Adelaide University Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 14 November 2023.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I would like to make a contribution on clause 1 and seek a little bit of indulgence from the chamber given that I have not yet had an opportunity to make a contribution on the bill more broadly. So I will make a reasonably detailed contribution on clause 1 given its opening nature of this legislation.

South Australia's university sector is critical for the economic, social and cultural fabric of our state. Adelaide and the state more broadly is seen as a jurisdiction which exhibits excellence in its academic institutions, and for many decades our universities have been well regarded not just in the nation but right across the world, and we saw in relatively recent times the University of Adelaide get rated within the top 100 universities in the world.

We are a state, we are a city in terms of our capital city, that is well known for our academic institutions, for our research credibility, for people of great stature in terms of the contribution that they have made to research across the sciences, across literature and across a range of fields, some which were known more than others, such as agricultural science and research that has taken place in our institutions around that field of expertise.

People like Basil Hetzel spring to mind, and the significant scientific research that was undertaken by that great researcher and academic, but there are many others who could be added to that list. We should be proud of our academic institutions. We should be willing to invest in them and we should be willing to fight for them when they need it along the way as well. We should also be willing to see them evolve, to become new entities to take them to new places, to new heights.

The opposition has decided to support the legislation that is before the house today. We made that decision after very detailed analysis of the pros and cons. There was the parliamentary committee process, which enabled us to dig into this proposition in a very significant way, perhaps a more detailed way than many other pieces of legislation have been exposed to in recent times. I think it was an example of the parliamentary process at its best in that we were able to take a piece of legislation, work through it via the committee process and come up with a range of recommendations that I think probably have led to the improvement of the overall legislation.

At the end of that process, the opposition decided on balance—and perhaps that was just on balance—to support this initiative, which involves two of our state's largest organisations, two of our state's largest businesses, because universities are businesses. They may spend their profits in a way that is different from other businesses and they may plough them into the sustainability and expansion of their institutions, but they are still businesses.

Universities employ thousands of people. They have a significant impact on the educational outcomes across our state, largely the educational outcomes of young people but of course those using our academic institutions and experiencing them are not just isolated to young South Australians. There are many people who benefit from the existence of our universities. There are many people who have the opportunity to improve their lives as a consequence of our universities.

We cannot have our universities fail. We cannot be in a situation where this proposition gets to a point where it is too difficult to unscramble. We can not get to a situation where the ambition that the government has for our universities leads to the collapse of our universities. It was on balance that the opposition made the decision to support this legislation and to also take part in the very detailed scrutiny of it through the committee process.

As I just mentioned, I want to particularly thank shadow education minister, the Hon. John Gardner, for his contribution to that process and also the Hon. Jing Lee, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party in the other place. They had a tireless role working through this legislation and the committee process has allowed us to undertake that analysis.

Also, now the parliamentary process gives us the opportunity to further scrutinise, to seek to tease out the government's intent and to gain a greater understanding and make sure it is on the public record what is proposed and what the expected outcomes are, and to ensure that South Australians have the opportunity, through their elected representatives, to get on the public record the direction that this is heading and to challenge the government in an appropriate way to provide the resources and the support to make sure that this amalgamation works.

There are several elements of the proposal which the opposition does believe could be improved, and I do want to make sure that those go onto the public record today. That includes, most specifically, the role of Flinders University. Flinders University serves the whole state in many ways, but it particularly has a focus on Adelaide's southern suburbs. It is a university that plays a significant role in supporting students who come from lower socio-economic backgrounds—again, particularly those living in the southern suburbs, many of whom live in the electorate that I represent.

I have extremely significant concerns that Flinders University has been dudded in this process. I feel that it has been left behind. It has not been appropriately accounted for in terms of the funding that has been provided to the new institution through the merger agreement. We have before us the risk that Flinders University could lose out in a very significant way as a consequence of this. I think the deal that was struck by the Hon. Sarah Game in the other place particularly duds Flinders University also duds regional South Australia. Ms Game should reflect on that. It is a sign of great weakness how her poor negotiating skills have left one institution as a potential laggard to the other, and regional-based students will also suffer.

It is greatly disappointing how quick Ms Game was to do this deal. I think that many of those who voted for her, and many of those who see One Nation as a supportive party for their cause, will be disappointed by her approach and her failure to gain from the government the full benefit that Flinders University and regional students could have seen from this proposal.

If the benefits of the proposal are to be fully realised, and to ensure that South Australia's international competitiveness is maximised, the broader higher education sector across the state needs to be considered—it cannot just be the new entity, the new Adelaide University. I do worry that the issue of an uneven playing field, created by the perpetual funds available to only one institution, is an area of significant concern that ought to be addressed. Perpetual research and equity funds being provided for only one university—that is, the new Adelaide University—but not the other main institution in this state, Flinders University, may have a destabilising impact on this sector in South Australia and might prevent the state from garnering all the potential net benefits of such an investment.

The equity fund, for example, will give scholarships to students studying courses at Adelaide University. Not all courses are offered by every institution. So, over time, this would incentivise cohorts of students to choose Adelaide over Flinders, despite the fact that our state needs students to undertake a range of courses that are only available at Flinders. There are many that fall into that category, but one that I have a particular concern about is around paramedics. While we are pleased to see some access in terms of scholarships, that will not necessarily benefit the university because those students would have been studying in some form already.

The greater inequity appears when we talk about the research fund. The research fund is not just a matter of perceived unfairness that you could ascribe to scholarships but is a situation where one institution clearly benefits from a new level of state intervention while the other does not. I do not believe we can or should constrain either institution in whom they employ or how they employ them, but by having a particularly generous research funding framework or system sitting in one university and not in the other we do risk seeing some academics and some university professionals drawn from Flinders to the new university. While those people would stay within the state, that would certainly be a situation of robbing Peter to pay Paul, without the overall uplift that you might expect from this proposal.

The inequity around the research fund greatly concerns the opposition, and I do hope there will still be opportunity to support Flinders University, not just with scholarships but also with access to critical research funding. We know that research funding can really change the way our state is perceived. We can do some great things here. We have lots of examples of that across multiple different fields. It is saddening to see that Flinders University would be excluded from the bucket of funding that is available for research for the new institution. Every single cent invested in this merger should be to the net benefit of the state.

We consider that for South Australia to fully realise the opportunities that might be enabled by a new level of engagement with the tertiary sector, investment in research at Flinders University, that is at least proportionate with that of the new institution, is essential. This is something that I confidently say and that myself and the shadow minister and everyone on this side of the house will continue to fight for. I believe that Flinders University has been dudded in this, but I take it to a more personal geographical level: I believe that the southern suburbs have been dudded by this deal.

Another area which I believe needs more attention is, as I said earlier, support for regional South Australia. The deal done by the Hon. Sarah Game and the government increases the $100 million equity fund to $120 million, with the extra $20 million focused on supporting regional students. This may provide some extra scholarships, and you can never turn up your nose at that, but we do not believe it addresses the broader issue of providing opportunities for more students to study in the regions without having to relocate to Adelaide.

These scholarships will not cover all the associated costs. Those costs are beyond financial costs: they are social costs and they are dislocation from families, communities and areas of familiarity. Those are the extra burdens that come with moving from regional South Australia to metropolitan Adelaide. We do hope that there will be further emphasis on this area, but unfortunately to date, the government has not been willing to come to the party.

There is no doubt that one area that could be focused on here is the extension of the existing uni hubs model, which we know has been very successful in regional communities in South Australia. This is something the opposition would be committed to exploring, if we are fortunate enough to form government in the future.

The opposition is also concerned about the future of the Magill campus, what the merger means for this site and the communities that surround that site. The opposition urges the government to prioritise community considerations. Open space, urban parks and community facilities should be a critical part of this. I would hate to see the loss of open space. There are many mature trees in that area and it contributes significantly to the canopy cover in the suburbs around it. We really do hope that the government comes up with a creative and innovative plan for that site that is supported and welcomed by the residents who live in and around that area.

I close by reiterating that the size and nature of this project is too big, and too important for our state, to see it fail. We value our institutions, and I am sure that every member of this chamber, no matter their politics, wants to see our university sector survive and thrive in our state. This is why we do support the bill, but we are not afraid to put our concerns on the public record. We are not afraid to highlight some of our scepticism around the way that this policy has been advanced and developed by the government.

It has, in my view, been rushed. It has lacked the appropriate levels of consultation. Even the parliamentary process, while we welcomed the committee process, which the Hon. Mr Gardner and the Hon. Ms Lee were able to contribute to, we still felt that that process, in itself, was not what it could have been.

I hope that this new university thrives because we need it to thrive for South Australia. We will champion it into the future because South Australia's academic institutions and those who work in them and those who study in them need this to be a huge success.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to clause 7(1)(d)(ii)—and I will ask a question about regions here, it could be at any other number of places throughout the bill but we might be able to just address it here most simply. The clause provides for the new university to provide such programs as the university thinks appropriate to meet the needs of people within the community who are under-represented in education. I think we can fairly agree that that would include people from regional South Australia.

I understand that in the last two or four weeks perhaps, there would have been discussions between the government and the universities in response to the deal or the agreement with the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Connie Bonaros on the $20 million extra. Is the minister able to advise, since the announcement of that $20 million extra, has she engaged with the universities to determine how that extra $20 million or the proceeds of that extra $20 million will be spent to realise this ambition?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have not had a meeting specifically on the $20 million. The way that the legislation is constructed—in due course we will just recall which clause it is where the funds are addressed—creates a committee that establishes guidelines on how the funds will be expended. It is our expectation that it will be in that process that these kinds of details will be determined.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I just perhaps ask for the record then: has the minister or the government received any advice from the universities in response to the $20 million announcement as to how they would propose the proceeds from the $20 million fund be spent to address regional disadvantage?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: If the deputy leader looks at clause 42(5)(c), that clause was added to specifically talk about the way in which the funding would be expended; that then captures the intent legislatively. The universities have welcomed the extra $20 million, and I have had a brief conversation informally about making sure that they had a number of ideas about the way in which they might spend it. But, as I say, there is a formal process that is established by this legislation that will enable them to frame up those guidelines alongside the government.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will read clause 8(3) for the benefit of those listening:

The University must not alienate (except by way of lease for a term not exceeding 21 years), mortgage or charge land vested in or conveyed to the University on trust except with, and in accordance with any terms or conditions of, an approval given by the Governor.

For the record, can the minister explain that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: This is a replication of section 6(3) in the University of South Australia Act 1990 and is similar to section 4(5) in the University of Adelaide Act 1971. The Waite Trust is an example of land conveyed to the university on trust and it simply means that the university cannot dispose of that land.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I appreciate that explanation. Is the minister in a position to either now or on notice identify any other items of land that are captured by this clause other than the Waite Trust, which the minister just referred to?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That was the one example that the universities have furnished us with. I can take on notice and only come back should there be additional pieces of land in that same category.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Minister, this will not be the most significant question that I ask during the course of the next hour or so, but nevertheless you may be able to provide us with an answer that I am sure will be of interest to one or two people out there. Clause 9(1)(c)(ii) provides:

(1) The University—

(c) may, for any reason the University thinks fit—

(ii) rescind an award previously conferred by the University.

Does the extension of the definition of the university apply to the predecessor institutions or is this entirely a prospective clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We would expect that to be able to apply retrospectively to antecedent institutions and it is, of course, in place for cases of academic integrity.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I should express for the benefit of the house and again for our massive audience viewing the electronic Hansard that a lot of the detail in this was pursued in great depth in the Legislative Council. I would hate for anyone to think that the fact we are actually going through this at some pace betrays any lack of interest or many hours of work in preparing. It is just because, somewhat unusually, this bill originated in the Legislative Council and a day and a half of Legislative Council debate has actually answered an enormous number of questions already.

For the researchers undertaking deep postgraduate study on the formation of their university in the future, in addition to the minority report from the joint committee, in addition to the discussion and the noting last sitting week and in addition to the second reading speech, I also direct them to the Legislative Council Hansard from the last sitting week for this bill.

Clause 16(3)(b)(ii) relates to the nature of people who are able to be appointed to the university council. The clause requires that the selection committee, which is a subset of the council, must recognise that the council should, as far as practicable, be constituted by people who amongst other things:

…have an understanding of, and commitment to, the principles of equal opportunity and social justice and, in particular, access and equity in education.

Is the minister able to identify whether these are seen as general traits that a lay understanding would clarify that if somebody identifies themselves as being supportive of the principles of equal opportunity and understanding of access and equity in education, then that fulfils that criteria? Or does the minister or the government have in mind that there is some further prescribed litmus test, some political belief system defined by these terms that someone must ascribe to before they are eligible to be on the council? Can the minister give us some reassurance?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I acknowledge also what you said at the beginning of your question that it is important for people to know that as fast as this may appear, there has been a huge amount of work in the council, and I pay tribute to all of them there, particularly the Hon. Kyam Maher, who fulfilled my role in that place. This is not about a particular set of principles that would need to be demonstrated to have been signed up to. I can reassure the member on that front. This is a matter of judgment for the selection committee.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 24 passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: During the last answer, I feel the minister did herself a real disservice by singling out the Hon. Kyam Maher and ignoring the outstanding work of the Hon. Jing Lee in particular, who did so much heavy lifting in the Legislative Council debate. I therefore help the minister by offering the Hon. Jing Lee my thanks as well.

I am also going to unusually take the step of acknowledging the Hon. Rob Simms, who worked very hard on this bill. I did not agree with him on many aspects of the Greens' approach to this bill, but I would say that his commitment to higher education and outcomes for higher education were on full display throughout the process, as were Tammy Franks's, in fairness, prior to him replacing her on the committee.

I acknowledge that they asked a lot of important questions, and he and I were both asking a lot of questions of the government along the way in terms of process. I agreed with him strongly on some things and disagreed on others. In relation to the code of conduct, this is a provision that the Hon. Robert Simms moved, and it was supported, as I understand it, by pretty much everyone in the Legislative Council. Given that not all of the things he put forward were supported, I particularly congratulate him on this effort.

This clause in relation to the code of conduct is new. It arrived two weeks ago in the bill as a result of the amendment from the Legislative Council. I ask the minister: has the government determined or does the government have any information about how this clause will be practically implemented now that it is in the legislation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The code of conduct—and I echo your endorsement of everyone who did such a magnificent job in the other chamber, and I do not mean to say that in a way that makes light of that effort—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: I didn't say everyone.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will say that everyone was very engaged in this bill, and I think that is a mark of respect for how important our universities are from the Legislative Council's perspective.

The code of conduct, as the deputy leader says, was proposed by the Greens via the Hon. Rob Simms. It is intended that the council will determine what that code of conduct is, so it would not be appropriate for me to start laying out what I think a code of conduct ought to be. The fact is that there needs to be one and the council will be so constituted by sensible and wise people that they will determine the appropriate kind of code of conduct fit for purpose for their council.

Clause passed.

Clauses 26 to 35 passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Again, this is one of those slighter questions. Clause 36 talks about expiations, by-laws and also parking. For the clarity of the house, can the minister advise how this parking issue is managed at the university? Who is able to enforce these orders, these fines and so forth?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The authorisation really flows from the council. If you look at almost the end of clause 36, down to subclause (4), the council gives authorisation for the by-law to be given to 'a class of persons' to enforce. They may well choose that to be their security, but they may have other arrangements. It is within the power of the council.

Clause passed.

Clauses 37 and 38 passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The prescribed amount interpreted here specifically refers to research and student support funds for Adelaide University. It does not mention Flinders University. We discussed at great length what I consider to be the government's error in not including a research fund for Flinders University, but it has been publicly announced that the government is now supporting some sort of student support fund for Flinders University in the order of $40 million. It does not appear in this legislation. Is the minister able to identify the mechanism through which the government proposes to provide that $40 million fund for Flinders University?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is right. The agreement was reached, really largely as a result of the very powerful evidence given by Professor Colin Stirling, the Vice-Chancellor of Flinders University. He also presented directly to myself and the Premier earlier.

Exactly as you and the leader articulated in your contributions, it is really not about Flinders the institution but the students who might choose to attend Flinders, who, in choosing either the institution of Flinders altogether or specifically courses that are not available at Adelaide University, would be disadvantaged. This is not about a Flinders support package so much as making sure that disadvantaged students are not further disadvantaged by choosing to go to one university rather than the other.

I think the research question sits in another category and was something that whoever is in government in the future will no doubt come to grips with once there are two stable institutions operating long term. Therefore, it does not belong in obviously the act that is establishing Adelaide University. There is an agreement with Flinders that there will be a fund of $40 million to support disadvantaged students, and those discussions will start between the university and Treasury or the Treasurer, or both, very shortly, I imagine. Getting through this is the first order of business, and that will be followed very shortly, I have no doubt.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is the minister able to provide any more detail on what 'very shortly' means? If we pass this today, are we talking that that would be planned or announced even by the end of the year, what is happening with Flinders?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, I am not in a position to do that, as it is being led out of another portfolio.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can the minister reflect, for the benefit of the house, on the nature of the prescribed period? The prescribed period is interpreted here. Subsequent clauses make it clear that his eight-year period from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2034 is an eight-year period during which the university gets a guaranteed return from these funds. Why do we have this prescribed period as identified here?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The prescribed period relates to the best understanding under the business case for the new university to become fully established and at full capacity. This is why it is a bit of a furphy to immediately jump to try to compare Flinders and Adelaide University, because one is a well-established university that is growing fast—and, as they said to me at an event I attended recently, shortly to become the oldest university in South Australia to which I did say, 'You're welcome to,' but I am not sure they meant it that way—so there is an expectation that it will take a period of time. The way that that has been captured in the legislation is eight years for the new university to go through the expense, the adjustment and the challenge of perhaps seeing a diminution in international students in the first instance, for example—although I very much hope that will not be the case—to fully establish itself.

Therefore, there needed to be a sense of surety about what income would be coming in to support both research and students, but that after that the university was prepared to be prey to the fortunes of the funds.

Clause passed.

Clause 40.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Clause 40 relates to the funds guidelines, obviously, and in particular the arrangements relating to the advisory committee and how they will work with the council and government to apply those guidelines. Is the minister able to provide a bit more detail about how this is intended to work in practice? It seems to be there is a relative level of balance between government and council in determining what the guidelines are. Both must agree. Obviously, council needs to agree in order to access the money, but presumably government wants to spend it as well.

How hands-on is the funds advisory committee intended to be? Is it a set and forget: 'Here are the guidelines for the next year or multiple years, and we don't need to meet again,' or are they responsible for approving specific grants, every application of every dollar, or somewhere in between?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In answering this question, it has made me realise that I misspoke earlier when talking about the way in which the funds guidelines are established because the guidelines are actually established between the Treasurer and the council rather than the funds advisory committee. The guidelines themselves then establish the functions of the funds advisory committee. So the legislation requires that there is an advisory committee, but it is the guidelines that the council and Treasurer agree that then establish the role that will be played in an ongoing sense for the funds advisory committee. It was very useful you asked that question because it has given me an opportunity to sharpen up where I spoke a little loosely earlier.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am at risk of ending this process with, potentially, four or five questions on this clause, but it might save time later, if it helps the Chair; we will see how we go. Based on what the minister has just clarified, then, do we have any anticipation of how the advisory committee will conduct its business, or is that entirely hypothetical, dependent on the whims of future council and Treasurer, or is there an understanding from the government as to how that advisory committee is to go about its business, or expected to?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The brief answer is that all we have is what is sitting in the legislation. There has not been the next level of detail about the way in which that will operate. So, what you have is that there will be guidelines that will be approved by the Treasurer in consultation with the councils and that those guidelines will relate to both the research and student objectives and priorities and strategic plans. They will also establish the funds advisory committee but cannot in themselves alter the composition of the funds advisory committee because that is established by law.

We know that there will be up to three members appointed by the Treasurer and up to two members appointed by the council, but those five will then operate in a way which is determined by approval from the Treasurer in consultation with the council. I think it would be unhelpful for me to say that I might like to deal with that because I am not a party—the Treasurer and the council are—and it is right and proper that that is the way in which the funds advisory committee has been established.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I guess the reason I am dwelling on this is because it is a fairly substantial investment in terms of not just that enabling the thing to happen but, then, on how the things are to be applied, and it is in the hands of the Treasurer and not the Minister for Higher Education. I wonder if the minister can advise what the status of these guidelines are, presumably to be approved by the Treasurer and the council. Can they be cancelled by the Treasurer, cabinet or the parliament? If the Treasurer or the government of the day wishes to change them, are they able to do so? I presume, if it needs the approval of the council, is the government of the day able to cancel the assisting guidelines, thus enabling the requirement of new guidelines to be created?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think there is a large degree of protection sitting within 40. Although the Treasurer approves the funding guidelines, he in this case being a he, must obtain the agreement of the council that the fund guidelines relating to the payments of the funds reflect the following matters, which is about the way in which the research fund and student support fund reflect the objectives of the institution. Although the Treasurer is the approver, the Treasurer must have the agreement from the council that those matters are being fulfilled in those guidelines. I am not sure if that gives sufficient reassurance.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Treasurer must approve guidelines, so the Treasurer cannot not approve guidelines, and the Treasurer, in approving those guidelines, must have the council say that they are consistent with university's research objectives or the objectives of the university in facilitating access. I cannot see, short of parliamentary counsel having different advice, that there could not be guidelines.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I promise I am not trying to be difficult. I think that there is a question that may arise at some point in the future that I would not mind just having one more go at.

As I understand it, the minister has described a circumstance where the bill passes, there is a responsibility on the Treasurer and the university council to agree on guidelines, which will form the basis of the committee which will then determine how the money is spent.

Those guidelines having been set in place, are the guidelines pretty much in place forever, or if a new government were to come in at some point, for example, and identify what they considered to be a deficiency in the way that this had been operating and wished to change the structure of how the advisory committee works within the legislation but different to the guidelines, would they require the consent of the council in order to make any change, or would they be able to provide incentive for the council to agree a change?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The Treasurer could indeed update the guidelines but could only, again, do that by having the consent of the council that they reflect those matters that are captured within clause 40(2)(b). So it would be essentially, I assume, a resetting of the process, but the process still requires that the councils agree that those guidelines reflect those outcomes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have one more question on this clause, if I may. The state priorities, which are reflected in clause 40(2)(b)(i), refers to the state's research and economic development priorities. Can I ask: how are they defined? How are those priorities defined and if they reflect an existing set of priorities that exists within government? Is the minister able to say what are the state's research and economic development priorities in specific?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are, of course, treading into—and this has been deliberately carefully worded—the territory of not wanting to have the ideological whims of the day forcing research directions but genuinely what represents the state's interests in research and interests in economic development. Governments from time to time capture that in various documents. State Growth? There was one under—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Growth State.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Growth State, there you go; I got close.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Exactly, I am sure. Growth State was under the Marshall government, and we have an economic agenda that has been articulated by our leader. They would be documents that are available to guide a sense of what is regarded as currently 'strategic objective'.

It is interesting when you look across under the Weatherill government, the Marshall government and now the Malinauskas government that the sectors do not tend to vary very much. We might articulate things differently, but South Australia is on the trajectory it is on and we can all get around things like defence industry, for example, or renewable energy.

But what is important in the way that this has been structured is that it is the university council that is saying that they agree that this is consistent rather than the government imposing that. So the wording of subclause (2)(b) is important that it obtains the agreement of the council that the funds reflect the following matters, including that issue of what is the strategic objective of the state.

That then gives the council the power to have a determination about what they regard as being those priorities rather than, as I say, risking an ideological whim being expressed and that the funds are diverted in that sense. It requires a degree of faith and confidence in the maturity and the intellectual integrity of the council of the university. That must be the case in order to have a fully functioning university doing what we all expect it to do.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sorry, can I beg your indulgence once more on this clause, and then I am done. These fund guidelines, are they going to be a public document?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The legislation is silent on that and therefore that would be determined in the process of developing the guidelines.

Clause passed.

Clause 41.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

That clause 41, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Clause 41, which we are considering inserting, relates to the Adelaide University Research Fund. It requires insertion because apparently money bills cannot originate in the Legislative Council, which I think is an excellent provision. The $200 million research fund is the one in question. This clause talks about the prescribed period guaranteeing $8 million to be applied at a minimum, I think. It talks about the market value of the fund needing to be maintained at $200 million.

Can the minister clarify whether that $200 million is going to be the dollar figure for the fund in perpetuity, and therefore diminishing in real value over time presumably, or is it required that the fund will increase and that the value of the fund be maintained in real terms?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My reading of this is that the prescribed amount refers to the initial fund amount. If you look at subclause (3), the fund will consist of the prescribed amount—$200 million in this case—and money paid into the fund, and income and accretions from investment, and any other money. So that enables it to grow. The prescribed amount refers to the first of those subclauses.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Are there any provisions, therefore, in the bill that would require the disbursement of funds to the university to be all of the available funds over the amount that is the prescribed amount to start with—the capital, effectively, in the fund—or is there flexibility for the funds advisory committee to recommend a different amount being retained in the fund in addition to a certain amount being distributed to the university?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The guidelines will essentially be dictating, apart from in the first eight years, how much is expended. If there is more coming into the fund than the original amount—if there is less than $200 million, because that is the prescribed amount, then that will trigger a certain response from the Treasurer, but if there is more it will be determined by the guidelines. The expectation is that the earnings of the fund will be spent each year, but that is an informal expectation, not one that is captured by the legislation.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to the establishment of the fund, I note that the disbursement of moneys is required from 2026, in accordance with the prescribed period. I assume that means that there are no funds required to be disbursed at all prior to that, so the funds would be established in time to create funds available for that. Is the minister able to advise what assumptions the government is working from in relation to the return on the investment in the fund—how much Treasury is anticipating drawing in each year before this $8 million, or potentially more, is disbursed?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not privy to the Treasury calculations on that and, because it is a couple of years hence, it might be a bit bold to determine what is likely to be coming in. Regarding the first thing you said, I was going to tell you that you were correct.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, the timing of 2026 is correct.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In terms of the timing being 2026, it talks in calendar years—this is from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2034. When are these funds supposed to be paid out, or is that subject to the advisory committee and negotiation with the Treasurer?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, that will be subject to the guidelines. I do want to clarify and say that there is an informal expectation of the uplift in the fund being paid out: of course, that is within the context of an expectation in the legislation that the funds will grow over time, but that will be determined by the guidelines.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Supplementary: as the minister has described that the funds are required to grow over time, which is identified in clause 40(3), is the intent of that that the real value of the fund be maintained, or that it may grow above real value?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is just an intention in any case, but it is not clear whether that means either in nominal terms or taking account of inflation, so that would be a matter of legal judgement if that were ever to come to a question. It is the way in which it is expressed in the guidelines that will become important.

Clause inserted.

Clause 42.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

That clause 42, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have a general question first. I presume that for all of the in-principle questions in relation to the operation of the funds under clause 41, the same questions would elicit the same answers in relation to this clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Specifically, in relation to the insertion of subclause (5), paragraph (c), which is to do with the regional fund of $20 million, is the treatment of this $20 million intended to be separate to the treatment of the proceeds of the other $100 million in the fund, or is it just required that whatever process the funds guidelines and advisory committee come up with takes into account that sufficient proceeds of the $20 million go to regional communities as part of the broader total?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is the same principle, but this clause is there to be clear that whatever returns there are from the $20 million—presuming that there are returns and that we continue to have economic prosperity—will be quarantined for those particular purposes.

Clause inserted.

Clause 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Clause 44 requires that the Treasurer:

…prepare a report on the performance of the Funds…during the preceding financial year, including information about the income, expenditure and use of the Funds.

I am literally reading from the document, for the benefit of the half a dozen people looking at the Hansard. Can the minister advise what level of detail is expected in those reports?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We are in the hands of the legislation before us, so the detail is explicitly that it must include 'information about the income, expenditure and use of the Funds'.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: So that could be a 10-line document providing information about them: how much is in it, how much has been spent and that it has been spent in accordance with the guidelines? I imagine that could fulfil the legislation; this legislation does not seem to require much. I know that when the treasurers of the future will be preparing such documents they will look at this Hansard to help give them guidance as to how they should best produce these documents.

Can the minister provide such guidance on what she thinks would be the minimum expectations from these documents—as an MP she may be, in the future, looking at them—and in particular in relation to the way the funds are used? How much detail would the minister expect should reasonably be provided by the Treasurer to the parliament on how these funds are used?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: While anything I say does not alter the legal requirement that sits in the legislation, I would expect that a useful starting point would be the report of the parliamentary committee that recommended that this be inserted into the legislation, and that the considerations in that parliamentary committee would give guidance on the kinds of detail that would be expected.

There is also a nice discipline that happens when you present something to parliament, which is that the opposition sees it and makes comment. I think that is probably the most reassuring element of it, that should it be found wanting or insufficient, that that would be raised. I have never come across a treasurer that would not discharge this in a pretty comprehensive and reasonable way, but should that ever occur I think that that would soon be named by an opposition, presumably the fourth estate, the media, would take an interest in that should it appear that this was an insufficient summary. But I do think that the report of the parliamentary committee is a useful starting point for the first treasurer to consider what would be identified in that report.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I look forward to the member for Port Adelaide's questions in September 2026.

Clause passed.

Clauses 45 to 51 passed.

Clause 52.

The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that the minister now wants to move that clause 52 be inserted.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I seek the insertion of clause 52.

Clause inserted.

Clauses 53 and 54 passed.

Clause 55.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I have a few questions on this clause and then I think we might be done. If I need more than my three questions they can helpfully follow on to the schedule.

The CHAIR: I might be able to help you with supplementaries.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you, sir. This is in relation to the review of the act, which I think is a fairly important component here. I take this opportunity to thank the minister and in particular the public servants who provided a briefing to me a little while ago in preparation for this debate. Any mistake in what I am about to say is mine, not theirs.

My recollection is that this review is intended to effectively be triggered by the finalisation of the federal government's process, the Universities Accord. The legal requirement is that the minister must, within 12 months after the commencement of this section, cause a review of the operation of this act to be conducted and a report of the review to be prepared and submitted to the minister. Then the minister has six sitting days to table that report to the parliament.

It is my understanding that the commencement of this section will be triggered by the federal government's response to their accord process. Can you confirm if my understanding there is accurate and perhaps maybe I should have just asked: when will this take place?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The member is fully correct but in part. Yes, this is very important for the response to the accord. I noted some of the comments made in the second reading contribution by the deputy leader perhaps suggesting that one ought to wait for the accord. That is not a view that the government shares, nor I believe the universities. The universities received a letter from Jason Clare saying that there was nothing that was being considered in the accord that would make him change his view about having signed the Memorandum of Understanding, the agreement, and nor that there would be any reason for the two universities not to proceed with their merger or creation of a new university considerations.

That said, when there is such a big opportunity to have a bit of a reset of higher education, which is sorely needed at the federal level, it would be wise to consider whether there are any implications for the legislation, and I particularly note that in the context of the interim report that starts to talk about governance. At a ministerial council meeting I raised the question of what is intended there. They are first of all most interested in the kind of governance that leads to staff and student safety. I respect that.

I pointed out we are in the middle of constructing a new council composition and should there be reflections on governance in that context it would be useful to know. So it may be that there is a view formed about some different ways in which staff and students might be heard through governing councils or other levels of committees within the new university. So having this review period gives us the opportunity to reassure people—because you can change the law at any time as long as the parliament agrees—who are concerned about that that there will be an opportunity for a conscious review of information that has come to light subsequently and how the operation of the act is going.

That is important. In my view, it honours the concerns raised particularly by the NTU about whether the accord process might have a view about the councils. I say that, though, with some hesitation about how far the accord review will go on that simply because I note the wide variety of different ways in which councils are constructed presently across the universities. There is some consistency, but the fact that quite a few still have some or all their members appointed by the minister or by the governor—and we have none in that context—suggests that there is enough disparity now that it would be unlikely that an accord would come out and say, 'All university councils must look like this.' It might give some encouragement for one emphasis over another and that would be welcome and interesting.

In that sense you are wholly correct, deputy leader, in saying that the timing needs to be aligned with when we know what that accord is. The reason I say that you are partly correct in making that emphasis is that this is a good thing to do anyway. It is important in legislation that you have a review clause, in my view, when you are doing something that is quite different and you might want to focus the mind of parliament and the minister, that you want to test how it is working and whether it requires any adjustments.

I believe we would probably have wanted to have this anyway, but having the accord (a) focuses the mind on some benefits that might come from a review and (b) it also does guide the timing of that review. It is, of course, attached to the commencement and within 12 months of the commencement. We do not know for certain when the federal government will receive the review. We certainly do not know when it will respond to the review. We will keep up to date with that in determining the commencement so that within 12 months we are able to give a response that is guided at least by additional information as a result of the accord review.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Supplementary: can the minister provide an estimate—which she is not going to be held dramatically to, but an estimate of the six-month or three-month window when she thinks that this review might likely be? The second half of next year, the first half of 2025, is there able to be a little more than 'within 12 months of the commencement of this section' which to the lay reader does not provide as much guidance as I would like?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: My expectation is that it would certainly occur before the university is fully functioning in 2026. I would like it to be in the second half of next year but that is dependent on factors beyond my control.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: My next question is in relation to the nature of the review. Will it be interrogating the transition process from a position of independence, I guess from either government or from the university council itself? I guess my question is partly going to be answered by: who does the minister envisage conducting the review, someone external from government or someone from within government or from within the university? That would be helpful to know, and any other comments the minister might care to make about the nature of how the review will be conducted.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I have not given enough thought to the way in which it would be conducted to want to be definitively on the record in Hansard. I am attracted to the idea of some degree of independence and also the expertise that can come from someone of standing in the higher education sector. I would not wish to say that definitively that is the way in which we would do it, but that is my sense at the moment about what I would do should I continue to be the minister when this review occurs.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: A supplementary to that: does the minister anticipate the government or the university paying for the review?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I certainly have not even contemplated that question. It is a review that the minister undertakes so the normal expectation would be that the government would pay for that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Understanding that the minister has put some caveats on how much intentionality she has already put into the review other than that there be one, is the minister able to advise the house whether she has an expectation that she would have terms of reference for the reviewer, or would the reviewer have free rein as the clause suggests to consider all aspects of the act and the operation of the transition process?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: So, both. I would have terms of reference in order to make sure that relevant groups were definitely going to be invited to contribute to the review, so the government would want to establish those requirements. At the same time, good terms of reference enable a review to stray as far as is necessary to do a decent job of the review.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I wonder specifically then to the clauses, is the minister able to advise the house: irrespective of whether the terms of reference are good, does this clause empower the reviewer to investigate any aspect of the transition process and the operation of the act that the reviewer considers appropriate and make whatever recommendations they consider appropriate, including could the reviewer recommend revocation of aspects or repeal of aspects of the act? Would that potentially be capable as a result of this clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The clause certainly does not exclude the reviewer from doing that. It is, of course, in the power of both government and parliament to choose how they respond to the review.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (17:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In so moving, I wish to thank everybody who has participated in this debate, particularly of course the deputy leader and shadow minister for education, who has shown very great interest in the content rather than the politics of this from the start. That has been appreciated not only by me but also I believe, without wishing to speak on their behalf, by the two universities. This is a long-term, lasting reform, and it is best that it be widely supported within our parliament, and I thank the deputy leader for that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:15): In supporting the third reading of this bill, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I indicate my thanks to all of the various officers including from the university, all the various stakeholders including many lecturers and interested parties from around the state, whether in favour of, sceptical of or outright opposed to the proposition.

While I have disagreed with aspects of how the government has put forward the proposition and certainly put great detail in the process leading up to the recent weeks, I thank the Deputy Premier for her conduct and certainly the way in which we have managed the bill in the house. I want to particularly place on the record that, while the Liberal Party has had significant scepticism towards aspects of this and we have concerns that have not been fully met, we have to make a judgement call on balance as to how to proceed on a piece of legislation. In this case, we believe that the opportunities offered by this proposal are significant.

We believe that the risks are there as well, but certainly, given that the bill was to proceed, the conduct of the Liberal Party we felt was important in maximising the opportunities for this state. It would have been very easy to attempt to be political wreckers for political purposes. I think there are examples of political parties that do that, but ultimately we are here for a simple purpose: to serve the people of our state and to create opportunities for our children going forward. We as a party want to contribute to the success of this project. This project is happening. We will work hard to hold the government and the process to account but do everything we can to see it succeed. It is very important for our state. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, it is too big to be allowed to fail, so we will support every opportunity for us to maximise the potential this will create for South Australia.

Bill read a third time and passed.