Flinders University (Remuneration of Council Members) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2019.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:23): I rise to close the second reading debate. I thank the following members for their contributions to the bill: the Hon. Clare Scriven and the Hon. Tammy Franks. The government is pleased with the general support that has been indicated for the second reading of the bill. There were a number of questions raised in the second reading stage by, I think, the Hon. Ms Franks. On behalf of the minister, I place on the record the following answers.

The first question was why the input of staff, students and the National Tertiary Education Union was not sought. The answer provided is that consultation on the bill is a matter that was managed by the university. While they have not undertaken any consultation with staff and students generally, the decision to remunerate members was ratified by the council on 15 March 2018, which includes representation from staff and students.

Another question was: why do only some members of the council need to be paid, and why do they need to be paid at all, for that matter?

Answer: remuneration of council members is currently reasonably common practice. Of the 42 public and private universities in Australia, 33 are able to remunerate their council members; of these, 26 do so. There is a strong argument for remunerating council members as they contribute significant hours of their time and are required to exercise a high degree of skill, knowledge and expertise in carrying out their duties.

Further, some of the university's council members are drawn from the same pool of candidates as appointees to boards or governing bodies of local government, some government boards and committees, and private and public companies. Most of these roles are paid. For those members of the council, such as the general and academic staff on the council, their role and job descriptions would not normally include the additional duties and responsibilities of being a council member. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate for them to be remunerated to undertake this role.

The bill provides the flexibility for the university to determine, in the future, any particular classes of persons who ought not to be paid. The vice-chancellor's role, for example, includes the responsibilities and duties of being a member of the council, and therefore the vice-chancellor will not receive any additional remuneration in their capacity as a council member.

Question: clarification of what might be considered to be other factors in fixing different amounts of remuneration. Answer: other factors may include the specific responsibilities of a particular council member. Question: how these changes disapply section 18C of the act so that council members will not be in breach of their duty when it comes to conflicts of interest in relation to the making of determinations regarding remuneration.

Answer: section 18C of the act prevents a member of the council who has a direct or indirect personal or pecuniary interest in a matter decided or under consideration by the council from taking part in any discussion of the council relating to the matter and from voting on the matter and requires that the person be absent from the meeting room when any discussion of voting is taking place.

Disapplying section 18C ensures that council members will not be in breach of their duty in respect to conflicts of interest in relation to the making of determinations regarding remuneration. It should be noted that sections 18A and 18B of the act, which require that council members act at all times in good faith and in the best interests of the university in the performance of their functions, will continue to apply to the making of determinations regarding remuneration.

With that, on behalf of the government, I commend the bill to the house.

Ayes 16

Noes 2

Majority 14

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just a few questions arising from the summary that the minister just gave on behalf of the minister in the other place. If 26 of the 33 are able to afford remuneration for their councillors at various institutions across the country, how many of those 26 do so at variable levels?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will filibuster until the advisers arrive. Let me guess what the answer will be: I suspect that might be the sort of detail that we are probably not aware of. Reinforcements have arrived, and even with my trusty adviser we do not have that detail at hand. I am sure, on behalf of the minister, I could undertake to get that information and have the minister correspond by way of letter to the member with whatever information he and his officers are able to provide to the honourable member. I will give that undertaking on behalf of the minister who, I am sure, will be happy that I have done that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am more than happy to have that taken on notice and indicate I only have two more questions on clause 1. The second of my questions is: given this bill disapplies section 18C, that direct or indirect pecuniary interest is therefore found a pathway around, and there was reference made to 18A and 18B of the act as well, how did the council make this decision to put forward to the government the idea of legislation that would benefit them?

Did they disallow 18C, 18A, 18B? What was the process for that, noting there was no consultation with the university community on this; there was only that decision of council?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that that is the reason why 18C was disapplied, that is, to allow them as a council to take this particular decision. Section 18C was disapplied, and that allowed this particular decision to be taken, otherwise there was no way of actually getting an endorsement or not from the university council in relation to this particular issue.

I think if one looks at it sensibly, if a council or a university is going to either support a policy like this—as many have around the country evidently—or not, the only appropriate vehicle for a decision to be taken before it comes to parliament, obviously, is for their governing body to make a decision. If there was some impediment to that decision being taken, which evidently 18C technically might have, then there needed to be legal advice taken. I understand their legal advice, which was consistent with the legal advice made available to the government, was that this was the mechanism to be used for a policy decision to be taken by the council.

The government's position was that this was not something that the government was pursuing in its own right. It was a decision the council wished to pursue and there needed to be some indication that this was actually a decision of the governing body of the council on which, as the minister's answer indicates, the staff and students are represented. I do not purport to know how they voted on that, but ultimately there was a decision, so I am advised, of the council that supported this proposition.

I think from the government's and the minister's viewpoint, he would need to be comfortable that this was supported by whatever the governing body of the university was, which is the council. If it could not express a view, I am not sure who in the alternative would be able to indicate to the government, then ultimately through the government to the parliament, that this was actually supported by Flinders University.

If it is not going to be the council, then who else would represent that view? I do not think we would take the view that the chancellor himself or herself or the vice-chancellor himself or herself could purport to speak on behalf of the university on a big decision like this, so the appropriate forum or vehicle would appear to be the council. If there was a legal issue that needed to be resolved, which is 18C, the legal advice indicated this was the mechanism through which an opinion could be expressed on behalf of the university.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My third and final question at clause 1 is: given it was indicated that, for example, the vice-chancellor will not be benefiting from this particular legislative reform, because it is already in his package pretty much that he is compensated for his involvement with the university council, what is the vice-chancellor's salary package?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not know that, but I must say I have seen some publicity on vice-chancellors around Australia and it is not inconsiderable in terms of their packages. It is significantly more than the honourable member and I think, indeed, myself as a minister earns. The member can take it as read that it is a very large sum of money and commensurate, they would argue, with the very important role that they undertake.

It is a very big budget and a very big institution and therefore I think it is not inappropriate that, if it is part of their role and responsibilities, they do not need to be additionally remunerated for something which is already part of their job spec. Certainly, I am not going to be greatly concerned that the vice-chancellor is missing out on getting paid. I think he is very healthily remunerated. But the answer is: I am not in a position to indicate what the remuneration package is of the vice-chancellor of Flinders University.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: A supplementary on that because I did ask for a specific answer: is it over $1 million?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honest answer is I do not know, but I have seen publicity about vice-chancellors' salaries around Australia. Some of them have been in the high six-figure sums, so they have not actually cracked through the magic $1 million mark, but some of them around Australia have. I do not know the answer to the question, but it is more than the honourable member earns, and it is more than I earn as the minister. That gives you a rough order of some, in terms of the publicity that I have seen in relation to salaries, but I have no knowledge of the specific remuneration package of the vice-chancellor of Flinders University.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:42): I move:

That this bill be now read third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.