Skip to content
Curtin University
Note to staff

23 January 2015


TISC 2015 applications

I am very pleased to advise that Curtin has increased its overall market share among WA universities for TISC applications, to remain the destination of choice for WA school leavers.

Despite this year’s half-cohort impacting on applications across all WA universities, our market share was 45 per cent, up from 44 per cent last year.

Curtin, along with the other WA universities, has known about the half cohort for a number of years and we have been planning appropriately to help mitigate the impact.

Of the WA universities, Curtin had the lowest decline in first preferences for the WA Year 12 market. Curtin’s first preference applications totalled 6,138, which was a fall of 23 per cent compared to 2014, reflecting the half-cohort impact.

I would like to congratulate all staff on these results, which reflect Curtin’s focus on mitigating the impact of the half-cohort and also our reputation as a tertiary institution that delivers excellent course offerings and graduate outcomes.

Parking on the Bentley Campus

As all staff will be aware, demand for parking on the Bentley Campus is high. And as advised by the Parking team before the shutdown, the next few months will see parking on the Campus transformed to better utilise our limited parking spaces.

At the end of last year, the Planning and Management Committee approved Curtin’s Transport, Parking and Fees Strategy for 2015-2017. The implementation of the strategy will see a number of changes to the allocation of bays and fee structure from Semester One 2015. The reason for these changes is to ensure the University is moving towards the State Government’s requirements regarding parking to achieve both its green objectives and those relating to sustainable and effective road networks.

The WA Planning Commission (WAPC) has identified that the cost of parking for a ‘Specialist Activity Centre’, which Curtin is classified as, should be equivalent to a two-zone return adult public transport fare. This is currently approximately $8.80 and parking at Curtin will be increased to meet this two-zone return fare over the period 2015-2017.

Parking bays on the Campus will also be capped and no additional bays allowed.

The implementation of the new strategy will enable the University to better utilise our current parking spaces and assist with reducing pressure on the availability of bays and congestion in the surrounding road network as student (and staff) numbers increase and the Greater Curtin Master Plan projects gain momentum.

The University also has an important role to play in reducing the consumption of fossil fuels by engaging in sustainable transport alternatives, and in recent years has introduced many alternatives to car travel such as the free CABS bus, improved public transport links, bike hubs and a car-pooling system.

The University doesn’t use any teaching or research funds to support the parking operations. Any money generated from parking is used to assist Curtin to fund improvements in the availability and service quality of parking and alternative travel options.

Changes from Semester One 2015

Staff permits in 2015

  • All staff parking permits will be virtual (i.e., no sticker) with automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) used for validation
  • Staff permits in all-day areas will be $700 (previously $500)
  • Staff Reserved permits will be $1,400 (previously $1,000)
  • Undercover Staff Reserved permits will be $2,100 (previously $1,500)
  • Corporate Reserved permits will be $2,800 (previously $2,000).

From Semester One, there will be no price differential between tuition and non-tuition weeks for all parking on Campus.


  • The PAYG fee will apply all year-round
  • Staff and students using the pay-as-you-go (PAYG) parking system can now park in any of the Blue, Yellow, Orange or Green Zones
  • Blue PAYG (per hour) will be $3.40/hr (previously $3.00/hr)
  • Orange PAYG (max. 4 hour) parking will be $1.00/hr (previously $0.84/hr)
  • Yellow PAYG (all-day) parking will be $4.00 (previously $3.40)
  • Green PAYG (all-day) parking will be $3.00 (previously $2.65).

Staff Reserved bays

  • The number of reserved staff bays for 2015 will be 240, a reduction of 168. The number of Yellow bays will be increased by 179 to compensate for the decrease in restricted bays.

ACROD bays

  • The number of ACROD bays for 2015 will increase from 61 to 66.

Staff permits will be available for purchase from early February and can be accessed via the Parking website. Staff will receive an email from Parking once permits are available.

Further information on the changes from Semester One, along with the pricing strategy for 2015-2017, can be found on the Parking website.

I recognise that the new fee levels will not be a popular decision, however these are measures we must implement to enable us to meet the State Government’s planning objectives.

  1. Paul Hancock January 23, 2015 3:38pm

    More expensive parking, and fewer parking spaces, are a good start to encouraging a greener campus.

    It would also be great to see more enforcement of the people who love to park on the verges and grassed areas both on campus an in tech park, because they don’t want to pay for parking.

    I hope we can see an increased number of bike pods and stands, and an improvement of the cycling infrastructure to further encourage people to leave the car at home.

    • Mike Burbridge January 27, 2015 9:38am

      What great news – more flexible parking treating all members of the Curtin community more fairly and with respect.

      I am delighted to see a reference in there to fossil fuels. If as a university we strive to make tomorrow better for society (as well as us) then we do need to show leadership and that means we actually need to take the science seriously and show what a low carbon future might look like. I look forward to the debate about, for example, our investments in fossil fuels, and how our oil and gas strategy will help to make tomorrow better and deliver a cut in greenhouse gas emissions for society. The science tells us what we need to do.

      I also look forward to Greater Curtin being a living laboratory, embracing the outputs from our research in order to show all what leadership actually looks like and what high impact teaching and research can deliver.

    • Peter Newman January 29, 2015 4:42pm

      I am supposed to be an expert on transport policy so I should make a comment. I understand the pain associated with this as Bentley is not well served with public transport and Perth’s urban sprawl makes car dependence almost inevitable. But the important thing now is whether we are trying to help solve this problem or continue being part of the problem. Curtin is now paying over a million dollars to help with bus services and the bike pods are a good start for cyclists. I have personally tried to get a new railway to the campus with the Knowledge Arc Light Rail proposal and its still possible if we push the government to fulfil their election promise. The biggest help will be the completion of Greater Curtin with its substantial increase in housing on the campus. In the interim we need to pay more for the privilege of accessing the campus by car as whatever it feels like it doesn’t pay for the provision of a car parking space. All places that want to be a good centre have to make such hard choices as acres more parking will only make us even more car dependent and unattractive as a place to work and to learn.

  2. Kerry Rotumah January 23, 2015 3:43pm

    A bit hard when you live 20 kms away. Didn’t see anything about salary packaging, or payments for those who do not actually have a credit card!! :(

    • Marlene Hare January 28, 2015 8:44am

      I am so disappointed with this hike in parking.$700 a year you have to be joking this is a $200 dollar a year hike. I too live 34 kms away from campus bus and train are not an option for me. I only work 3 days a week, last year I paid the full year option by credit which was for every one regardless of days worked I felt ripped off. Pay as you go wasn’t an option either. I leave home at 6am and get to campus at 6.5o AM to start at 7 AM. If I was to catch bus then train get off Claise brook and catch another train to the appropriate station where I would then catch a bus to campus I will need to leave home at 5 AM. Well I have worked at Curtin for 9 years now and Staff in the past 1 1/2 years are now being put down on the bottom of the list. This University is not going to run on fresh air you need staff with experience but time and time again we are shot in the foot. In a perfect world we would all live around the campus well dream on / not happening. I do my bit I drive a petrol friendly car. We need safe, affordable parking not make it as difficult as possible, expensive and spend our day looking for a parking spot. How about half price parking for those who only work part time.

  3. Jeremy Tan January 23, 2015 3:57pm

    I catch the Curtin Access Bus Service to work when it runs during semesters. But when it doesn’t run during semesters I have to drive and park on Campus. Perhaps now that parking fees are payable all year round, the Curtin Access Bus Service should be operational all year round as well?

    I also agree that an increased number of bike pods (Tech Park included) would encourage people to cycle and leave their cars at home.

  4. Alexandra Stevens January 23, 2015 4:40pm

    Encouraging people to take public transport or cycle is all well and good but what about those of us who have family responsibilities and/or live where taking public transport to get to Curtin takes over an hour one way, 3 times what it takes me to drive in? Public transport is simply not a practical option and neither is cycling, I want to get home safely to my family each day and the lack of care that Perth drivers demonstrate towards cyclists is scary.

  5. 237692e January 23, 2015 4:51pm

    The bit that I really don’t understand is the lack of understanding that staff are here to work and not spend all day finding somewhere to park. The outcome I see is everyone in the carpark as early as possible and the University being bereft of staff by 3pm.

    While I do occasionally use public transport it is not an option most days of the week as I do not drive straight home.

  6. Chris Elders January 23, 2015 5:11pm

    I endorse the comments regarding bike pods (with showers and lockers) as a means of encouraging alternative modes of transport for those for whom it is practical. However, it was very disappointing to see the demolition of the bike pod by the bus station as part of the construction of new building 304 without an alternative being arranged. Other bike pods, particularly the one by building 202, are massively over used, and there is a big problem with people taking lockers (by putting a padlock on them) but not relinquishing them when they leave – so there are many unused locked lockers. The flurry of e-mails from SCC about alternative shower arrangements following the demolition of the 304 bike pod shows how poorly understood the facilities are – may of the facilities shown on the bike users map simply don’t exist!

  7. Robert Durand January 23, 2015 6:21pm

    A pay cut is not a good way to start the year. I can’t help taking this personally.

    Increasing the parking tax reduces my welfare. I’ll continue to drive. I have to. Driving is, sadly, crucial to me fulfilling my role here. My loss is Curtin’s gain. Given the increases, my loss is pretty big.

    Some of my colleagues will choose not to drive. My suspicion is that they too will suffer a reduction in their welfare. They’ll save the Curtin parking tax. They will not be compensated for the down-time involved in alternative transport. They will not be compensated for the loss of flexibility (important in a workplace which aspires to be family friendly).

    If Curtin truly aspires to be a better university, it should be making our lives easier (whether we drive, bus or bike). This isn’t the way.

    • Laura Emery January 23, 2015 9:33pm

      Wow – don’t think I have ever noticed so much feedback on a blog. Guess there are a number of staff feeling they are being given information after a decision rather than being involved with change from the onset. Yes we might be working towards a greener planet but at the cost of staff health and wellbeing.

      Catching public transport really isn’t the answer for everyone. What about the many staff (myself included) who provide research services and work with other agencies including teaching hospitals. Having a vehicle is therefore a requirement for some of us – public transport doesn’t get you to SCGH at 7am (from Canning Vale) or how does one get home on public transport after a meeting runs late (finisjed at 8pm Tuesday just gone) at Subi SJOG?

      I am not alone with drives between sites from early morning to late evenings to ensure smooth running of research projects. As a result we are hit with parking fees at multiple sites. Public transport cuts into the working day between Canning Vale, Curtin, SCGH and SJOG Subiaco.

  8. Katie Smith January 23, 2015 6:54pm

    Is the Curtin Access Bus Service going to be extended in frequency, where it goes, and when it runs? I attempted to catch this when it first started running but the infrequency of its schedule and the fact it does not run for most of the year means I don’t even attempt looking for it any more.

    At least parking spots will be easier to find when students stop coming to attend classes. I predict a lot more students (and academic staff!) will fight to get timetables that mean they only come in once of twice a week, and no one will stay on campus for social or personal study reasons…

  9. Jonathan Paxman January 23, 2015 8:57pm

    Is the “Transport, Parking and Fees Strategy” published and available for staff to examine? To what extent were rank-and-file staff consulted in its drafting? Most university documents are opened to a staff consultation process at the draft stage, but this was not, as far as I can see.

  10. Audrey Brown January 24, 2015 1:14am

    I am a sole parent with 2 young teenage kids who are very active in sports after school. Working full-time and Catching the bus to/from work is not an option for me as I do,not have the luxury of waiting for the bus. Also I need to be able to get to my kids quickly if there is an emergency. One of the reasons that I left a well-paid job in the CBD more than 3 years ago was the cheaper parking which partly makes up for a big reduction in my salary. What I would like to know is why Curtin seems to be the only university in Perth who is ‘implementing’ these measures ‘to enable us to meet the State Government’s planning objectives’. ?? Why are the other universities ignoring the government’s planning objectives? Until the light rail actually happens, this will cause hardship to quite a lot of staff. Since the government’s objectives is in planning, then perhaps Curtin’s objectives should also be in planning? Ie once the government’s objectives are realised, Curtin should then implement these measures? Since last year, there seems to be nothing but ‘bad’ news for staff working at Curtin. There is less staff parking spaces, and further away from campus buildings with a 40% increase in parking fees! A good start to the year ! Just read the comments in Yammer. With all the negative feedback, will the Planning and Management Committee consider reducing the increase to 4% instead of 40% ? If not, will university management allow working from home for staff ? This is actually a ‘greener’ solution. If staff’s comments/feedback are ignored by management, then what is the point of our comments? Also, can the staff parking permit cost be salary packaged ?

  11. Kate Quinn January 24, 2015 6:09am

    I echo the sentiment as per the above. In addition, it concerns me that the majority of yellow parking bays are on the fringe of campus, the closest being the bus port area. What we will see is even more staff coming in early to get those close bays. The rest of us will be parking on the fringes of campus, in the heat, dust and high crime areas (anyone notice how many car windows are smashed in the green parking next to Canning College?).

    So the people who spend the most time on campus, who are likely to leave in the late evening when it’s dark, need to park their cars in the most vulnerable area of campus, for a ridiculously high price. As a woman who often leaves after 6pm, there’s no way I am paying that much to put my safety at risk.

  12. Rima Caccetta January 24, 2015 6:41pm

    My car got broken into late last year during the teaching period and it was not even dark yet! When we have to teach early, we will probably finish early but those of us doing just research or teaching or both need to have the ability to leave later without our cars getting broken into. We may also have work related events and family commitments that necessitate us to have our cars at hand. We all have differing needs. Whilst riding to Curtin may suit some people it may not be an option for others.

  13. Rivka Niesten January 27, 2015 8:39am

    Not everyone lives near Curtin. I tried public transport and lost about 3 hrs a day coming and going to work. By car it is closer to one hour. So, logically enough, in the style of EQUIP, no-one has a say in this and we have a situation where we pay more for less. I am not the only loser with this latest plan. If you are not here by around 8, you will not get parking and will endlessly have to drive around the university looking for somewhere to park. This should be great for productivity. Also if you need to leave the campus for some reason, such as a meeting elsewhere, it is back to circling the university once more. I can see a lot of thought has gone into this plan!!!

  14. Vernon Nase January 27, 2015 8:42am

    This is an outrageous hike of 40% in one hit.

    This seems very much like forcing those of us who spend a lot of time at work to restrict our time here to the minimum. If I was to travel to and from work by public transport it would involve four bus rides and two train rides every day. This would double or treble my time spent in travel and take away from my time spent doing the work I am paid to do in our quest to achieve excellence.

    I am really disappointed that my employer is considering such a move without any real input from the staff themselves.

  15. Dean Probert January 27, 2015 9:03am

    I note that “All staff parking permits will be virtual (i.e., no sticker) with automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) used for validation”. How will this work if i have to bring in a different car for the day???

  16. Lesley Thornton January 27, 2015 9:52am

    EQUIP has taken a large chunk of our staff and we are having to fill the gaps that have been left, ostensibly work harder for the same amount of pay. Now we a being punished again financially by a huge rise in parking fees with no guarantee of a parking spot. I thought a good working relationship was based on give and take….but not all the giving to be on the side of the employee. It is simply not feasible or safe for that matter, for many staff to ride or catch public transport to work.Come on Curtin, your staff are your biggest asset, it’s time to make them feel valued.

  17. Gordon Ingram January 27, 2015 10:15am

    Like a few other people who have commented here, it takes me about one hour in total each day to travel to Curtin by car, and about three hours using public transport (some walking, a bus, the train and another bus). I have to say that Curtin has done some great things to make the campus a more attractive place to be in recent times: the Park’d food vans, 24-hour library access, Markets under the Pines, the outdoor cinema… But now it does something as unfriendly as this change to the parking arrangements. It’s as if the university is almost punishing its staff and students for wanting to be here. While we’re putting in effort to make our face-to-face contact time with students more interactive and more meaningful, this decision seems to work in the opposite direction, raising the barrier to them coming and staying on campus. I would have thought that Curtin, out of concern for the welfare of its staff and students, would want to set its pricing below the WA Planning Commission’s recommendation. I hope that the university management will revise its thinking over parking.

  18. Tracey Rossi January 27, 2015 12:03pm

    I definitely concur with most of my colleagues above, I do not live close to campus, in fact it would also take me well over 1hr to get to campus via public transport (2 buses, 1 train and walking through the city and campus). Curtin must face the fact that the campus is not easily accessible to public transport for most of those who live north of the river. They must also recognise that there are a lot of staff members who do require their vehicles close by, for family reasons, or for those times where you need to go to appointments or work meetings etc. It is hard enough coming back from a work meeting to find parking now – I can only imagine how difficult it will be once this new regime is implemented. I can also see a larger burden on Security, as they will need to provide more escort services to staff members, who are leaving later and are parking 15min or more away from their office. There MUST be a better way than what is being implemented? I also do not think there has been any appropriate consultation with affected staff, and that is extremely unfair, as we may have been able to come up with a compromise whereby most were happy. I do think that it will mean coming in very early before 8am and leaving by 4pm for most full time staff. I wonder if the Planning & Management Committee has looked at restricting staff parking for those who live very close to campus? I think that is what UWA implement i.e. you need to live a certain amount of KM’s away to be eligible? That is just one idea. I suppose the good thing about it is that we are all going to be fitter in the long run with all of this walking!!

  19. Colleen Mortimer January 27, 2015 12:20pm

    An increase in parking of 40% which doesn’t even guarantee you a spot! How has this been calculated? Will we receive a pay rise to compensate?

    This is akin to a tax on working at Curtin.

    We have no alternatives as to where we can park unlike people who work in the city. Most staff travel reasonable distances to get here. Public transport is not an option.

  20. Darren Gibbs January 27, 2015 1:41pm

    Echoing the previous comments, it is very disappointing to see Curtin increasing staff parking fees by a staggering 40%. I have two young children that require being taken to locations (including Curtin Childcare) – impossible to do this on public transport without spending half my day on a bus and train. One of the main drawcards to working at Curtin is the promotion of being a family friendly University. Regretfully decisions such as this only hurt families.

    If staff are now being hit with a huge fee increase that is being paid directly to Curtin taking effect immediately, what immediate alternative options are staff being given in response to ‘Curtin funding improvements in the availability and service quality of parking and alternative travel options’?

    It is clear there are a huge number of areas that need discussion as this can be seen by the thread of responses. Staff have not been consulted with and this ‘hit in the pocket’ decision falls at a time of huge change and already existing low morale. Constructively speaking, this is the sort of thing I will remember when completing the next ‘Your Voice Survey’ and will thus lead to a similar poor response to Senior Executive not listening to staff as shown in the previous surveys.

    This is not the right way to go. I sincerely hope that this decision can be rethought in the best interest of the staff that enables Curtin to operate effectively.

  21. Amanda Lambros January 27, 2015 1:53pm

    As someone who lives 3708 meters from Curtin, I would LOVE the opportunity to take public transport HOWEVER, when you visit the transperth site, the ‘best’ option provided for me is to ‘walk’ for a total of 55 minutes – followed by the option to ‘walk-bus-walk-bus-walk’ for a total of 58 minutes – really…two hours a day on public transport for 3 kms?!? Considering on any given day, if I drive to work, I can get here in less than 5 minutes, I really don’t think that Curtin has consulted transperth whatsoever…or staff members on this occasion. The campus is very poorly accessible by public transport and when we might even consider the option of cycling, we get bikes stolen and for those of us who work long hours (before 8 am and after 6 pm) the safety of staff is not feasible. In addition to this, having two young children who might need my attention in emergency situations or the fact that I have to pick children up from school does not make public transport an option…so much for ‘family friendly’ and ‘flexible’…two things that Curtin has seriously done a backflip on lately. So, let’s decrease the parking spaces, increase the cost of parking and increase the amount of time that staff spend circling all the various carparks to actually find a spot, increase the distance from the carparks to campus and increase the potential theft and break ins to staff vehicles. This also negatively impacts on security members who will be chauffeuring staff to their carparks in the outer boundaries of the campus – really…who was consulted on this move? If anything it seems as though Curtin is no longer attempting to be student and staff focused and this is disheartening after being at this University for so long. Curtin’s values = integrity, respect, courage, excellence, impact – I see this as a blow to each and every one of those values….regardless if you are a staff, student, live close by or further away. I agree with the majority of comments on here by my fellow colleagues. This is disappointing to say the least!

  22. Deborah Terry January 27, 2015 2:08pm

    Thank you for all the feedback and comments posted about changes to parking on the Bentley Campus. We are sensitive to your concerns and will carefully consider the specific points raised and provide further clarification through a Properties, Facilities and Development Communication. Please also refer to the Parking website for further information at:

  23. Margo Gillies January 27, 2015 2:10pm

    Very disappointed in the 40% cost hike, and agree wholeheartedly with all previous comments. One point I am unclear on, and would appreciate an answer: if a staff member has paid $700 and in semester time comes in at approx 9am (bearing in mind that many classes start at 8am), and students will likely have taken all spaces allocated in staff parking. As the $700 parking cost will already have been paid, are staff eligible to then park for free in the PAYG bays? Or would another cost be incurred. I really feel staff are being disadvantaged. Not at all good for staff morale …..

  24. Christopher Ruffler January 27, 2015 2:20pm

    I find it particularly disappointing that staff have been informed of these parking changes without discussion and in the same breath as a message in which we are being praised for our efforts in minimising the impact of the half cohort on enrolments for 2015. The environment in which Curtin staff have been operating in the last couple of years has been anything but ideal – thanks to both external pressures and internal initiatives such as EQUIP demoralising large chunks of our remaining workforce. It seems though that we are being financially punished for our efforts in such trying circumstances. The lack of buy in to the vision of senior management by an increasingly disillusioned workforce was starkly demonstrated in the recent “Your Voice” survey. I fail to see how hitting staff (and students) with a huge hike in the cost of parking or forced usage of a still woefully inefficient Perth public transport system as the only viable alternative to those not willing/able to don lycra and cycle to and from work in 40 degree heat will do anything but exacerbate this situation. I am keen to see whether Curtin presses ahead with what is an already deeply unpopular decision, or makes some real visible changes to its access plan utilising the huge extra revenue this will generate. Demolishing one of the new Cycle Pods for a new building without replacing it is NOT a good start!

  25. Natalie Gasson January 27, 2015 3:08pm

    I am very lucky in that I can accommodate the hike in fees. What I can’t do is catch public transport. According to the PTA’s own website I would be required to walk 3km through bushland (not terrible safe – walking home at 8-8.30pm at night through dark bushland which is when I would get there after a normal work day) and then take THREE transfers. In total approximately 4.5 hours each day. Not sure how I would get my daughter to school in the morning if I need to leave home at 6am to make a 9am class. In fact, not sure how I will have any time with my family at all.

  26. Carly Moir January 27, 2015 4:11pm

    Accessibility of the campus via public transport needs to improved in conjunction with these changes AND safety concerns need to be addressed.

    Perth’s public transport is terrible and full of unsavoury characters. As a woman, I don’t feel safe catching public transport by myself and hate to think I am going to be financially penalised for this. I’ve had a few instances on public transport where I don’t feel safe, one in particular is when I arrived early in the morning and had a man take my book off me and follow me after seeing me reading a book during the bus ride and using it to start a conversation… even after I hinted that I wasn’t interested in chatting to him he followed me to, and inside my office. I don’t want to be exposed to this kind of thing every day, especially when as a full time staff and part-time student I often leave the campus late, anywhere from 8pm-12am.

    Add to that, my 25 minute drive from Inglewood turns into an hour long trip with two train rides, walking and a bus ride. I live 14km away. I’m not excited by these changes.

  27. Sally Vaughan January 27, 2015 4:44pm

    “to Hayman Rd Stand 5 via | 7:12 AM – 8:30 AM
    Travel time:
    78 mins – Total walking: 5244 metres
    I just tried to plan my journey from home to Curtin using public transport… I was advised to walk for just over 5k’s, nil fare, nil transfers available, leaving at 7.12am and arriving at 8.30am ie there is seems there is no public transport.

  28. Andrea Loftus January 27, 2015 4:48pm

    This is a very worrying move by Curtin. The increased fees are not of concern to many; it is more the lack of staff spaces that is of concern as we will be in direct competition with students. It is difficult enough to find a parking spot after 7:30am as is. The aim seems to be to encourage people to use public transport – which we would all be in favour of IF the transport system in Perth were up to it. For myself (even though I live reasonably close to Curtin but cannot cycle in due to health reasons), it would mean a walk of 1 hour 20 minutes each way, or 2 separate bus journeys and a walk equating to 1.5 hours per way (so, 3 hours out of the day). This proposal is just NOT viable with the current public transport system and raises further issues relating to:
    1. Those with family who have to get to childcare before and after work
    2. Those who stay late at work (of which there are many)or engage in sports activities after work, for whom safety getting to and from public transport will be of concern
    This is a very worrying move which threatens the morale and loyalty of staff, especially those who have or are planning families. The requirement to use public transport (as some of us cannot physically cycle/walk) in light of limited staff places will mean little to no time being spent with the family after or before work. Further, there was no consultation with staff which is very disheartening and disappointing.
    Only those with reserved spaces will remain unaffected. Other staff are effectively being penalised for getting to work on (or before, in many instances) time.

    • Chris Ford January 29, 2015 5:06pm

      Completely agree – well stated Andrea.

  29. Stuart McDonald January 28, 2015 7:34am

    According to the 2013 Curtin Annual Report, an income of 3.4 million dollars was derived from Parking Fees, of course, not all generated by Staff Parking. If we were all to turn “Green” and/or “Healthy” as recommended, is it a loss this University can do without? Remembering that “Health” and “Green” appear to be immune from criticism.

    Curtin needs staff and students to park here. It is much the same scenario, where this institution is somewhat reliant on staff performing unpaid overtime.

    Brand Loyalty sometimes has a finite lifespan, usually right up to the “Best Before” date.

  30. Chris Elders January 28, 2015 8:53am

    I think that one problem with this announcement is that it is a very one sided mechanism for addressing the parking issue. Using pricing as a means of trying to modify demand is a clumsy tool – as with increases in petrol price, behaviour remains similar but people just pay more to do the same.

    This policy will only work if:
    a) there is a pricing scheme that discourages those for whom alternative modes of transport are viable (thus freeing up parking spaces for the rest
    b) real incentives for those who can to use alternatives (i.e. better shuttle bus services where there are gaps in public transport, better facilities for cyclists, salary packaging for bicycles, subsidised Transperth cards etc.)
    c) compensation mechanisms for those for whom alternative methods of transport are not available – people may have to accept some of these price hikes, but if they were balanced by some proposals that would help people absorb the costs and address the problems of finding parking spaces at reasonable times of the day (i.e. after 7.30, and or those who have to leave campus to attend meetings elsewhere.

    It is a bit like Higher education or Medicare reform – a well thought through balanced package/policy needs to be presented to win widespread support. Maybe this is all contained in the “Transport, Parking and Fees Strategy for 2015-2017″ – in which case, why not publish it and discuss it before trying to introduce this one-sided measure?

  31. Tony Snow January 28, 2015 12:07pm

    The new parking charges and parking allocations for 2015 appears to be another example of the poor planning, reasoning and communication behind many of Curtin’s recent decisions. It would appear that there is:
    1 no real public available parking strategy for Curtin.
    2 no discussion with stakeholders, staff and students, regarding parking policy.
    3 no discussion or meaningful justification for large price increases apart from a WAPC recommendation.
    4 no recognition that the lack of adequate dedicated staff parking will place impossible stress on staff trying to arrive at work on time.
    5 no recognition that Curtin is not an important transport node and so public transport to Curtin will always involve a number of lengthy stages
    6 no recognition that public transport availability outside of peak hours, especially late at night, is difficult.
    7 no recognition that parking fee increases will affect only the staff and Students who can least afford it and will not modify in any way the behavior of the more wealthy members of our community.
    8 no recognition of the security issues associated with long term parking placed at the periphery of the campus.
    9 no recognition of the inherent dangers associated with cycling to work on the current road system.
    10 no recognition of the distances that many of our staff and students are forced to travel to reach our campus.
    11 no recognition that most staff have other family commitments that require the use of a vehicle to meet them.
    12 no recognition that many staff require a vehicle to meet many of their work commitments off campus during a working day.
    13 no explanation of how all the extra parking fees are or will be used in the future. Certainly the very brief current Curtin parking policy requires all money to be either used for meeting the cost of providing parking or to support other initiatives to reduce vehicle access to Curtin.
    14 no recognition of how important safe, affordable and adequate parking has on staff satisfaction and productivity.

    The only justification being used by Curtin Management for its current policy is the success of steep parking fees increases in modifying people’s behavior in the use of a vehicle. What they seem to have missed is that this is generally a successful strategy for city centers or important transport nodes. Curtin unfortunately is not located within easy walking distance of the CBD and is not an important transport node. This means that a quick fix solution to Parking on this campus is not available and so requires the engagement of both staff and students to find equitable ways to solve our parking problem. After all we are University that prides itself in making a difference!

  32. Sian Flynne January 28, 2015 12:39pm

    • I can accept the need for the cost increase.
    • The lack of dedicated staff parking areas (except for reserved parking areas) is completely unacceptable. This will severely disadvantage staff members who need to come to work after 8 (because of dropping kids at school), and who need to leave and return to work during the day to attend meetings or for family responsibilities etc.
    • The lack of two or three visitor parking bays next to buildings is unacceptable. Visitors should be able to expect to park near the building they are visiting.
    • Moving staff parking areas further away from buildings is concerning from a health and safety perspective. Staff at times will be carrying heavy loads (exam papers etc). Furthermore, given the history of attempted assaults on staff and students over recent years, we surely do not want staff members walking a fair distance, especially after evening classes, to get to their cars. If the response to this is that security staff will escort staff, will there be enough security staff to do this?
    • Suggested possible solutions/measures to accommodate having dedicated staff and visitor parking areas nearer to buildings :
    o Do not allow staff and students who live within a designated radius of campus – say 10 km – to park on campus. These individuals can either walk, cycle or catch public transport.
    o As per UWA, do not allow 1st year students to park on campus.
    o Liaise with the relevant authorities to introduce dedicated and regular (every 5 mins) buses going from Canning Bridge station direct to campus and back. This will encourage more people to travel by train.
    o Liaise with the relevant authorities to improve and expand public transport to and from campus.
    o Change some existing car parks to multi-storey car parks, thereby providing extra bays.
    o Liaise with the relevant authorities to allow parking on the side of the campus perimeter roads (assuming this is possible).
    o Liaise with the relevant authorities to have parking areas in Tech Park and regular buses shuttling to and from campus.

  33. Sheela Krnjajic January 28, 2015 1:25pm

    Come on Curtin! Be fair and start looking after your most precious asset – your staff!!!

    I get that we need to pay for parking but this is a poorly thought out idea! You have not considered the various groups of people that work here ie those who live too far and their only option is to drive, parents who are responsible for childcare and school drop-offs, staff who do shift-work (and have to start later with no guarantee of parking)etc.

    Curtin staff have already had a bad couple of years with EQUIP and other disheartening decisions impacting on them. Surely this could have been handled better. Give us a break and start looking after your most precious asset!!

  34. Sharyn Curran January 28, 2015 2:15pm

    I heartily agree with my colleagues comments and the impact on staff.
    Can I also ask staff to have a look at the planned fees for the next years as shown on the Properties page. There is another similar hike planned for 2016 and in 2017 staff are to be PAYG. As a staff member classified as TF ( and for those professional staff) who are required to be on campus M-F, at the current rate this would be an annual fee of $1456 (not excluding holidays).
    An adequate justification, I can’t think of any.

  35. 167583e January 28, 2015 2:18pm

    I have a salary packaged car, and at the time when I got my first car in 2002, I was told that as the car was part of the Curtin fleet, it had to be on campus to be used for work purposes like meetings, etc, by any Curtin staff. Can HR confirm whether this regulation still applies?

    Based on this regulation, however, I would always have to purchase a parking permit, whatever the price is. I have no choice. And there is no guarantee of a parking spot, particularly if I arrive after 9am.

    Library staff like me do not always work business hours. As we are not allowed to work more than 10 hours a day, we will have to arrive at work late to meet our late work commitments. This in turn means driving round and round to find a parking spot, which invariably is in the outer reaches of campus. Then, after the late work commitment concludes, we then have to get to our vehicles, wherever they are, to drive home. It is not always viable for Security to escort us, they have other duties as well.

    Staff with family responsibilities (children, elderly relatives etc) or who are close to being elite athletes are in a particularly invidious situation. School drop offs, sports training, visits to hospitals or other residential facilities – being able to fulfil these obligations are important in the work/life balance. Having to use public transport to and from work makes some of these responsibilities difficult, and others just plain impossible.

    I do not know who or what committee worked through discussions to come up with this policy. I do know, however, that staff (and students) were not consulted. If staff and students, through their representatives, had been consulted from the very beginning, you could well have gotten the same points in the posts above, but without the anger that I read into the posts.

    And finally, in the immortal words of John McEnroe, “You can-NOT be serious!!” If you had no idea what this was doing to staff morale, you know now. Curtin’s core values???

  36. Deborah Terry January 28, 2015 5:29pm

    Thank you, once again, for all your comments and suggestions in relation to parking. I do understand your concerns and appreciate all of the feedback – it is very helpful. A more detailed response to the specific issues and questions that have been raised will be provided by Ian Callahan (VP, Corporate Services) tomorrow.

  37. Andrew Crowe January 28, 2015 6:34pm

    From a purely financial view, at $4 a day (as long as you have a smart phone with a data plan – not sure if wifi works out in the sticks), then the 225 week days (Mon-Fri) we are supposed to be on Campus (4 weeks leave + 2 weeks over christmas + extra 5 days – Anzac, easter, Australia day), then PAYG = $900 in yellow bays. Thus, $700 ticket is approx 22% saving over just turning up. Questionable whether this is a valid saving when PAYG parking only pays when a car park is found, while paying in advance means you are paying without even knowing you have a bay to park in. If you do decide to try the alternative 1 day a week (public trans or cycling) because the weather permits it and you’re not committed to rushing to and fro in middle of the day, or don’t have post grad classes to teach at night (as well as the undergrads during the day – so you can’t just turn up after 4.30pm), then you can knock off another 45 days, making it $720 you would have spent on parking via CellOPark versus the $700 you actually spend in advance. For the $950 to be realistic in the following year PAYG parking will I guess jump to $6 a day. Certainly for anyone on sessional contracts or part time – complete waste of time paying in advance – you all might as well pay like the students and have it cost $4 a day. Given that the exclusivity of the “Staff” park will be taken away [and I feel this is the biggest issue of all], I think 45,000 students now just realised they have more places to park on campus without getting a fine. Hence, for all of us paying in advance without that exclusivity – we may feel $700 was wasted paying in advance. At least for those that choose PAYG who drive around and can’t find a spot – you may decide a local suburban street will do – not that much further to walk, and you never had to pay anything. The more expensive the parking gets – the more the residents around campus won’t be impressed with all the extra cars filling their streets either.

  38. Paul Griffin January 28, 2015 9:28pm

    Apart from the base insult this proposal is to staff at Curtin, being yet another indication of the apparent disdain that senior management has for it staff, this proposal will encourage academics to show up at Curtin only on those days they have classes and then only during those hours that they have classes. This could have significant consequences to Curtin, both in the collegiality of its staff and, possibly more importantly, in the availability of academic staff to students and the benefits to learning and research which emanate from that contact.

    This has been a brutal and narrow answer to what may be a real problem or what may be only perceived to be a problem. It has been an answer to which inadequate breadth of thought has been applied, and thus is exceptionally disappointing and will, ultimately, serve little purpose but that of further alienating staff. Your staff are in fact and action the University’s primary assets, but we have been treated already, through the academic Reshape and the EQUIP processes, as little more than inconvenient units of work similarly to our students being treated as little more than units of income.

  39. Anita Lethlean January 29, 2015 8:36am

    I catch Public Transport every day and I sympathise with anyone who lives more than 10 kilometres from Curtin. It takes me a train and a bus trip to travel 6 k and takes me at best 45 mins from leaving my home to when I walk in the door at work, a journey that takes 15 mins max by car. I reiterate, AT BEST, most days this is not the case. Is TransPerth going to be able to cope with all this extra patronage.

  40. Keith Gregg January 29, 2015 10:12am

    For those living close to campus, public transport may become a preferable option over paying inflated parking costs. But with a home 15 km from the campus, requiring two bus trips and a train trip (or three bus trips) to get to the campus the idea is less than inviting.
    The cost of public transport may be equal to, or below the cost of parking; but using that as justification for these changes ignores the time added to one’s working day. According to Transwest this is between 1h:10m and 1h:30m each way from my home: up to 3h altogether, not counting the walk before and after. The return drive is 1h:20 on a bad day. Add to this the reduced number of all-day parking spaces set aside for staff and the often stated desire of Curtin to enable staff to work more efficiently and effectively appears disingenuous.

  41. Keith Gregg January 29, 2015 11:04am

    Just wanted to add: with the encouragement for staff to use cycling as a solution to the parking problem, I would draw attention to the statistics on injuries and deaths of cyclists in Australia each year that are reported to police:
    These data, in conjunction with studies from various parts of Australia that showed non-fatal cycling accidents requiring hospital treatment were under-reported by a very high percentage, should be made known to the university staff and students who are being encouraged to use bicycles instead of cars.

  42. Keith Gregg January 29, 2015 11:49am

    Sadly, VC, Ian Callahan’s response is unlikely to satisfy this growing list of respondants’ questions. It’s pretty clear that there are no simple answers to most of them, short of reversing this very strange and apparently poorly thought through plan. None of us expect that to happen because vehement staff comments on a variety of management initiatives in the past have not led to remedial action.
    Curtin staff have become accustomed to their concerns being noted, in principle, and ignored in action.
    If Curtin, as it professes, wishes to attract and retain good staff by providing positive, staff friendly and productive working conditions, the response of staff to such serious changes needs to be genuinely considered as a part of planning for the future. This is a shining example of a change that will make many staff less comfortable in their jobs and could compromise the retention of the best staff, who generally have the best opportunities to work elsewhere.

  43. Kerry Fowler January 29, 2015 3:07pm

    The hike in parking fees is disappointing, and the push for more staff to take public transport or ride their bicycle to work may work with a small percentage of staff. Not a lot of thought has gone into the staff who are parents of children who need accompanied transport to kindy, day-care or school. Not a lot of thought has gone into the staff who live two busses and a train away from campus. for me it would mean walking two blocks to the bus stop to catch the bus to the train station. A ride to canning bridge on the train, to get another bus to work. goodbye 1.5 hours if I am lucky.. this means 6 separate trips in 1 day. Riding a bike is not an option for me either, its too far and would be like riding a marathon each day (near Cockburn Central). Consultation with staff would have highlighted these important issues.
    I agree with a previous comment, multi story parking would be a solution. Also people don’t love to park on the grass verge, most of the time they park there because they have spent 15 minutes driving around campus in despair looking for a legal spot to park to no avail.

  44. Guy Charlton January 29, 2015 4:11pm

    I think this policy is most unfair and arbitrary. It discriminates against individuals who live a long distance from work and those who have children who must drop them off at school or day care. It creates disincentives for staff to be at the office and I dare say it will do little to encourage public transit use. Perhaps the additional monies raised could be used to subsidise smart cards for staff. Was this discussed?

    Moreover I have spent some time looking for where this $8.80 figure determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission and I have not been able to secure this information. I would like to see the basis for the figure and the report in which it was included. Perhaps the report on specialised activity centre from which the parking fees were determined be put before staff to enable them to see the planning and costing justification for the fee increase.

    • Jonathan Paxman January 29, 2015 8:50pm

      $8.80 is the two-zone return fare. One might also argue that if parity with public transport is the goal, that the Smartrider 25% discounted fare ($6.60) would be a more valid benchmark.

  45. Chris Ford January 29, 2015 4:54pm

    I’m far less worried about the cost increase than the fact that there is no differentiation between staff and students.

    What happened to Curtin as a family friendly workplace? Doing school dropoffs is no longer possible under the proposed parking conditions, because getting parking bays available to students are virtually always full by 8am during semester.

    Even leaving aside the need for a vehicle for the the times I do the school run, call me a normal person but cycling 35km each way doesn’t seem like an option. Public transport – add around 1.5 hours per day to my transit time. Is that meant to be extra time away from family or less time worked at Curtin?

    If a student misses a class because they can’t get a parking spot, one person is affected. If a lecturer misses, potentially hundreds of people are affected. This really does not seem to have been thought through very well.

  46. Chris Ford January 29, 2015 5:32pm

    Just read the respoonse from Ian Callahan – largely as expected. The concerns regarding the lack of differentiation between staff and students went completely unmentioned as far as I can see. It looks like Curtin will no longer be a family friendly workplace.

  47. Bobbie Oliver January 30, 2015 9:48am

    When I came to Curtin as a Post Doctoral Fellow in 1997 my salary was about $47,000 per annum and parking was, if I recall correctly, around $100 for an annual yellow permit. In 2015 parking is $700 – a rise of 700%. If my salary had gone up by 700% I would now be earning $329,659, instead of $145,839. Its ironic that the University management can justify this after it did its level best to refuse its staff a 4% salary rise and then proceeded to use this ‘expense’ as an excuse for the mass sackings (pardon me, ‘redundancies’) that have occurred on this campus over the past year. May I suggest that anyone who cannot find a parking spot in their designated yellow or green zone and who gets fined for parking in the ‘wrong’ area send their fine to Ian Callahan and he can pay it.

    • Andrew Crowe January 30, 2015 11:34am

      when I first arrived in 1999, yellow was only $50, with restricted Orange bays for those that showed they went off campus often about double at $100. Thus, yellow was very cheap at that time.

  48. Cara Kreck January 30, 2015 2:15pm

    While staff are understandably upset and vocal, I feel like someone should mention the impact on students. Historically students have had significantly lower parking fees than staff, which makes sense as they often have very little income. However, this year the $700 staff permit is actually cheaper than paying the minimum $3/day, 5 days/week over 47 weeks. Although undergrads may only attend about 24 weeks of the year, HDR students are here almost all year round. If the rate were to eventually increase to $8.80 per day as suggested, HDR students (along with staff) would end up paying over $2K (~7% of a domestic scholarship or ~10% of an international scholarship) per year!

    I have heard teaching staff complain about how much time undergraduates (and postgraduates without scholarships) spend in paid work nowadays, and the impact this has on their studies. Charging students the same fees as staff will only exacerbate this problem. If the goal is to charge students the same amount as a 2 zone bus ticket, shouldn’t it be at the $3.40 concession rate they are be entitled to? Otherwise this is unfairly discriminating against disadvantaged students who cannot rely on public transport for the myriad of reasons already mentioned above.

  49. 167583e January 30, 2015 2:54pm

    Mr Callahan’s reply very much reflects ‘the party line’. No understanding of the need for designated staff parking, we -have- to be here, because the work we do is instrumental in ensuring that the university maintains its reputation as the university of first choice among school leavers. Only a cursory offer to travel by bus and give up a Reserved parking lot for one other person, but will this be done day in, day out, all year, in the depths of a wet winter or the height of a heatwave in summer? No understanding that some of us cannot afford to pay $700 this year and more next year (and whatever the methods, pay it we must), but a 4% (say) increase could be budgeted for.

    Paul Griffin was quite correct when he said this highlighted the ‘apparent disdain that senior management has for its staff’. In hindsight, senior management should have initiated discussions with staff and students, through their representatives, BEFORE this policy was announced. But no, we are presented with a de facto plan, and an email that in effect lays the blame squarely on the WA Planning Commission. No discussions with staff or students, however belated. Only cursory recognition that staff will be inconvenienced but no real understanding of the impact of that inconvenience – financially, in terms of work/life balance and family time, in terms of health, both mental and physical.

    In conclusion, if we are talking about the cost of parking on this campus, it was $40 when I first came to work at WAIT. Not that the cost should never rise, but it is the latest percentage increase, with the prospect of a larger increase to come, that is the shock to all of us. I don’t expect anything to change because as one of my colleagues has so eloquently put it, we are used to having our opinion considered in principle but not acted on in practice. Please don’t treat your biggest asset like mushrooms.

  50. Peter Fearns January 30, 2015 2:57pm

    I quote from the Curtin Parking and Access Strategy, “The most generally acceptable way of getting us to think differently about driving is to set the cost of all day parking to be no less than a two-zone return public transport fare. That way it will, in most instances, be cheaper to come to Curtin by public transport than by private vehicle.” Based on the responses above, I am not sure that this is turning out to be “the most generally acceptable way of getting us to think”.
    So it says that the aim is to get us to think differently about parking. How about providing some facts and figures, some hard evidence, an analysis of the costs and benefits. Who came up with the notion that Curtin workers should pay equivalent to a 2-zone fare? A figure plucked out of the air by someone at the WAPC? The whole argument, the whole justification, is based on comparing the $ cost of a bus fare to the $ cost of parking . Why not factor in vehicle running costs, road maintenance, carbon/pollution, quality of life, insurance costs, impacts on health, and time. What is our time worth?

  51. George Curry January 31, 2015 12:13pm

    Many of the comments rightly stress the regressive nature of these significantly increased imposts for parking. It discriminates against lower income Curtin employees, those with young families, those staff faced with increased security risks because they have to walk at night to their cars parked in fringe areas of the campus and staff whose commuting times will be lengthened considerably by using public transport. The pricing mechanism is a very blunt instrument.
    Part of the problem is that the strategy has been devised as a single issue: how do we reduce car usage on campus now and into the future? The solutions sought have all been focused on transport: increased charges for parking, more public transport, light rail, subsidies for public transport, increased use of bicycles, free parking for motorcycles, etc. This narrow perspective does not consider the broader context of the changing work environment and therefore did not consider other options like increased opportunities for telecommuting that might have led to the same desired outcome of fewer cars on campus as well, of course, as reduced infrastructural costs for Curtin and an improved working conditions for staff.
    Here are some thoughts on telecommuting:
    Telecommunication capacity is well developed at Curtin. Many staff have well-equipped home offices with fast broadband connections. Much academic work such as research writing requires uninterrupted periods of quiet time (the need for this will become more pressing with the adoption of open plan offices). Many administrative jobs which are fairly standardised and routine could be carried out from home efficiently without disengagement from colleagues or line managers. For example, telephone calls to a staff member’s Curtin number could be re-routed to a ‘Curtin home number’. Staff working from home would also be able to interact with their colleagues and line managers through Skype (did Equip assess the degree to which particular jobs could be carried out from a home office? If not, this is major oversight).
    Not all staff would desire to work from home and not all work roles could be carried out from a home office either. However, it is likely that a significant proportion of current work roles could be carried out from home though of course staff taking this option would need regular face-to-face interaction with colleagues, apart from through Skype. If a staff member were able to work 2-3 days a week from home, the pressure on parking and a host of other Curtin resources would be significantly reduced and the need to increase parking fees to deter car usage would of course also be reduced.

  52. 167583e February 2, 2015 9:54am

    At the top of this post, I am told that there are 58 comments in reply. But I only see one comment here. Is it just me or is there somewhere else to look for the other comments? Have they been archived? Where?

    • 167583e February 2, 2015 11:40am

      Thank you for restoring the comments for this blog post.

  53. Audrey Brown February 2, 2015 10:01am

    I totally agree with the above comments. I am also willing to work 2 days a week from home – pay for my own internet usage, phone calls, electricity, air-conditioning, etc. In the past when I have to work from home (due to sickness of dependent child, etc), I find that I usually work more hours for the day than I normally do as I start work at the time I would normally leave the house in my car and I work past the time I normally leave the office at Curtin.

  54. Martin Smales February 2, 2015 10:01pm

    To reduce the need for travel, I’m also willing to pay additional costs (or accept a lower pay) if I have a telework arrangement. Yes, you’ve read that right – I’m willing to accept a lower pay! (and I can free up my parking spot for someone else)

    For how to reduce the need for travel, please see this brochure from WA’s Department of Transport and the Department of Environment and Conservation:

  55. Audrey Brown February 3, 2015 8:59am

    By the way in 2 years time 2017, ALL parking will be PAYG, so you might as well get used to it. First come, first serve. BTW, I disagree with Peter Newman’s comment ‘All ….. more parking will only make us even more car dependent and unattractive as a place to work and to learn.’. Due to my circumstances with dependent children, I find availability of car parking (3 years ago) made the workplace ATTRACTIVE as a place to work – one reason why I left a well-paid job in the CBD to work at Curtin and took a substantial paycut, which after 3 years still haven’t caught up to where I was 3 years ago. But it is not about money – I HAVE to work to provide for my children and to be there for them when needed.

  56. Steven Lim February 3, 2015 9:58am

    Reposted from Yammer:

    I think the policy in concept is good..hey..look after the environment and green, green, green..all great!
    What it doesn’t do take into account that not everyone just wakes up in the morning and drives to work, then heads home at the end of the day.

    Some of us lead busy and complex lifes outside of work and do not fit a standard mold. This is not to say that the others don’t have a’s just saying that for some, the policy change and future direction will have a huge impact on our personal life outside of work.

    Everyone has a family, be it children, parents, siblings, traditional or blended. At a minimum this change takes an hour away from time with your family..for some that’s doubled or tripled.

    The policy does not take into account the for some, public transport, although viable, means that a substantial number of people will no longer get time with their families in the morning because they have to leave so early to get to work. For those with young families, this can also impact their evenings as some kids go to bed early.

    If the changes are going to be made then a broader plan should have been developed to support the change or at the least, some more flexible options to assist those who are greatly affected.

    You can’t throw a grenade, without providing some protection, and expect everyone to survive.

    I love working at Curtin, work-life balance has been a major factor in a lot of people being here for so long. I’m sorry but I think the organisation has become a heartless beast that no longer exists as a community of people working together for a single cause …it just become somewhere to work, earn your money and go home…and that’s sad.

    A lot of people have traditionally put in a lot of additional effort to see Curtin succeed and excel..that culture is slowly but surely dying or dead!. The amount of discretionary effort has surely been impacted because people have lost that sense of engagement and investment in their job. People have been de-motivated!. Lower engagement > Reduced motivation and focus > Higher absenteesim > Lower productivity

    This is not a few people having a’s people who love Curtin, coming to work and making a difference. I think we’ve lost our way Curtin!

    Maybe think outside the box, there’s more than one way to implement a change! There’s a lot of smart people here..right under your nose!

  57. Christopher Ruffler February 5, 2015 1:57pm

    I posed this question on Yammer but have yet to have a response, and it was not mentioned in either of the official press releases from senior management.

    Can someone provide insight to the decision to abolish the availability of free parking out of semester from both staff and students? One of the main driving forces behind the whole parking policy change appears to be – and I quote this very blog here – to “assist with reducing pressure on the availability of bays and congestion in the surrounding road network”.

    However, as we can all see by walking (or driving) around campus right now, and I found in a relatively stress free drive to work this morning – neither parking availability nor congestion seems to be an issue outside of semester.

    The same cannot be said about public transport as the frequency of the 100/101 buses is reduced during these periods, and the CABS bus doesn’t run at all?

    • Helen Verhoeff February 6, 2015 5:18pm

      Walking past quite literally hundreds of empty car parking bays will also be very hard to swallow in the middle of the worst of summer and winter weather during semester breaks.

      The new yellow carpark B3 at the very edge of the Bentley campus on Hayman Road has had a big lake in the middle of it all week as a result of the rain. Hope this is going to be addressed, as a relatively large number of bays would have meant wading through water to get out of / into your car.

  58. Maggie McAlinden February 9, 2015 12:20pm

    I fully support the use of public transport and reduction in car use for environmental reasons, but agree that some people have no choice but to use private transport to get to uni.

    Curtin needs an approach that reflects the value of integrity, in particular, fairness. This means working towards an equitable solution. Equity means reducing the barriers that some people face which disadvantages them.

    A possible solution to the issue is to have a set of criteria that people must meet to get a parking permit. The criteria could include: access to public transport, family responsibilities and distance from campus.

    I would also like the uni to consider making all permits the same price or for permits to be means tested. Failing that, those who have financial hardship should be able to apply for discounts.

  59. Kevin Ferguson February 9, 2015 5:12pm

    I have just returned to work today (9th Feb) having being away since December 2014 and have returned to a great many discussions pertaining to parking and the changes that are currently being presented. I subsequently spent my first lunch at work for 2015 reading the various comments on what can and can’t be done in accordance to the new parking proposals, during which I have also read the statement released on 29th January from Ian Callaghan (Snippet 1 below) that states that Parking Permits can be salary sacrificed as per previous years, and that PAYG may also become an option to salary sacrifice.

    ********************* Snippet 1 ***************************
    Ian Callahan
    Vice President, Corporate

    Vice President Corporate Services Ian Callahan comments on the changes to parking at Curtin.

    • Salary Packaging
    Salary packaging of Permits remains unchanged. Investigation is being undertaken to also make salary packaging of PAYG available. This matter is unresolved at this time.


    However, I have spoken with Paywise today to enquire about salary sacrifice options and was informed that the salary packaging of Parking Permits for Bentley Campus was not an available option, and that only adhoc (PAYG) parking was an option (see Snippet 2 below from the Paywise website).

    ************************ Snippet 2 ***********************

    The following benefits can be organised directly with the external provider (Paywise) on 1300 132 532 or email at

    Parking (Ad Hoc)


    There seems to be a level of confusion over the communication of these options which will again impact on staff members making an educated and calculated decision on what is economically best for them to get to/from place of work.

    What is the correct answer in regards to this contradictory information?

  60. Mandy Monks February 12, 2015 9:14am

    I am one of the staff that have embrassed travel to work by public transport because I am lucky enough to live in an area that is well serviced by TransPerth, BUT….. Public Holidays make it extremley difficult to get to Curtin. I have just done my plan my journey for the first day of semester (a public holiday). I would like to be at work a little early to support staff teaching on day 1. I entered into journey planner my journey starting point my journey end point and the time I would like to arrive 8:00am. There are no results found. I changed my search criteria to leave by 6:00am and yes I can find a trip to Curtin to arrive at 8:40am FORTY minutes LATE!!!! My question is how do I and all the students encouraged to take public transport arrive on capmus before 8:00am to start work/classess taking Public Transport on a Public Holiday?

Leave a Reply

You are welcome to leave a comment which will be visible to all visitors to this site.
Please log in to post a comment.