Although I was elected by the general staff, my capacity to represent them as a Senator is limited by the University and the Federal Government.
University management has long been of the view that elected members of Senate are there to govern for the whole of the University, rather than for a particular constituency. I was reminded early in my term by Secretary and Registrar, Douglas Porter, that "although, the general staff elected you to membership of Senate, you have been elected ad personam and must act in the interests of the University. You are not there to represent the general staff or any other group."
National Governance Protocols, which the Howard Government has forced universities to follow under threat of reduced funding, state that members have a duty to "act always in the best interests of the higher education provider as a whole, with this obligation to be observed in priority to any duty a member may owe to those electing or appointing him or her".
This doesn't stop me raising issues in Senate that can be seen to be of relevance to the good health of the University - let's not forget that, after students, general staff are the largest group of members of the University community, so if something is impacting substantially on general staff, it could affect how well the University functions. But it does mean that I am limited in the extent to which I can champion, as a Senator, causes affecting pockets of general staff.
There are often more effective means than the Senate, which tends to deal with high-level policy/strategy in favour of operational matters, to advance a cause. Avenues like the Professional Staff Consultative Committee and other committees can be effective. In my experience, being an active member of your union is the best way to bring about change and keep management honest.
