Bills

Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:36): Prior to the adjournment, I was commenting that there is tension between our desire to ensure that the institutions that Adelaide and Flinders universities represent maintain the levels of representation they have had historically, while on the other hand wanting them to run as efficiently and effectively as possible. Obviously, as our universities are amongst our state's most significant employers, the decisions they make will have wide-reaching consequences, and we want their governance to be as strong as possible. If the changes sought by the university administrations are seen to improve those administrations and the impact those universities have on our state, that is the other side of the equation.

I note that the minister, in her second reading speech, made a couple of points in addition to those I made before the break. I will quote one very small section of her speech in which she identified these changes will be, and I quote:

...consistent with Universities Australia's Voluntary Code of Best Practice for the Governance of Australian Universities. Importantly, this will be achieved while broadly maintaining the existing proportions of staff, student and appointed independent members on university councils.

Extending the tenure of student representatives will similarly improve corporate governance by providing additional professional development opportunities.

Extending the tenure of those student representatives from one year would clearly have that outcome.

There has been a level of opposition to this aspect of the bill. It is something that a number of members have thought long and hard about and have met with a number of people about. The Leader of the Opposition and I, even prior to the bill's introduction to the house, met with representatives from the National Tertiary Education Union from both Adelaide and Flinders universities to discuss their points of view. I think it is important that, given the tension that exists between the two sides of the debate, that side of the argument be registered on the parliamentary record.

A number of members of parliament were also contacted by constituents whose correspondence was broadly similar. I will not say that it is just a form letter because I noted people putting some of their personal reflections in addition to the standard words. For the record, I will read one of the pieces of correspondence I received to give the house an idea of the alternative point of view. It states:

Dear [member for Morialta],

I am writing to you because I have become aware that the government is currently considering changes to the University of Adelaide Act. You will soon be presented with these changes in the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill 2016.

As a student and casual staff member at the University and a resident of your electorate I am seriously concerned about the content of these changes, and the secret process the University and Government have used to rush these changes through. I have contacted [the minister] and received inadequate response to date.

This Bill seeks to reduce the number of elected staff and student representatives on University Council—yet staff and students at the University have not been consulted over the changes, or, in fact even notified of them. This is most likely because the University knows that staff and students do and will oppose these changes.

For these reasons I ask that you vote against this bill when it enters the parliament.

We received some correspondence from some staff members, at least one student and the union. It is probably the union's correspondence that will take the bulk of the remainder of the time that I will share with the house this afternoon because I think it is fair that their points of view be presented.

I propose to read a piece of correspondence from the National Tertiary Education Union, dated 8 November 2016 and signed by Felix Patrikeeff, President of the NTEU, University of Adelaide Branch (and, I remember from my own distant past, a fine lecturer) and Andrew Miller, President of the NTEU, Flinders University Branch. They write to me as the member for Morialta regarding changes to the Flinders University and University of Adelaide acts. The letter states:

It is anticipated the Parliament will soon be presented with Bills to amend the Flinders University and University of Adelaide Acts. The primary objective of these Bills is to reduce the number of elected (staff and student) members on the Flinders University and University of Adelaide Councils. We ask that you oppose these changes.

The process with regard to this matter has been floored from start to finish. At Flinders University, the proposed changes went to Parliamentary Counsel without any staff or student consultation. It was only after written insistence from [the minister] that the University engaged in 'consultation'—the outcome of which revealed resounding opposition from staff and students to the reduction of elected positions on University Council. The changes proceeded regardless.

Consultation at the University of Adelaide has been non-existent, and in fact, the Chancellor Kevin Scarce, who requested the government make these changes, has not even announced the plan to University staff or students.

I skip forward to the next relevant part:

The [NTEU] is not a politically aligned union. As a result we pay attention to the positions that all MPs and parties take on issues that are important to our members and our sector with a view to working strategically with those that support higher education workers.

The preservation of current representation levels in South Australian universities is vital to the health of the university's themselves and the public more broadly. The peak university governance body is its council. To fulfil its responsibilities, a university council needs to be widely informed of the operations of the university. This includes having knowledge of and direct access to the perspectives of its stakeholders. Such knowledge is vital to the effective governance of complex public institutions like universities. It is staff and students who provide on-the-ground wisdom and the diversity of voices to university councils. Further, the removal of elected (rather than management appointment) councillors further reduces public accountability of a public, but highly autonomous, institution. Without accountability to the public, autonomous (yet publically funded universities) will be free to adopt policies that may not be in the interests of South Australia and families.

We urge you to block the passage of any changes to the University Acts that reduce staff and student presence on the two councils. The relevant changes may seem small but the consequences will be significant.

And so on. Then there is the correspondence they sent to Flinders University, which is largely of a similar nature. Subsequently, we received further correspondence that goes into the details of the drops in percentage of councils in each university from the various groups, which I went through prior to the interval. The union went on to argue in a letter dated 9 February—just last week—from Annie Buchecker, the NTEU Industrial Officer, which was sent to me by John Pezy from the NTEU:

There is no research that links a reduction in a university council's size to better performance. Indeed, research warns that given the complexity of public organisations like universities, any reduction that threatens stakeholder representation is likely to be counterproductive. Furthermore, research points to the fact that the application of a corporate model of governance based on shareholder interests is inappropriate for the governance of organisations that are stakeholder responsible.

She goes on to quote some other research. That is the argument that was put to us by the union. I think the most interesting correspondence that came to me actually came from one of those union representatives drawing my attention to a YouTube clip of the University of Adelaide Community's annual meeting. I thank them for passing that on. I thought it was useful, and I also applaud the University of Adelaide for putting that meeting online. I think that is a very positive step in community engagement by the University of Adelaide.

The Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, Kevin Scarce, and the Vice-Chancellor, Warren Bebbington, were presenting their strategic plan, talking about the building reviews and, of course, there was discussion about this piece of legislation. This was on 12 February, so a very recent meeting. I think it is worth sharing with the house some of that discussion, which probably brings us to our conclusion.

I acknowledge Adjunct Associate Professor Dr John Keeler AM, who raised a series of concerns relating to the self-referential nature of the council appointees, and Chancellor Kevin Scarce responded that, as the university's chancellor, he is not exercising his right to appoint one member because his view was that the council was too large and not able to carry out identified roles effectively—21 members is unwieldy.

Former governor Scarce went on to say that governance of a billion dollar enterprise is compromised by the size of the existing council. The quality of the discussion capable of being held about the complex issues that that billion dollar enterprise necessarily generates is compromised by having 21 people around the table. The reduction is across all aspects of council. Proportions of elected members are maintained. He went on to say that he makes no apologies for trying to get a more effective council.

Another question—and I took the time to make sure I got this as an exact quote—put to the chancellor was:

The minister told parliament that the universities put in place their own engagement processes to engage with their communities and explain the proposed amendments. I'm just concerned that what you're telling us is that the university council has gone ahead and made these decisions without actually consulting the community. So I'm wondering did the university mislead the minister or did the minister mislead the parliament?

Kevin Scarce responded:

I can tell you what we have done. I'll leave the minister to explain what she's done.

Of course, the minister may or may not take up that invitation in her response. He went on to say:

The governance responsibility of council is a responsibility of council. I don't see a need for coming back to the broader community to have a discussion on how council should go about its business....The very engaged discussion that we had at council about its governance responsibilities in my view was the appropriate place to decide how the council should go about its governance. I don't see a need to have to go to the broader community to have that engagement.

Later he went on to say in his conclusion:

Going towards the same size council as currently operates at UniSA. It's not a dramatic change in numbers. It's attempting to improve the dialogue and the contribution that council members can make at meetings.

The fact is, of course, that the union came to see the opposition some months before the minister introduced the bill into the parliament and described the bill fundamentally in the terms in which the bill eventually was presented to the parliament, so I am not convinced by the argument put in the question to Kevin Scarce that there was no community consultation at the University of Adelaide because clearly there must have been some level of community consultation. The union brought it to our attention three months before it got to the parliament. However, clearly there is a level of anxiety at the university that maybe could have been handled differently.

Fundamentally, I think this comes down to this: does the necessity to maintain a certain number of councillors from those representative groups at their current status outweigh the benefit of having what Kevin Scarce describes as a more efficient and less unwieldy council, a council capable of providing governance to a billion dollar enterprise? I am unconvinced, and the opposition is certainly at this stage unconvinced, of the union's argument that research only shows that large instrumentalities need to be governed by large representative stakeholder groups. I am not sure that is the purpose for which the university council goes about its business.

With that in mind, of course the opposition will be supporting this bill through the House of Assembly. In good faith, I should say that if amendments are proposed we will consider them in good faith, and that position may possibly take place between now and the Legislative Council. However, there is nothing that I have had presented to me at this stage that would indicate that the amendments would outweigh the benefits that might be put forward through this bill.

Fundamentally, our universities, the three significant public universities in South Australia, are to be cherished and encouraged. They employ tens of thousands of our people. They educate tens of thousands of our young people. They generate billions of dollars of economic activity for South Australia at a time when South Australia is gripped by nothing less than an unemployment crisis. It is a situation where our very future is being challenged by the lack of confidence in that future.

Where there is a lack of investment in our economy and potential future jobs growth we really need to be looking at every opportunity to run our institutions that do generate jobs and growth efficiently. I am not sure that having a 21-member council is the right size. I think that the propositions put forward by the universities and that the government has also considered and put forward are potentially more compelling, and so the opposition will be supporting the bill through the House of Assembly.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:52): I would like to make a brief contribution to the Statute Amendment (Universities) Bill for the primary reason that this area does touch on the relevance of my shadow ministerial role under trade and investment.

The bill specifically intends to reduce the size of the university councils and extend the tenure of student representatives on the councils from one to two years and to allow the tabling of annual reports in parliament by the Minister for Higher Education and Skills instead of the Governor. The bill will also strengthen statutory liability protections for council members and senior officers. What I would like to touch on is the State Strategic Plan to target international students at our universities. The target was 45,000 by 2014 and we were 15,000 short.

I would like to see the government focussing on what I see as a much more sustainable platform, particularly with international students at our universities. Obviously, the state government recently released an action plan, which states that, over the last five years, the overall Australian international student market has grown by 4.25 per cent, however the number of international students across all sectors studying in South Australia has decreased by 2,315 over the same period, equating to a decrease of 6.74 per cent. As a result, the South Australian market share has decreased from 5.57 per cent in 2010 to 4.98 per cent in 2015.

Over that same period, the increased market share for the ACT, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Victoria has been broadly offset by falls in other jurisdictions, notably in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. If South Australia had maintained its share of the international education market over that period approximately, there would be an additional nearly 3,800 students studying in South Australia. The fact is that South Australia must boost its international market share to assist in reinvigorating our economy and the state's largest service export sector.

The market is highly competitive. I have travelled recently to look at the way other states are procuring, incentivising and luring our international students to their universities. There is an absolutely stark contrast in that we have almost been prepared to allow the decline in international students coming to South Australia. A survey in a recent study revealed that of 1,200 students canvassed from 65 countries, 45 per cent intend to stay in Adelaide once they obtain their qualifications.

To use Victoria as an example, their programs, summer camps, scholarships and sponsorships are real sweeteners and incentives for international students to come over and 'try before you buy'. Those international students are not just coming over here to stay in accommodation and study. Their families are buying houses and they are buying real estate. They are coming over here and investing in our economy as well as studying at our universities. Our universities are first class, but decreasing numbers, whether domestically or internationally, reduce the size of the pie to reinvest into programs in universities. That is a direct result of the numbers.

The government announced funding cuts and then commissioned a report which told them that sustaining a funding cut would be the end of Education Adelaide. Thankfully, Education Adelaide was given a lifeline, and they are still in operation, but this is about whether the South Australian government and the South Australian universities are going to invest, in a bipartisan way, in the future viability of our universities. We all know that numbers, backsides on seats, programs, an ongoing mix of different subjects, and flexible subject matter are what lure students and university attendees to South Australia. As a state, I would like to think that we would look at further ways we could promote the lifestyle to international students.

My sister is currently hosting two Chinese students. I think she is doing a great job in not only promoting South Australia to those students but also endorsing belief in South Australia. Those students will go back to their home country and they will be great ambassadors for South Australia. That is what South Australia needs. The best form of publicity is good publicity, and the next best is free publicity. Having students who are going back to their home countries on social media, and having their families come out here and be part of our communities, is a great way to promote and make South Australia a real international destination.

I think it is a real draw card and, as I said, makes these international students ambassadors. It is also about giving them experiences and getting them out into our regions so that we can explain to the world that South Australia is not just a one-town state; it has more diversity than that. It has great regions not only to visit but also to study.

There are many different ways we can do that. We need to delve into how we can attract international postgraduate students and make South Australia more important. There have been some recent reports into how South Australia could become a better destination for international university students. I think these note that there may be a number of international students utilising low-cost accommodation. South Australia offers affordable accommodation options.

Victoria, which is one of the great university destinations, is starting to become very expensive. That is detracting from the package that many of our international students are using to justify coming over to Victoria. Now is the time for South Australia to step up and be part of that mix. But we have to invest. I urge our universities and the state government to invest in one of the great service sectors in South Australia.

We are an accepting culture, and we are an accepting community, but we need to do more. At the moment, what I am seeing is that we are not doing enough, and the numbers show the facts. We all know that the numbers do not lie. I thank the shadow minister for higher education (member for Morialta) for his work on this bill and commend it to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:01): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill. I indicate that we on this side of the house express our appreciation of the work undertaken by the shadow minister for education in giving us sage and succinct advice to consent to the bill. I do not dissent from that, but I do want to say a couple of things in respect of the governance of universities in general.

Universities are academic institutions. They are a very important ground for an opportunity for people to undertake research and to ensure that we have not only a new generation of highly skilled people but also opportunities for research and innovation. They are not a business, they are not a school, and they are not a government department. They need to be treated with respect to the extent of their independence and the diversity of those who govern them.

In the time that I have been in this house, I have certainly been a contributor in respect of university governance reform on a number of occasions. The most significant of these reforms occurred about 10 years ago, where there had been a considerable downscaling of the contribution of academic and postgraduate representative and, at that stage, even an attempt to reduce student representative recognition in the governance structure.

One of the university chancellors of the three universities being reformed at the time—which of course needed our attention because they were established through state legislation—was to reduce it to a board of five. Even the minister balked at that, and with good reason: there is significant diversity of representation on our boards, and long should that remain. But, from time to time, the working operations need to be finetuned.

One of the other matters that I think is significant, whatever the future structure of the leadership in governance for the universities may be, is their responsibility to South Australians in respect of bequests. Indeed, as academic institutions I suppose they attract less resistance from those who might want to leave a public bequest for the benefit of South Australians than for other institutions. For example, they are not too keen to hand it over to the Treasurer or to governments usually, because they think it might get wasted on other activities not directly related or beneficial to the aspiration of the sponsor of the gift.

What happened with the University of Adelaide several years ago, when we amended the University of Adelaide Act and its governance, was they subsequently and immediately moved to sell off three major rural properties that had been bequested for the benefit of academic training and research in the area of agriculture, as well as food production in pastoralist country. At the time I, for one, was very concerned that the university should act in that matter, even though it was not strictly in breach of the trust, that they should give up such an enormous asset and resource.

However, the financial geniuses of the governance of the time decided that they were not in the business of owning properties. Even though we have a massive obligation to deal with the sustainability of food production—not just to feed Australia but also to consider what we produce for the world—they decided they were not in the business of farming or of asset holding, and that they should sell it. My private member's bill to try to stop it was like water off a duck's back because the government of the day, under the leadership of minister O'Brien, decided that it was up to the universities to do as they wished.

Following on from this very sorry saga, and even though the properties did sell and some $50 million or $52 million in funds was the result, I am pleased to say that in the end the governing body of the University of Adelaide decided that with the money it would establish the Davies research centre, and that those funds would be kept for the very specific purpose of the advancement of future agriculture and animal and veterinary science work in South Australia. A great outcome in the end, but not without a lot of pain along the way.

I think, as is reasonable in the circumstances, that those of us who were critical and concerned should at least recognise the then vice chancellor Warren Bebbington and his leadership in ensuring that the proceeds were held in this way. Indeed, I did write to him to congratulate the university on its decision to establish the Davies research centre.

I wish those in that enterprise well but, to make it perfectly clear to all the universities, if they have the privilege and benefit of someone's bequest, whether it is to sponsor a scholarship, build a building, or advance a particular course within one of the schools of the university, great. It should not be ignored or exploited to the extent that others will not give, because the most significant outcome of being disrespectful to those who leave bequests or who provide a significant gift to a university is that others will not do it.

I record my concern that all three universities need to be alert to the opportunity. Indeed, I am an old scholar of two of them and I regularly get requests to make a financial contribution. I am pleased to say that from time to time we do, as I am sure many in the house do, but no-one is going to give any reasonable lick of money or bequest to any institution, including the universities, if they do not make sure they properly look after it and ensure that it is applied for the benefit for which the gifter has given it. With those words, I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.