judicial review within the current law. This is not as likely to be as effective, because it is not a formal requirement of the process, there may limits on the information available to a judicial review (in terms of classified information) and, possibly being seen as a potential terrorist, a person seeking the review may have had their assets frozen.
4. Financing and Making Property Available to Terrorist Entities
   1. The CTU also believes it is wrong to remove sections 8 (2) and 10 (2) of the current Act and the protection that an offence is not committed where funds are provided and/or property is made available when intending that they be used, or knowing that they are to be used, for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.
   2. Rather than resolving an area of ambiguity, as advocates of the bill have clamed, it places the legitimacy of collecting funds for advocating democratic government and the protection of human rights in doubt.
   3. As this submission has already suggested the definition of terrorism and the designation of terrorist entities are already contested and political rather than clear-cut or administrative acts. In this environment it is counter-productive to assume that there will not be instances when funds and/or property have been made available with entirely legitimate intentions. Such action is not – and should not be – a crime.
5. Participating in a Terrorist Group
   1. The NZCTU also opposes broadening the definition of participation in a terrorist entity. The additional of “or being reckless as to whether” in the test of knowing a group or organisation is a terrorist entity, is unnecessarily punitive.
   2. In this test, the definition of recklessness will be an unknown variable. With heightened public fear about terrorism, there will political pressure to make this threshold artificially low.
   3. Equally, given this submission’s earlier discussion about legitimate protest and resistance, it is important that law in this area is specific about intent. The threat that you could be convicted as a terrorist when you were intending to promote democratic government and human rights is an unacceptable threat in a free and open country like New Zealand.
   4. The experience of individuals who have been detained without trial in the name of combating terrorism – most notably in Guantanamo Bay – show how this kind of expanding definition creates greater opportunity for oppression of individual rights with limited reduction in terrorist activity.
6. Conclusion
   1. The NZCTU opposes the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 2007 for a number of reasons. These include the unnecessary definition of terrorist acts as a crime in their own right, the concentration of power in the Prime Minister in terms of designating terrorist entities, the removal of explicit protection from prosecution for supporting democratic government and human rights, and the excessively broad definition of participation in a terrorist entity.

Read More...

Summary only...

Branch President’s Report, AUS Canterbury Branch AGM, 25 October 2007

Colleagues,

2007 was the “almost year”. This year we almost achieved our wage targets for academics and general staff through the Tripartite process. We almost completed an amalgamation between AUS, ASTE and TIASA. We almost joined hands with the Senior Management Team (SMT) in a Department of Labour-facilitated project under the Partnership Resource Centre programme.


The almost year comes after a decade of declining wages in real terms, and eroding working conditions. All in all, the ‘almost year’ has been a good year for the Association. And on the local level, we have progressed in some areas and not in others.

In some ways, 2007 was not so different from 2006. Unfortunately, we still seem to be struggling with SMT’s contribution margin mechanism for distributing resources around the University. For some, it appears to be a way to concentrate wealth into a surplus which may be spent without much consultation with the university community. As the margin shifts from year to year, new and different units come under financial stress.

The College of Arts seems to have lost that lottery two years in a row and its financial viability was again threatened in 2007. But unlike the Campaign in 2006, this time we were working with a new Governance Group composed of many staff from our ranks, and infused with a desire to consult. The College of Arts was joined by the College of Science in calling for a need to trim its budget and signaling possible redundancies. Members in that College accepted a rationale for review, but considered the most important element of that review to be decisions made at the very top of the management structure. So far, that consultation process has not gone quite as well. In the next few months, members will have to keep a close eye on the College of Science Review.

A legacy of the 2006 College of Arts Campaign was a stronger working relationship between the AUS and the students. We protested side-by-side on the library steps in 2006. The Branch executive has been meeting regularly this year with UCSA president Belinda Bundy. Together, we are breaking the old management tactic of pitting student against staff, with any proposed increase in student fees being blamed on staff demands for fair wages, and any decrease in student fees used to threaten staff with redundancies. UCSA and AUS are forming very similar views on the draft IP policy, too. It has been a joy to work with Belinda and the Branch looks forward to working closely with the next student administration.

The legacy is also a lesson for us as a community of staff. We must continue to work across arbitrary college and unit boundaries. The cost of poor management in one section of the university will be paid by all of us. Do not yield to the divisions that isolate and weaken us as a collective force.

At management’s initiative, the Branch entered into 3-way negotiations to participate in a Department of Labour Partnership Resource Centre programme designed to create a space for unions and management to work toward a common goal, learning more about working together. Hopefully, the project would help us to learn how to avoid any unnecessarily destructive behaviour in our interactions. Talks have been ongoing for about a year. We agreed to work together on staff professional development issues. But only days from the launch of the project, Senior Management withdrew, at least for now. The Department of Labour has not given up on the project, and neither has the Branch, so we have again stated to SMT our willingness to enter the project, provided that they understand we enter as equals.

The year is far from over. We have before us for discussion the draft policies on intellectual property and study leave. Perennial issues dog us, such as the effect of the banding system on general staff.

Following this meeting, there is a staff forum on IP. I encourage you to attend. You will know from the series of meetings, emails and papers on the blog that IP is an issue that affects each and every one of us. Intellectual property can arise from innovation in any work assignment, so this policy has implications for both general and academic staff. It also has profound implications for students.

The AUS position on the draft IP policy is now very clear.

• We believe that staff and students with entrepreneurial interests should have the option to transfer their IP rights to others, including the University, but on terms that are negotiated.
• We believe that anyone who profits through exploitation of IP developed through a contribution from the public purse should be obligated to return a fair proportion of the profits back to the public, via the University in this case.
• All staff and students, whether entrepreneurial or not in their goals, should also have the option to not transfer their rights to anyone. To not have this final option is to remove a fundamental entitlement of academic freedom, and to undermine the effectiveness of the academic as critic and conscience of society. Thus, this policy in our view and the view of our legal team, is contrary to the principles of the Education Act 1989.

Allied with the students, we should be able to move SMT’s position on IP to one that is both fair to inventors and far more effective at achieving financial rewards that might flow from IP. This position would continue to recognise and properly prioritise the public mission of teaching and research above all else while also facilitating select commercial objectives.

While the issues I’ve been recounting involve our employer, some changes to our community are also from within. Nationally, our AUS colleagues have stated a strong preference for amalgamating with our colleagues represented by the unions ASTE and TIASA. ASTE has also made this decision but TIASA voted against amalgamation. Your Conference next month will chart a course for how we proceed from this result. Conference delegates will be looking for your guidance on this issue. We will be holding a meeting on 15 November for members to discuss Conference amongst other issues.

Before I conclude, I’d like to make a few personal comments and observations.

First, I would like to thank all of those who have contributed in so many ways to the work of the AUS at Canterbury over the last year.

I’d like in particular to thank those who have served on the branch committee and are now stepping back: Angela Davies, Jo Diamond, Philip Ferguson, and Karen Morgan.

I thank all those who have agreed to join or continue their involvement in the branch committee.

I’d also like to thank AUS staff who have made our life at the local level so much better – Carol Grant, Marty Braithwaite and especially our organiser Matthew Fitzsimons. This has been a busy year with a constant stream of reviews and, in addition to the usual number of personal cases the organiser works on, many more cases of negotiating severances. We are lucky to have someone of Matthew’s experience, and someone who is such a talented strategist. Matthew has also made tremendous contributions to recruitment both personally and by facilitating the engagement of Kevin Aitken, who has been traveling from branch to branch to meet with potential members. I could not hope for a better organiser and, as Matthew will tell you, I am very much in need of organization. Thank you, Matthew, for work well beyond expectation and at considerable personal sacrifice.

We have all lost valued members of our collective over the year. Regardless of the causes, each and every one was valued and is missed. We wish you all the best in your lives beyond the university, and in some cases, beyond this earth.

Second, I want to say how proud I am to have served this year as the Branch President. The Canterbury campus is the most densely organized branch in the AUS. We are union people and we prove that the union is compatible with the greater interests of society that we serve.

But we have something else. From our ranks we have produced yet another National President – Maureen Montgomery. Also joining the national executive will be Helen Kissell as Library Vice President. Both of these women are dedicated over-achievers and I thank them both for choosing to donate their talents and time to the collective. Please join me in congratulating Maureen Montgomery and Helen Kissell. These two and others not mentioned demonstrate our depth and maturity as a Branch of the AUS.

For my part, I will help our new co-presidents to transit into their roles. I’ll serve out my term through April, and then Aditya Malik and Emma de Lacey will lead the Branch further and faster than I ever could.

Finally, I would like to mention a person who has been a mentor to me, a rock during my time as president, and a steadfast friend of the AUS. When I took up the call late last year, I was hesitant. I wasn’t ready. It wasn’t the right time to take on the job. All the normal insecurities and excuses. Generously, immediate past president David Small agreed to share the transition to make it easier for me. Our co-presidency was a split term, with me in training till April and taking the reigns from then. This generous spirit characterized David’s history as president. He shared the position with Tanya Grant before continuing in the role as president for two more years. He lead the Branch through some of its most tumultuous times: the industrial action of 2005; the College of Arts Campaign and College of Education merger in 2006; over 20 restructuring proposals in 2006; and the contentious amalgamation with ASTE that also began last year.

As you know, David was also a candidate for national president. Both David and Maureen showed us through their campaigns how deeply committed they both are to AUS and their colleagues, how passionate they are to serve. One of the things I hate about this process, though, is that those who do not pick up the national office they seek are lost for the national executive altogether. David vacated his seat as Academic Vice President to run for President. But it would be a tragedy for us to lose David’s energy, brash independence and fortitude on the national level for long. David, I hope that you will have a well deserved rest from the spotlight, but this is not the time to consider retirement! The vote was large and vindicating for both candidates. What you have proved is just how much talent we have at this Branch. You still have much you can achieve through your leadership of AUS in positions still to come. Please join me in thanking David Small.

This has been a good year, not an almost good year. Let’s celebrate what we have achieved together. Remind your colleagues that the collective functions best through unity and participation, so encourage them to come to meetings and be active. Thank you for the support you have shown my office and the Branch, and the very best to you over the summer.

Jack Heinemann

Read More...

Summary only...

Piracy on the UCs

The University of Canterbury has released a new draft policy on intellectual property (IP) which, according to the Association of University Staff (AUS), is a sea change in the way staff and student rights are recognised and which puts the primary mission of the University as a public-good institution at risk.

AUS Canterbury Branch President, Associate Professor Jack Heinemann, says that under the draft policy the University’s senior management is claiming all ideas, concepts, improvements on existing products and all other developments that would normally be patented are now automatically University property.

AUS is concerned that the University could force the commercialisation of IP, or on-sell the rights to parties, even where the creator objected on moral or other grounds. Further, the University could prevent creators from pursuing their own ideas privately or with another employer even after leaving employment with the University. Heinemann believes that “even Blackbeard would be taken aback by this audacious plundering of individual property by the corporate identity of the University.”

Should the University decide an idea is patentable, it can prevent staff from publishing or talking to the media. In the short term, when harm to society and public health may not be provable, Professor Heinemann worries that staff will be under an obligation to put the profit motivations of the University before their obligations to what they might believe is the public good.

Professor Heinemann said that, if any financial proceeds arise from IP that was created wholly or in part with support from public funding, then the staff or student creator(s) should be bound to share the rewards of commercialisation with the University, and should be so bound indefinitely. But this should not entail forfeiture of ownership rights.

Existing policy allows the University to commercialise IP with the consent of the creator(s), and to purchase the IP rights from the creator(s). Existing policy is sufficient to secure a revenue stream from all IP developed using University resources that is commercialised without the need for the University to strip the creator of ownership.

The AUS will be holding meetings for its members and members of other Unions on campus over the weeks of 1 and 8 October, and will be actively coordinating its response with the University of Canterbury Students’ Association.

For further information or comment please contact
Jack Heinemann
jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz

Read More...

Summary only...

Maureen Montgomery as AUS National President

From Mary Cain:

I am delighted that you are standing for the National President, Maureen. I have worked with you on various AUS projects both nationally and locally since the joint AUS-University working party on the pay and conditions of Teaching Assistants (at the time I was a tutor in the English Department). I have always been struck by your professionalism and dedication to improving the working conditions of all university staff.

You have always ensured that the voices of diverse groups on campus have been heard whenever there has been debate or submissions made on behalf of AUS members. One of the things that has particularly stood out for me as a member of the General Staff is that you have never acted in any way that would disadvantage our sector. You have also been a tireless supporter of improving conditions of work for women staff and you were a great and active supporter in our final push to get a woman's officer.

You have always clearly and unequivocally stated your position on issues within the union and though we have at times held opposing opinions, your ability to both take a clear stand and then to act for the benefit of all union members regardless of any final opinion means that I have complete confidence in your ability to steer AUS for the good of the membership.

And though I think that you are wrong on amalgamation: May The Best Woman Win!

You have my vote.

Good luck Maureen!

Mary Cain
Information Services
Law Library

Read More...

Summary only...

From Maureen Montgomery

Members wishing to understand why I support the current amalgamation proposal can find further information at:

http://maureeninfo.blogspot.com

Read More...

Summary only...

Amalgamation Meetings

AUS members will soon be voting on a proposal to amalgamate with the Association of Staff in Tertiary Education (ASTE) and the Tertiary Institutions’ Allied Staff Association (TIASA) to form a single tertiary-education union

6 Sept	10.30am	Avon Lecture Theatre 2	College of Education
6 Sept	12.00 noon	Arts Lecture Theatre A1
6 Sept	1.00pm	Arts Lecture Theatre A1
12 Sept	10.30am	Avon Lecture Theatre 1	College of Education
12 Sept	12.00 noon	Science Lecture Theatre S1
12 Sept	1.00pm	Science Lecture Theatre S1

These meetings have been arranged to give AUS members the opportunity to meet and discuss the amalgamation proposal prior to voting on this important issue AUS members are encouraged to attend one of these meetings

Refreshments will be provided following 1pm meetings on 6 and 12 September

More information can be found on the AUS website

Read More...

Summary only...

Reasons to make a submission on the Electoral Finance Bill by Steven Price

We think the government needs to be urged to tackle the problem of huge donations to political parties routed through secret trusts. We think parties should have to reveal the identities of their big donors. The government originally planned to include this, but dropped it.

You’ve probably also heard about the problems in the bill with its restrictions on third party speech. These are real. However, we think it’s important that the baby doesn’t get thrown out with the bathwater. It is important to put reasonable restrictions on third parties like the Exclusive Brethren with big chequebooks to prevent them using money to unduly influence election results.

Making a submission is as easy as sending a quick email (you can do it through www.cog.org.nz) (though it will be more impressive if it’s done on paper - and addressed to the Justice and Electoral select committee at Parliament. No postage needed.)

I’m happy to answer any questions you might have about this.

Steven Price
Spokesperson, Coalition for Open Government
(Also adjunct lecturer at VUW’s law school)
04 463 6336

COG Newsletter

Read More...

Summary only...

David Small as AUS National President

David Small is ideally suited to become the next AUS national President. He is a long-time active member of the Canterbury branch, serving as Branch President and is currently the National Academic Vice-President. David is feisty, energetic, has a quick grasp of issues and is not afraid to speak out. He has spoken out about PBRF, academic freedom and university managerialism. It was David's morale survey that demonstrated that university managerialism here at Canterbury has undermined staff effectiveness. He can speak equally well to his colleagues, the student body, the VC, the media and to MPs. I have every confidence in David's ability to fulfil the role of AUS National President.

Emma de Lacey, AUS Branch co vice-president

Read More...

Summary only...