Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 August 2017.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:48): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill 2016. In doing so, I note that much of the bill is innocuous. Indeed, were all of the bill innocuous, I would possibly not even rise to speak on it. Certainly, the official renaming of the Flinders University of South Australia Act 1966 to the Flinders University Act 1966 is non-controversial. Strengthening the statutory liability protections for council members and senior officers is not controversial. Including provisions for the establishment of common investment funds for the universities and expanding the councils' powers of delegation also are not controversial. Allowing for the tabling of annual reports in parliament by the Minister for Higher Education and Skills instead of the Governor is similarly not controversial.

This suite of non-controversial elements in the bill, however, come with the bid by Flinders University and the University of Adelaide to reduce the staff, students and alumni on their university councils—the senior part of their governance and the most powerful decision-making parts of those two universities—which is, of course, controversial. That is why they have been packaged with, I believe, this suite of non-controversial measures, including the changing of the name of Flinders University of South Australia to Flinders University. Those non-controversial elements should have been put up separately from reducing the staff and student, in particular, representation on university councils.

The bill before us has no support from the National Tertiary Education Union of this state, no support from the student elected bodies of those two institutions in this state (the University of Adelaide and Flinders University), but has the endorsement of the Weatherill Labor government, which seeks to reduce the student and staff voices on those two university councils. It beggars belief that a Labor government would put this bill before this place without that support from the NTEU or the student bodies, but it has, and here we are. We are seeing the corporatisation of the governance of our universities, and this bill reduces the student and staff voice of those two institutions.

Indeed, it is happening in a climate where there are worse conditions for students and staff. There has been a reduction in the number of staff at these academic institutions, particularly administrative and support staff. In particular, I note that there is increased pressure at the coalface for overworked staff, tutorial classes are swelling and student numbers in each class are increasing. Students have never needed a voice more than they do now, and yet the Labor Weatherill government is reducing that student voice on the councils at the University of Adelaide and Flinders University. As well as that, the staff needing the support that an industrial democracy brings is being eroded at this very time.

The question to the Weatherill Labor government is: why are they removing students and staff from the university council? What value do they expect to gain from lessening the student and staff voice at these institutions when we are seeing students' quality of learning already affected and we are seeing cuts to essential staff? Indeed, Flinders University recently cut 25 of its library staff. Many of these staff members were also students or were staff who were unable to be placed elsewhere in the institution. We do not have a bill to ensure that the quality of education is being protected at our academic institutions, but we do have a bill introduced in this place by a Labor government to reduce the student and staff voice, to reduce the industrial democracy of these universities and to reduce the transparency when a decision is made.

One of the decisions that will be made and that continues to be made is the salaries of the vice-chancellors who preside over these cruel cuts to staffing. When a vice-chancellor earns in a week what some academic staff earn in a year, we should be questioning whether or not we need greater transparency rather than a lessened student and staff voice in the very bodies that oversee these decision-making forums.

The nation's 38 public university vice-chancellors were paid an average salary package of some $890,000 in recent years, with 11 of those vice-chancellors paid more than $1 million. It has been brought into question, not just by the Greens, that something is out of whack here when a vice-chancellor can earn more in a week than an academic staff member can earn in a year.

It has also been brought into question by no less than the education minister, Simon Birmingham, at a federal level, who has urged restraint. He said, and I cannot agree more with the statement, that these salaries of the vice-chancellors should reflect community expectations. He has noted that excessive senior pay packets are actually part of his justification for the $2.8 billion in funding cuts that are proposed. He is on record in the media as saying:

Universities are big, complex institutions that require specialist skills that their VCs should be recognised for, but some of these numbers would surprise many people…

Taxpayers foot the bill for some 58 per cent of university revenue so VCs should ask themselves whether their pay meets the expectations of students, staff and everyday Australians.

I think that if you asked students and staff and everyday Australians they would think it is out of whack that a vice-chancellor can earn more in a week than some academic staff earn in a year. They would think that it is out of whack that, at the very time that these vice-chancellors are awarding themselves excessive salary increases—indeed, out of whack internationally as well with what vice-chancellors at institutions overseas are awarded—we should be reducing the student and staff voice on the university councils.

The Greens have just tabled an amendment to this bill that is in addition to the previously filed amendments that councillors would be aware of. The previously filed amendments seek to reinstate the student and staff numbers on these university councils at their current levels and also seek to have this bill referred to the Social Development Committee for report and recommendations. On that note, I move the following amendment to the second reading motion:

To leave out all words after 'that' and to insert 'the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Social Development Committee for its report and recommendations'.

To continue my remarks, this bill comes before us without the support of the students and staff of these institutions. It certainly has the support of the vice-chancellors of these institutions, who are on their healthy salary packages and who are cutting and slashing at these institutions. It certainly has the support of the Weatherill Labor government. I imagine it will have the support of the opposition in this place, but it should not come without the transparency that an inquiry by a select committee could provide. We have not heard the student and staff voices of true consultation about this process.

We have certainly had a great deal of correspondence of concern from members of these university communities. In particular, I note that the National Tertiary Education Union has been very active in raising their concerns, both about the lack of consultation prior to this legislation coming before this place and about the lack of support from their organisation for this legislation. That select committee process would give the parliament the ability to hear those voices that have not yet been heard in that debate. They certainly have been ignored up to this point by the vice-chancellors of the respective institutions, and at this point, given we have a bill to slash those student and staff numbers from university councils, they have been ignored by the Weatherill Labor government.

I urge the opposition to listen to those voices, to act for transparency and good governance and to ensure that, where a decision is made, those who are stakeholders and who are affected directly by the decision have the ability to be not just told what is happening but to have their say. Indeed, I note that the government's own democratic processes that they often espouse in this place—their online democracy and conversations where they put an idea out to the South Australian public to 'have your say'—have not been employed in this process.

We have not heard the students and staff voice in this debate whatsoever, and I note that these measures in this largely uncontroversial bill to slash the numbers of students and staff on university councils do not come with the support of those students and staff. Those voices have been silenced, and this parliament could act to listen to those voices and indeed perhaps find a way forward on this issue that could get the support of those stakeholders. But that has not been a path the Labor Weatherill government has chosen here.

They have also not chosen—and this has been done in Tasmania and Victoria—to ensure not only that there is a maximum cap on the number of these university councils but there is a minimum number on these university councils. So, my first question to the minister is: why has the government not acted to ensure there is a minimum number on these university council bodies? Was that discussed? Was it countenanced? If it has been countenanced and rejected, on what grounds was that decision rejected, and was the experience of both Tasmania and Victoria taken into consideration?

Further, the lack of consultation should have rung alarm bells, I would have thought, for the Labor Weatherill government that this piece of legislation is actually a harbinger of what is to come. If you take away the students and staff on these university councils, surely that will actually erode the student and staff voice and the transparency when decisions are made in the future.

I was forwarded a piece of correspondence when we were in communication with the Minister for Education's office about this bill. I suspect it may have been done in error, but certainly we were most appreciative of receiving it. The correspondence is from Will Denny to my then staff member, and it is dated 23 December last year, 2016. Its subject is:

Draft response regarding the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill 2016 (SEC=UNOFFICIAL)

Attachments: Draft response re the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill 2016.doc

It goes on to give greetings to my staff member and state:

We spoke a few weeks ago regarding a constituent enquiry regarding the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill 2016. The initial enquiry may be presented as a concern about the effect of the Bill on the University of Adelaide Act (1971).

Please find attached a draft response for consideration when responding to that enquiry, or similar enquiries.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Will

Will Denny

Ministerial Liaison Officer

Office of the Hon Susan Close MP

Minister for Education and Child Development | Minister for Higher Education and Skills

The letter attachment sent to my office—and I must say that my office made it very clear that she was ringing from the office of Tammy Franks MLC, not from the office of 'Labor backbencher, MP'—has a space to insert name and address and a space to insert the name of the constituent. The letter goes on to give us a template to address constituent concerns—I suspect a template to address constituent concerns on behalf of the Labor Party. It goes on to outline the bill, to certainly emphasise all of the non-controversial parts of the bill, and then to state:

Please be assured that in the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill 2016 there is no intention to remove or weaken staff and student representation on our university councils. Student and staff representation is a crucial component of an open and transparent university governance structure.

That part of the letter I could not agree with more, but I question whether there is no intention to remove or weaken staff and student representation, when indeed that is seemingly the point of this bill. It then goes on to state:

If enacted, the Bill would reduce the overall size of the university Councils at Flinders University and the University of Adelaide by moving from four to two staff members (one general and one academic), and from three to two student members (one undergraduate and one postgraduate).

So, how is that no intention to remove or weaken staff and student representation? That is my second question to the minister. Further, the letter goes on to assuage any concerns from a concerned constituent, and certainly, if the correspondence sent to the Greens' offices is any indication, there was a large amount of such correspondence sent to all members of parliament. I am advised that the University of Adelaide has provided formal advice of the proposed amendments to the National Tertiary Education Union and that the staff have had access to minutes of council discussions on the issue.

My third question to the minister is: when was this formal advice of the proposed amendments to the National Tertiary Education Union made, to which members of the National Tertiary Education Union and in what form? Also, when were staff given access to the council minutes of discussion on this issue? What was the date and in what form was that information provided? The form letter then goes on to state:

Flinders University has undertaken a public consultation process on the proposed amendments. This involves providing information on the proposed amendments to all staff and students, holding public forums, inviting submissions and providing responses to the issues raised. In addition, the Minister for Higher Education and Skills has met with staff and student representatives from Flinders University and the University of Adelaide to discuss the proposed amendments.

So, my fourth question to the minister is: when did that meeting take place; who was the meeting held with; and what was the resolution of those staff and student representatives after that meeting? Were they in support of this bill or did their opposition remain?

The form letter, which I am sure was very handy for Labor backbenchers and, for some odd reason, sent to my office to assist us with our inquiries, goes on continuing to placate and assure concerned people that no harm will come from this bill. The Greens believe that harm will come from this bill because the student and staff voice is important in the role of a university. A university is more than a corporation—it is a community. The reason there is a student and staff voice on these bodies—who are in the vast minority on these bodies—is so that you actually have the community which you serve at the table when you make the very decisions that affect them the most.

The Greens will be moving amendments to restore the student and staff representation on these two university councils and will happily support the aforementioned non-controversial elements of the bill. We will also, as I have flagged, be moving to send the bill to the Social Development Committee for further inquiry and, indeed, real transparency and do the job that the government should have done and hear the student and staff voice, not just in a private meeting once the decision has already been made with the minister, but for all of the parliament to be informed and for the transparency of the erosion of industrial democracy to be put out for all in the South Australian community to see.

Finally, just today I have filed a stopgap amendment, because if students and staff are not going to be at the university council tables when decisions about extraordinary pay packets for university vice-chancellors are made—pay packets over $1 million, pay packets in multiple amounts of what the Premier or the Prime Minister of this country earn—then we will ensure that in the future those vice-chancellors cannot award themselves those exorbitant pay packets and that they will be curbed to the level of no more than the Premier of this state.

I think the argument that the Premier does a pretty damn good job and earns his pay packet should be one that should be accepted by the university vice-chancellors. Surely, the running of the state should be recompensed at a rate that the vice-chancellors should not be exceeding. To run the University of Adelaide or Flinders University is no greater responsibility than the running of South Australia.

I think the ordinary person in the street, and certainly the students and staff of these institutions, who have not been properly consulted and who do not support the erosion of their voice at the table, will support curbing the exorbitant pay packets of these vice-chancellors, who are riding roughshod over these institutions with cuts to staffing, with cuts to services and with an erosion of the students' academic experience on campus, and who now are coming to this place and asking us for less transparency rather than greater transparency.

Next time they award themselves a pay rise, students and staff will look back and see whether or not the Parliament of South Australia stood up for them. As the federal higher education minister Simon Birmingham has said, 'Enough is enough!' We need to rein in these vice-chancellors and ensure that their salaries are what is acceptable and moral when all across the university sector are having to tighten their belts and there are federal budget cuts.

Therefore, I think it is beholden on opposition and government to consider that, to consider whether, if they are going to support students and staff being removed from university councils and the student and staff voice being lessened, they are then also going to let vice-chancellor salaries increase exponentially into the future, or draw a line in the sand in this council at this time and ensure that the excesses stop now.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:11): I will speak briefly today on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill. I appreciate the briefings I have received on this from the minister's office, universities and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, while most of this bill certainly is worthwhile, after careful consideration, like other speakers, the Dignity Party has decided that it cannot support the bill in its current iteration, primarily because it cuts the number of elected positions on university councils and reduces student representation and voice.

If there are more suitable amendments that improve this bill—and I believe I may have just recently received one on my desk that I am willing to consider—and if those amendments are worthwhile, we might consider changing our view to support this bill. But, given that universities need actively to represent the student body, as it currently stands we cannot lend our support to it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:12): I rise to close the debate at this stage. I believe all honourable members who wished to contribute have done so. I thank those members for their consideration of the bill and their contributions to this debate.

As I indicated during my second reading speech, this bill makes a number of important reforms to the governance arrangements at the University of Adelaide and Flinders University, the greatest university in the world. The universities have sought these amendments following extensive reviews of their existing governance arrangements. The government has consulted closely with the universities in developing this bill. In turn, both universities put in place their own processes to inform and engage with their respective communities about the proposed amendments.

The Hon. Jing Lee made a series of remarks early in the debate about the importance of the University of Adelaide and Flinders University to our state. Their contribution is seen through the universities' role in educating young people and driving innovation and research, in developing and commercialising opportunities and in attracting international students to South Australia.

The government agrees wholeheartedly with that sentiment. It is in the context of the universities' contribution to the state, the reasonableness of what they have proposed and the government's respect for the universities' independence that we have introduced this bill.

I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised, both in parliament and in the wider community, about the proposal to reduce the size of the university councils. The bill would reduce the size of the university councils from the current levels of up to 21 members by reducing the number of staff, student, independent appointed and, in the case of the University of Adelaide, alumni members of council. The universities have made representations to the government that the current size of the councils is unwieldy and inefficient and that smaller councils would allow council members to more fully engage in the governance of the universities.

Some staff and students have expressed concerns about the reduction in staff and student members of council. This concern comes from a genuine desire to have staff and students play a constructive role in university governance. In response, I am advised that both universities have sought to inform and engage with staff and students about the proposed amendments and the reasons for them.

However, the government is satisfied that the universities' request is motivated by a desire to improve the governance arrangements, that it comes after careful deliberation and that staff and students have been informed of the proposal. Staff and students will continue to play an important role on university councils and the bill does not affect other mechanisms for staff and student engagement, such as the academic board or the senate.

The Hon. Andrew McLachlan raised a number of issues in his contribution to the debate, to which I would like to briefly respond. Following an initial request from Flinders University for amendments to its act, the Department of State Development consulted at all three public universities on possible amendments to their acts. The bill reflects the outcomes of that consultation process with the University of Adelaide and Flinders University. The University of South Australia elected not to pursue any amendments to its act at this time.

The University of Adelaide and Flinders University put in place their own processes for consulting with their communities on the amendments in this bill. I outlined these processes in my second reading speech. The amendments in the bill have also been approved by the councils at both universities, and the universities will continue to be required to present their annual reports to the parliament. This will provide a mechanism for the parliament to monitor the success of these changes to the governance arrangements.

The changes to the council structure have been broadly modelled on the existing structure at the University of South Australia, and the composition of the Flinders University council will be exactly the same as the University of South Australia. The University of Adelaide will differ in two respects: it substitutes one independent appointed member for an elected alumni member, and there will be a degree of flexibility in the overall size of council by allowing for between four and seven independent appointed members.

Council members at the University of Adelaide and Flinders University do not receive board fees. The Chancellor at the University of Adelaide does receive an honorarium, and I am advised that there are no current proposals to change this arrangement. The measures contained in the bill do not impact on existing university policies around academic freedom of speech at the University of Adelaide and Flinders University.

I acknowledge the support from members for the implementation of many of the measures contained in this bill. I note questions read into the record by the Hon. Tammy Franks, and officers will have taken note of those questions and will prepare a response for me to provide at clause 1. I understand that there is support for this bill to be read a second time but for the committee stage to be taken into consideration at a later stage so, should the bill pass the second reading, I will move that the committee stage be an order for the next day of sitting.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks has moved an amendment to the second reading position, so I put the question that the words proposed to be struck out stand as part of the question. If you support the Hon. Ms Franks you will vote no.

Motion negatived.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 18

Noes 3

Majority 15

Second reading thus carried.