HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-03-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 February 2017.)

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (12:15): I rise to speak about the Statutes Amendment (Universities) Bill 2016. You may be surprised, sir, that I actually went to university.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): No.

The Hon. P. CAICA: You are not surprised?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I am not surprised.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It was in 1975 and 1976, I think. I originally went to become a schoolteacher because I was so impressed by the number of schoolteachers I had who had a significant impact on my life since that time, given what I think they instilled into me. There might be some people who are unhappy about those things but, be that as it may, I was very happy to be taught by these teachers.

However, after a short while I started to have a few beers down at what was the Harvey's Henley Hotel, run by Lloyd and Pat Harvey. Of course, on a Friday afternoon I would meet the teachers and have a drink with the teachers who taught me at school. I never lost respect for them, but it seemed to me that a number of them had not really grown up. They had gone from kindergarten, to primary school, to high school, to teachers' college or university and back to school.

I thought, 'Well, if I want to be a schoolteacher, I should go out and actually learn a bit more about the world, become more worldly, and then perhaps go back to that honourable profession,' if that was my decision. As it turned out, that never happened and I joined the fire brigade. I then completed my degree I think in 1985 or thereabouts, for two reasons really: one was to finish what I started; but, secondly, to show my mother and father that the sacrifices they had made for me to be able to go to university were not wasted. I finished my degree, joined the fire brigade and ultimately finished up here, which I am very pleased about. I enjoyed my time at university. I think it was in 1975 or 1976 when the—

Mr Duluk: Do you remember your time there?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I do. I think it was either 1975 or 1976 when the university bar and bistro opened. They were alongside each other and that did create a few problems. I remember one Prosh breakfast coming home in the afternoon, after catching the bus home, falling through the front door and mum looking at me and saying, 'Is this why we are sending you to university?' There was some garbled response, but I very much enjoyed my time at university and it was good.

What we do know about our universities in South Australia is that we have world-class institutions. They stand up very well against any of the universities in Australia and, for that matter, around the world. We hear people say that three universities in South Australia are too many, but I do not subscribe to that view. They each have their own specialties and I think we have a population that can accommodate three universities.

We have in South Australia—this is something we sometimes forget—a large enough population to have critical mass, but we are also small enough to do things from an evidence-based process. We show that we can do things differently in South Australia than can be done even on the eastern seaboard. The six degrees of separation that exist are not six degrees of separation in South Australia.

We are seeing great work being undertaken by universities that collaborate not only with our community but between themselves, and I think that sets us apart. We are very privileged to have world-class universities that make a key contribution to our state in South Australia. In making a key contribution to our state, that contribution is being made to our nation and beyond the shores of our country.

The amendments to the universities bill that have come to the house are not necessarily without a degree of controversy in some circles, and that relates mostly to the representation. I will talk about that a little bit later. What we specifically know about this bill is that it is about reducing the size of the university councils and extending the tenure of student representatives on the councils from one to two years. I think that is a good thing. Two years offers a greater period of time for those representatives to learn what the role and function is and, importantly, what their role and function is on the council.

The bill also allows for the tabling of annual reports in parliament by the Minister for Higher Education and Skills instead of the Governor—a common-sense move. As I understand it, the minister already has the role of tabling the annual report of the University of South Australia, but not so for Flinders or Adelaide. This bill also strengthens the statutory liability protections for council members and senior officers, and that, of course, is very important. It includes provision for the establishment of a common investment fund. It also expands the delegation of the powers of the university councils. Whilst that is already detailed, it expands that and, again, that makes a lot of sense.

We know that under the Flinders University of South Australia Act, the university is referred to as the Flinders University of South Australia. The bill is going to make changes so that it will be referred to as Flinders University. I think that anyone who has been connected with the universities in South Australia or not has always referred to it as either Flinders University or just plain Flinders. That is just a small, but I think important, change. This bill will also make associated consequential amendments.

I was saying earlier, Deputy Speaker, that the person who was assuming your chair at that stage might not have realised I went to university. People here might not realise I was also, for a period of time, the further education minister in this state. It was a great privilege, of course, to have that title and involve myself not only with universities but with further education, to see the outstanding work undertaken by our universities and other institutions of further education, the role they play in teaching students, and the role researchers play in researching things that are important to this state and, in fact, important to Australia.

I really enjoyed that job. Part of having that job meant that I attended, on at least one occasion, all the university council meetings. When I say 'all of the university council meetings', I mean I attended at least one for all of the universities that have a council. It was nice to be there, but one thing that struck me was the size of them. There was an enormous amount of people around the table. I always thought to a very great extent that the bigger a council or committee, the more clunky and cumbersome it is with respect to fulfilling the role of that council, committee or board, depending on the number of people who are representatives.

It seems to make sense to me to reduce the size of a council. I say that on the basis that I think, as has been shown on the eastern seaboard and by the University of South Australia, which actually has a reduced number of people on its council, it augurs well for a better level of operation of that board. That is not to say, of course, that they have not been operating effectively anyway, but I think this will sharpen the focus and sharpen the way by which they will discharge their primary function, and their primary function is, amongst other things, the governance of that particular university in a variety of areas. It does seem to make sense to me.

On the matter of the reduction of representation, if you like, purely in numbers of students and staff, I note that there will still be two representatives from the student body: an undergraduate and a postgraduate. There will still be two on there. This is really a matter for the university. I have a personal view, and it will not necessarily affect the way I vote on this particular bill, but I would alert the house that I have received several emails from people who are upset about the reduction in representation, not only of the student cohort but also of the academic staff.

On my assessment of those reductions, it still appears to me—and I will need to be convinced otherwise—from what I have been able to research and read, that the percentage of representation will not be affected unduly. I say that with a view to not so much trying to comfort those people who have contacted me about these reduction numbers, but just to say that there is still, appropriately so, student and academic staff representation on these councils. From what I have seen of the universities on the eastern seaboard, they have also evolved to a representative council that is similar to that which this bill is trying to put in place here in South Australia that, again, is in line with what successfully worked at what I call the people's university—the University of South Australia.

The reduction in size that will bring the universities of Adelaide and Flinders into line with the University of South Australia, as I said, is meant to be and is being introduced to be consistent with the Universities Australia's Voluntary Code of Best Practice for the Governance of Australian Universities. As I mentioned, too, I think it is important that it will be achieved while broadly—and I say 'broadly'—maintaining the existing proportions of staff, student and appointed independent members on the university councils.

I attended Adelaide University and found it to be a very good institution. I look at the future of universities in South Australia, and I know we are in challenging times when it comes to the funding of universities, how they take their product beyond the walls of the university, how they become more relevant to our communities and, just as importantly, how the work that is being undertaken there actually adds value to our communities in South Australia and beyond.

On any fair assessment, the universities have done a very good job in that regard, but I think there are areas where improvement can take place, and one of those is the research that is being undertaken and how that research can I guess be commercialised to make sure that the university itself benefits from that research. I think we are certainly operating at a different level than what I have seen in Boston, for example, where their focus on the commercialisation of their research is something that is ploughed back into the university and becomes a perpetuating funding stream for that particular university. I think there are improvements in that area that we can make, and I certainly say that is going to be one of the challenges for our universities in South Australia.

I go back to the point I made earlier, too, about the six degrees of separation and how universities here can collaborate at a far different level than they can on the eastern seaboard or even in America. We have critical mass with the people of Adelaide, but we are small enough to make sure that the research we undertake here can be evidenced in a way it might not be able to in other parts of Australia, because we all know each other and we can work differently with each other.

I hate saying, because I hear it in other places, that I was once the minister for this and that, but another portfolio that I really enjoyed was being the minister for science. I only received that portfolio because I am sure the premier of the day said I was just the appropriate person to do it, but the reality is that—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is almost impossible to hear the member on his feet. It has been drawn to my attention that there is a lot of background chatter. We do not want to miss the last seven minutes of the member for Colton's contribution.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That means starting now.

Mr Duluk: They don't like his contribution. They don't want to listen to it. I think it is very good, Paul.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that means you have to be quiet, member for Davenport.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Is it more that my mumbo jumbo is difficult to understand and that is why people are talking, which I will accept if that is the case? Anyway, taking a couple of steps back, as I said, I do not like saying this, but I was the science minister in this state for a period of time, and that again was a great portfolio. Why was it a great portfolio? Because the work you were doing was so interesting. Not only was it interesting, it also gave you the ability—and I am sure the member for Frome will not like this—to not so much interfere in anyone else's portfolios but, because everything should be underpinned by science, to have an entree into other portfolio responsibilities to a certain extent, to make sure that science was the basis of the decisions being made.

Mr Gardner: Like the status of women portfolio.

The Hon. P. CAICA: There were a few exceptions, but anyway everything is based—and decisions should be based—on science. It was a very good portfolio. I remember receiving a briefing one day and I thought, 'What the hell does that mean?' I read it and got the person who wrote it and said, 'What I want you to do is go away and write this so that not only will I understand it but I will be able to communicate it to the member for Morialta and he will understand it and, when he's standing at the bus stop to come in to work, he will be able to describe that bit of science, how it relates to that person, how it relates to the state and how it is something that is going to be beneficial to the state.' The response was, 'That will be challenging, minister.' I said, 'We like a challenge—go away and do it.'

One of the things that we need to be able to do as well is communicate the research that is being undertaken in universities, and the research that is being undertaken in private companies, to make it relevant to the people who are ultimately going to benefit from that science. So, it is a matter of communicating as well. It is another area, to a certain extent, where some aspects of university life and the research and work being undertaken can be improved, and I will not say 'dumb it down', but allow people to understand it because it is said in simple terms that are meaningful and that people can comprehend—not only comprehend but then communicate to others the importance of the particular research. I have been diverted a little bit, and I apologise for that, but I am just so excited.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, he did. I have not mentioned the functions of university councils. The Flinders University of South Australia (now to be called Flinders University) and the University of Adelaide Act specify the following responsibilities of university councils:

appointing the vice chancellor—a very big decision;

approving the mission for strategic direction, budget and business plans of the university;

overseeing and reviewing the management of the university and its performance;

establishing policy and procedural principles;

approving and monitoring systems of control and accountability, as well as the assessment and management of risk;

overseeing and monitoring the academic activities of the university; and

approving significant commercial activities.

That is a fairly large number of important responsibilities of the university councils. They are doing a good job, and this reform will assist them in discharging their functions to an even better standard than they do today.

We know that the councils are also primarily comprised of ex-officio members: the chancellor, vice chancellor, presiding member of the academic board or the senate—whatever it is called, depending on the university—the independent appointed members, and staff and student members. Those people will still be represented on the councils after this amendment is put into place, albeit with the numbers I spoke about earlier.

Another thing I want to say about the university councils is that they have been a great breeding ground for people for not only the various occupations they will enter after they have left university but also from a political perspective. I expect there are people in this room who were involved in student politics. There is one sitting to the left of me, figuratively speaking, and I think there are probably one or two opposite.

People who have been involved in university politics have represented all political parties at the highest level—from the late lamented and not so sorely missed Democrats to the Greens and to the two major parties. It has been a very fertile ground for people to move into this chamber and other chambers across Australia. That can only be a good thing for our political system, providing, of course, they actually go out and visit and become part of the real world before they come into this place. That is another thing that we can improve on here.

Mr Pederick: They are certainly on your side.

The Hon. P. CAICA: You've got them on your side. There is a chap over in the other place, the Hon. Mr Lucas, who I assume has gone from university—if he went to university—to becoming the party apparatchik, to coming straight here decades and decades ago. He might barrack for West Adelaide, and that might put him in touch with real people from time to time, but there is not really a great deal of life experience there. We are no different on this side, and I think that is something we can all improve on.

Of course, that has no relevance to the bill before us today. However, it has relevance to how we can best benefit from the opportunities that are provided to those who attend university and do whatever it is they do there and how they can become better at what they do while gathering some world experiences.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: They do study, and they study very hard. During the time of the big dispute about whether or not Union Hall should make way for the building that took its place, I attended a couple of lectures there. I did not know what they were talking about—it was some advanced maths program—but I sat down and talked to students on the way out and asked them what they thought of the place as a lecture room. They said, 'It's ridiculous,' that it was the great big Union Hall. Talking to the students was one of the factors that assisted me in understanding that we need to have good facilities for them to study.

Again, I have digressed, Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and the house for that. I have had a very good time up here today. I commend the bill to the house and I wish its speedy passage through this place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am almost tempted to move an extension of time because I was not in the room for the whole contribution.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (14:36): I also rise to support this bill. I am following the master, though, and I feel like sitting down again. The government is making a number of amendments to the University of Adelaide Act 1971 and the Flinders University of South Australia Act 1966. As previous speakers have said, these changes are intended to improve the governance arrangements of these universities. They will streamline their operations and hopefully leave the governance bodies freed up to do other work and better serve their communities.

I should say from the outset that I am a firm believer in student representation on university boards. This flows from my support for student unions generally and trade unions in industrial settings. I am obviously a big supporter of those.

Mr Bell: And voluntary unions as well.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will get to that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do I have to protect the member for Little Para?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, I need protection from the member for—which seat is it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The book is ruled: I am going to start bringing people to order.

Mr ODENWALDER: The member for Davenport and/or Waite.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr ODENWALDER: I was always a member of the student union, and I was briefly a member of a student union council at Salisbury university in the very early nineties. I was not particularly interested in the operations of that body at the time. It was under the family leadership of Phil Harrison, who some people in this place may recall in his various guises. I knew him as the president of the newly formed student representative council of the University of South Australia, Salisbury campus, in the first year of the existence of that campus.

I recall many nights in the bar. Honestly, I do not recall ever going to a council meeting; I am sure I did at some point. Needless to say, I did not take much interest then in the operation of those bodies. As I said, I am a supporter of student representation on these bodies and unions generally.

Mr Gardner: Sounds like you were of great value.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Morialta, I am going to call you to order.

Mr ODENWALDER: I like to think that I guided the campus through those early days in a small way. I hasten to add that this bill does not threaten the principle of student representation. Like the member for Colton, my research leads me to conclude that the proportion of student representation is broadly the same across these bodies, and I am happy about that. Since those early days at Salisbury university, I have became a supporter of student unionism.

I lived and studied through a particularly dire time in New Zealand politics during the early nineties, when I went to university. There was a particularly virulent strain of free-market right-wingery, which included voluntary student unionism. It was more virulent than the strain that took hold here, but I will get to that.

I was at the University of Waikato when a group that called themselves free-market libertarians—and who, I confess, were friends of mine to a certain extent; I think the member for Davenport would have liked them, as would the member for Schubert I think, they would have got along like a house on fire—ran a very sophisticated campaign under this new political regime of voluntary student unionism.

They ran a very sophisticated and, it has to be said, well-resourced campaign for all the union positions, with their sole platform being the complete and immediate abolition of the union and their respective elected positions. They were hugely successful. These people were elected en bloc. Obviously there was no compulsory voting, but I am led to believe there was a pretty high turnout. The very next day they dismantled the entire apparatus of the student union and just walked away from it.

I was in South Australia some of the time this was going on, but I was not at the pointy end of this debate in the South Australian student union movement. Certainly in New Zealand it was pretty devastating. At the University of Waikato the services dried up immediately, and the private sector moved into providing a lot of the services like food and entertainment. It has to be said that it did not move into student services such as counselling or career counselling, or any of those things that student unions traditionally provide.

It also has to be said that the services provided by the private sector—and I have no problem with the private sector—in terms of the food and entertainment it provided on campus were not up to the standard the union provided. Certainly, those extra curricular services that students sometimes need and have come to expect were not provided. It is important to note that, despite the modest changes foreshadowed in this bill, the proportion of staff and student representation on these councils will remain broadly at current levels.

I was interested in the member for Chaffey's comments, in the course of this debate, about international education, particularly the importance of the Chinese market in this regard. As members may know, I have long been an advocate for engagement with China both on an educational level as well as in terms of business engagement. It is, after all, still our largest trading partner and will, for the foreseeable future, be the source of perhaps the biggest threats to and the biggest opportunities for our domestic economy.

I have visited China on several occasions, most recently in the second half of last year. There is a very high and, it has to be said, constantly growing awareness of Australia and South Australia as both a tourism destination and an education market, in particular. As the member for Chaffey pointed out, to his credit, these two are inextricably linked. However, I do not take the same dim view of the current state of our international education market that the member for Chaffey does.

Last year, the state government commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to take a really good look at this market, to look at its current contribution and to look ahead over the next 10 years or so at the threats and opportunities of this market. The first thing I would note about this report is that it continues to see China as claiming the largest share of this market, followed by India, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Vietnam. Interestingly, it does point to smaller—much smaller, in fact—but much faster-growing markets like Oman, Italy, Taiwan, Kenya and Nepal.

The report also goes on to point out some of the particular features which make the South Australian education sector attractive to overseas students, and these are the strengths we should be building on as we attempt to attract a higher and higher share of this market into the future. The first feature that sets South Australia apart, according to Deloitte's report, is price accessibility. This will come as no surprise. The cost of living in Adelaide and South Australia is relatively low compared with other major cities, in particular other major cities in Australia. It is ranked number 71 in the Mercer Cost of Living Survey, which I can only assume is a reputable survey of such things. To put that into perspective, Sydney is ranked at 31 and Melbourne is ranked at 47.

The second feature the report identifies is the accessibility of affordable accommodation—including, we are told, the member for Chaffey's sister. Adelaide has a large amount of purpose-built student accommodation and an average of one bed per 12 students, according to the report. This is the second highest in Australia behind Canberra.

Finally, the report identifies that migration opportunities may be a factor in any decision to study here. In particular, applicants who commit to living and working in South Australia for two years from arrival, with a view to long-term settlement, qualify for five additional points when applying for permanent residency. That is very attractive to people who want to settle here, who want to bring their family members here, and it is good for the South Australian economy generally. The report concludes that South Australia has a lot going for it in the international education market. There are plenty of opportunities to play to its strengths, and we should be emphasising those when we are talking about what needs to be done to attract international students.

It is true that the bill does reduce the size of university councils. It preserves as far as possible the ratio between student/staff representation on those councils, which to me is an important principle. Importantly, it extends the tenure of student representatives on the councils from one to two years, which allows for a bit of personal development for those student representatives. Not only are they proportionally just as well represented but those who are lucky enough to serve on these councils get that experience, which can serve them well later on and give them a lot of personal development. I have no hesitation in supporting this bill and I commend it to the house.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:45): I am also happy to support this bill. I would like to look at the relationship between universities and business. There was a time when I was the minister for manufacturing and innovation, and one of my tasks was to try to foster and improve the relationship between universities and businesses. One reason for doing that was to improve the competitiveness of businesses and to focus the talents and energies of those researchers in universities on the needs of business, to make our economy more productive, to provide new products, to improve employment—all those things that our economy needs.

While I was fulfilling my role as a minister in that portfolio, it became very apparent to me that the two groups—universities and business in general—are largely worlds apart. There are some very good instances of collaboration, with universities in fact dealing very well with businesses and businesses going into universities looking to collaborate, but on the whole it is as though they speak two completely separate languages, and they very much struggle to understand one another.

In my view, this is a critical weakness of the Australian economy, and it is also obviously true of South Australia because, if we truly accept that the future of the economy is in commercialising ideas, commercialising research, new products and new manufacturing that come out of the research of universities and other institutions, then we cannot afford that relationship to be as poor as it is currently.

A number of countries around the world do it very well. The US obviously stands out as a country where the universities have a certain business focus and entrepreneurial spirit, and that is very encouraging. It has been a very important part of their wealth and their ability to create wealth in their economy over the years. Germany does it very well. They do it in part through institutions called the Fraunhofer institutes, which marry up researchers and businesses and allow them to interact in a structured way, such that they have very good rates of commercialisation of their research and other things.

South Australia and Australia in general do not have those structures; they do not have institutes like the Fraunhofer institutes. That means that there is a gap in our economy, and it is absolutely critical that we bridge that gap. One way of doing that, in a quick way that forces universities to collaborate with business, is to get hold of research and innovation that comes out of universities and spin it out into a separate company, so that the universities are in fact creating their own companies. By doing that, they become a shareholder in the company and they are necessarily engaged with the business.

There are all sorts of federal government policies that complicate that process—and the controlled entities policy is not the least of them—but universities can still be a significant shareholder in these companies and researchers can be shareholders in these companies, and that necessarily means that they have a very good relationship with the business because they help create it. Hopefully, after applying the appropriate business skills and everything else and building the right team around the innovation, you will end up getting a successful company from this particular research. You will have a product to be hopefully manufactured in South Australia or Australia and then it would go to market. That market, of course, is not just South Australia or Australia, it is the entire world. That is another part of our challenge in this state: to see the entire world as our market.

This critical path to commercialisation, if we rely only on businesses discussing things and relating to universities, is going to be a very slow road. If we get to the point where universities are creating companies and building teams around those companies and having a vested interest in the success of those companies, I think it will be much more successful. I also think that universities will then have a path open to them for another revenue stream.

Universities have student fees, overseas student fees, research grants and federal government grants and those four streams can be supplemented over time. It is a relatively long-term view of the world but say in 20 or 25 years, if they started now and spun out enough companies they could have a revenue stream from dividends and sales and so on that would rival any of those other revenue streams. That would be a good thing because the less reliant universities are on outside sources of funding and are able to create their own sources of funding, then the more independent they will be—and I think that is a good thing.

The reason that is important for this bill is that the size of the board or the size of the university council can often complicate decision-making. My experience is that the larger a decision-making body is the harder it can be to get decisions made and to get things through. Reducing the size of the university councils is a good move and I think it will speed up the decision-making processes within the universities. Universities themselves are large bureaucracies and anything that improves the decision-making processes within universities is a good thing.

I think it is important to maintain the independence of people on councils. In the ordinary course of events, something like a university could be incorporated under the Corporations Act but there are no clear shareholders for a university: students are part of the university but they are, in effect, a customer; the staff are obviously employees and the federal government funds them but it does not control them in the typical sense of the word; and there are no share structures. Identifying shareholders of a university would be very difficult so it is important that the board or the council is a largely independent body with the best interests of the university at heart. They have been able to do that but I think reducing the size of the councils will speed up their processes and improve things.

However, it is still important to have a wide variety of perspectives. I think it is still important to have student participation and staff participation on the councils because, as much as they are a business and an organisation, universities are also a community in their own right and they are also part of the broader South Australian community, in our instance, and that should be encouraged. That is something that should continue because I think universities have a very large role to play in the future of South Australia.

In fact, in many ways I would like them to be much more engaged in the creation of the future of South Australia. I think spinning out companies and creating start-ups is part of that but they can also play a strategic role in the development of new industries, new directions and new thinking for our state, and that is to be encouraged, especially for South Australia at this time. With those words, I commend the bill to the house and I encourage people to support this as it proceeds through the parliament.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:54): I also rise to discuss this bill and to mention some issues about our university sector in general in this state. As members would know, this is a very important sector for our economy in South Australia and some of the most important institutions that we have in our state are our three universities.

I agree particularly with the comments made previously by the member for Newland about the importance of using a lot of the world-leading research that is undertaken in our universities and better integrating that with industry and with commercialisation to make sure that we can see the benefits of that research delivering for industry and our economy more generally. There have been a number of very significant steps taken in that regard over the past 10 years, both with initiatives from the state government and with the university sector.

One of the most important initiatives has been the work in the health research sector with the establishment of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, which has really kick-started our medical research industry. Our medical research industry was obviously strong, but we were seeing other states overtaking us in terms of their research capabilities. By bringing the universities together as part of that institute, we have seen us become much more of a landmark location with not only the fantastic new building on North Terrace but also a lot of research that happens in our universities.

From my perspective, I see that as an important model that could be used across different areas of research. There are some people who think it is best if we combine all the universities. That has never been my view. I think it is important to have some competitive tension amongst our university sector in South Australia and for us to really be known as a university city. I think that coming together through institutions such as SAHMRI is an excellent example of how that can best be delivered.

I am obviously very biased towards Flinders University, not only as a Flinders University graduate but also as a member representing the southern suburbs where Flinders is the largest employer in the south.

Mr Duluk: You spent a lot of time at Adelaide University, though, doing student politics.

Mr PICTON: I am always very keen to have a good argument with people such as the member for Davenport, who came from Adelaide University and trumpets how good Adelaide University is.

The Hon. P. Caica: They are all good.

Mr PICTON: They are all very good, but I am a little bit biased, I have to say, member for Colton. They are all good though. I have been particularly pleased in the past few years to see the development of Flinders in a number of ways. The first is in terms of the Tonsley development, which has been a credit to this government's investment. That site could very easily have become a whole bunch of warehouses with no substantial economic development happening on that site at all.

With great investments from Flinders University, TAFE and a large number of companies on that site, there are now more people employed there than on the day that Mitsubishi closed. I think we are going to see more and more developments on that site as time goes on. What you see at the Flinders site at Tonsley is some really innovative work in terms of science, engineering, maths, innovation and commercialisation, as well as start-up work that is happening. That site is designed to be focused on working with industry, which has led to a resurgence of a lot of those courses at Flinders. So, full credit to everybody, including the previous vice chancellor Michael Barber, who was heavily involved in getting that work underway.

In summary, I would like to say a couple of things about undergraduate courses. I have a concern that, since deregulation has happened—and there have been some good things out of deregulation in terms of course numbers—we are seeing numbers of students ballooning in particular professions where the supply of students into the course does not match what the industry demand for those graduates is. I think law is one of those courses where we are seeing huge numbers of lawyers come through. There are a few other examples where the number of graduates does not actually match what the demand is. I think that does need to be reviewed and considered by the federal government.

The other thing I would say in summary is that, while this bill reforms quite significantly the way a number of the councils work, I want to add my thoughts that it is really important for the universities to listen to the views of staff and students in how they operate. I think that is something that benefits the universities as well as the staff and students. I hope they do some more dedicated work on that in the future, because that will serve the interests of our state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. A. Piccolo.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT