Australia defers crackdown on fixed-term researcher contracts

Australia’s government has postponed a crackdown on the use of fixed-term contracts in the research workforce, amid warnings that “ambiguities” in new legislation could lead to job cuts and brain drain.

Enforcement of fixed-term contract provisions of the “Secure Jobs, Better Pay” Act will be delayed for another six months to allow government officials, research institutions and employee representatives to adapt them to the research sector.

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) said it had consented to “government-mediated discussions” about the “potential impact on fixed-term employees”.

“As part of that process we have agreed to a delay of six months,” said national assistant secretary Gabe Gooding. “The higher education awards are two of 18 that are potentially impacted by the act and we welcome the opportunity to develop a solution to these unintended consequences.”

The provisions, which have already been deferred for a year, were due to apply from 6 December. They are designed to improve worker security by banning fixed-term contracts that last, or can be extended or renewed, for longer than two years.

Jobs financed “in whole or in part by government funding” are exempted from the provisions. Consequently, institutions will not be required to grant permanent employment to staff supported by the Australian Research Council or National Health and Medical Research Council, which allocate funds for up to five years.

But the exemption does not apply to positions funded by industry partners or philanthropic grants. There are also question marks around internally funded research jobs bankrolled from some A$9 billion (£4.7 billion) a year in international students’ tuition fees.

Universities may qualify for a separate exemption that permits longer contracts for staff covered by a “modern award”. But this does not apply to medical research institutes, whose staff are covered by a different award.

Campus resource: How to progress in your academic career

Representative bodies for universities and medical research institutes say the rules undermine the fundamental employment model for research, which is uncertain by nature and typically funded in short-term blocks. They say institutions will be forced to shed researchers rather than convert them to permanent employment and risk being forced to pay huge redundancy settlements – which dwarf those in most industries, reaching the equivalent of 18 months’ salary – when research projects end.

The Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) commended the government for giving the sector more time to resolve these issues.

Executive director Craig Laughton said universities were committed to better job security for their staff, but wanted to avoid the potential perverse consequences of reduced overall employment, increased casualisation and overseas outsourcing of research.

Mr Laughton also acknowledged Canberra’s mandate to take action on fixed-term employment. “The government took this to the electorate and is genuinely trying to deliver on that promise. We understand that.”

Ms Gooding said the legislation’s impact was not limited to researchers. “We are keen to make sure that, where possible, our members benefit from the reforms in the act.

“Irrespective of the outcomes of the discussions about to commence, we have for many years maintained that there are many employees in universities who are employed on ‘soft money’ that is very stable. In our view the universities should already be employing them in secure work.”

In a joint submission with the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes, the AHEIA warns of a “catastrophic impact” on research if the new rules are not changed to eliminate uncertainties and allow for research contracts of up to five years.

“It is crucial to strike a balance between promoting job security and providing flexibility to adapt to the unique challenges faced by our sector,” the submission says.

It adds that the provisions could usher in a new form of workforce inequity whereby employment status is determined by funding source, while the two-year limit – which is not applied on a pro-rata basis – could particularly disadvantage part-time researchers with caring responsibilities.

“This is of particular concern for women,” the joint submission says. “There is already an issue in retaining these talented researchers.”

Already suffering reputational damage from dozens of underpayment scandals, universities also worry about inadvertently breaching the new rules because of their sheer complexity.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com