HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-11-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Adelaide University Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We have heard a lot of talk about the business case for this merger. My question to the minister is: who wrote the business case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it was written between the university and external advisers.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Who were the external advisers? I will advise that I did ask these questions in the committee, and I did not receive answers there, so I am asking them again now.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. The universities, as I said, between them authored it with external advice. I do not have information about who that external advice was from. That would be up to the universities to answer, should they wish to at some stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With regard to the lack of clarity on who these external advisers or consultants were, what efforts were made within cabinet to ensure that there was no conflict of interest when the decision was made to enact this legislation through cabinet and make those decisions there?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the government had no part in putting together the business case, so I am not sure about a conflict for government. It is difficult to see how that would be present for government.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On the issue of conflict of interest, is the government aware of media reports about the potential involvement of Deloitte and a member of Deloitte participating in discussions regarding the university council merger? Is the government aware of that and what action has the government taken to assure itself that conflict of interest provisions have been considered?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the universities have assured the government that all probity issues were of the utmost standard during the business case.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can the government rule out PwC's involvement in developing any business case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I do not have information about who any of the advisers were. That would be up to the universities, should they wish to disclose that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Since the matter of the business case was first raised, and it has been subject to quite widespread public publicity, has the government sought to have a look at the business case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that there was a comprehensive summary of the business case prepared and that has enabled government, as well as others who have seen the public release of that, to make decisions.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the Attorney confirm it is indeed the case that those elements of the business case that are indeed not compromising to any competitive advantage and not commercial-in-confidence were disclosed during the inquiry process in camera and that members were given the opportunity subsequently to scrutinise forensically that material and that there were subsequent responses to those provided to members?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Yes, that is my understanding.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Did the government seek to confidentially view the business case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I have no advice in relation to that; however, as I said before, I am advised that information was provided that was part of that business case so as to enable government to make decisions on this policy.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister rule out that Deloitte was involved as one of the advisory bodies with regard to the preparation of the business case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I cannot remember if it was her question previously or her colleague's question, but I am happy to repeat the answer: my advice is that the universities engaged advisers and it will be up to the universities to disclose those, should they wish.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister advise that the consultancy or agency that prepared the business case is not going to profit from the changed management and transition processes involved in the merger?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I have said, I am happy to repeat that the university informed the government that proper probity issues and proper probity avenues were complied with.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does the government agree that the public has a right to access the minutes and agendas of public institutions like universities?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that given the very competitive environment universities operate in there are a number of issues that need to be taken into account to ensure that we have a level playing field with other institutions, with the South Australian institutions, to make sure information is not unnecessarily disclosed that would tend to disadvantage South Australian institutions and therefore South Australians.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: So to be clear, it is the government's position that the community does not have a right to see the agendas or the minutes of university council meetings?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for his question, and his invitation to respond in the way that he has put that, but I will not be doing that. What I can say, on advice, is it is the government's position that we ought to be doing what we can to make sure our institutions in South Australia remain competitive with those around the rest of the country.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: By way of commentary, we will have an opportunity to test the government's views on this during the committee stage when I move my amendments. I would be aghast if they thought it was appropriate to conceal minutes and agendas from public institutions like universities, but let's see. Can the government advise what other public institutions conceal their minutes and agendas?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, from the information that we are aware of, it is not commonplace for every part of every deliberation to be published in institutions around Australia. For the conduct of this committee, it might be helpful to do this at an early stage: the honourable member talked about amendments that he is putting forward, and he went through a lot of the rationale for the amendments in his second reading contribution, which I think was useful for this chamber, particularly with this committee.

I might at this early stage, and it might save us some time as we go around with each amendment being put up—I think there are 23 Greens' amendments, maybe three or four amendments from the Hon. Connie Bonaros and a couple from the Hon. Jing Lee—to inform the committee that it is the government's intention to support amendments Nos 13 and 14 that the Hon. Robert Simms has filed in relation to a code of conduct, but not the other amendments that the Hon. Robert Simms has put up.

It is the government's intention to support the two amendments that the Hon. Jing Lee has put up on behalf of the opposition, and it is the government's intention to support the series of amendments that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has put forward.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: If it assists the government and others with their preparation for the day, they might want to pack their running shoes because I do intend to call divisions on the range of amendments that I am moving. One of the issues in the bill relates to economic priorities—clause 7—and it sets out economic priorities. I am just keen to understand: will the direction of the university have to change with a change of government? How are those economic priorities going to be determined?

The CHAIR: Just before we go any further, I will remind the committee that clause 1 gives us the opportunity to make general comments or ask general questions, but, the Hon. Mr Simms, you are actually referring to clause 7.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I can leave it until clause 7.

The CHAIR: It would be helpful if we actually dealt with it at clause 7.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, that is fine.

The CHAIR: This is not an attempt to gag, but is an attempt to run through the process in a proper way.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In your hands, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: That would be nice.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Has the Auditor-General sought to view documents submitted to the government in relation to the university merger?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is we are not aware of that.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: As part of the agreement the government reached with One Nation, did they have any discussions regarding the structure of the new university or potential offerings of the like?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. He has asked similar questions I think before the bill was introduced. I will repeat what I said then, which is, from public comments made by individuals, they have taken their views based on the merits of what has been put forward. I certainly have not been a part of any other discussions.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The CHAIR: At clause 7 there are amendments in the name of the Hon. Ms Lee and the Hon. Mr Simms. I think the first one we are dealing with is the Hon. Ms Lee, so would you move your amendment, please.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lee–1]—

Page 7, line 31 [clause 7(1)(e)(ii)]—After 'scientific' insert ', social'

I will make an explanation about why I moved this amendment. We understand that universities serve a greater purpose and this particular clause 7(1)(e) is to serve the South Australian, Australian and international communities and the public interest by elevating public awareness of education, scientific and artistic development, but by inserting the word 'social' would actually reflect the humanities area which is currently potentially under threat, such as classics, languages, arts, etc. This consideration of inserting the word 'social' would allow social development and social policies that the universities are undertaking to actually shape the future of South Australia.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Greens will be supporting the amendment. It is a good addition from the opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that we will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 7, after line 35 [clause 7(1)]—Insert:

(fa) to be an exemplary employer, offering secure and meaningful employment to staff members;

I briefly touched on the reason for this amendment in my second reading speech but, really, this is setting the standard for this new institution. It is in line with recommendations at a national level and I cannot fathom why the party of the worker, the Labor Party, which supposedly supports industrial democracy, would be opposed to such a straightforward amendment. I urge the government to support this change. It would mean a lot, I think, to employees of this new institution to see this principle included in the act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and I completely understand the motivation behind the amendment. Of course we want universities to be good employers and treat students and staff well. He is right: the terminology that he has used here reflects the Australian Universities Accord interim report, which states that, 'We must ensure all Australian universities are exemplary employers.' One of the priority actions from the interim report is a national working group to focus on the universities being good employers, concentrating on student and staff safety, and membership of governing bodies.

Although we completely understand the motivation for moving this, it is the government's view that it would be better to wait until final recommendations are received rather than basing our legislation on wording in the interim report. Certainly, that is one of the reasons there is that 12-month review, so that once the final report is handed down that can be taken into account.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say I will be supporting this amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate that, whilst I support the principle of the amendment, I will not be supporting it at this stage. It is important to state for the record, again, that during a different process from this one we picked apart that accord interim report and the likely outcomes of that. One thing that was clear to everybody was that following the final report—not the interim report—there will be many changes that will need to be made.

I think this is one of many changes that we will make, but we do not know what that would look like in that final report. There will almost certainly—and I will say certainly—be the opportunity to revisit this issue, though, and I am glad that the government has put in a 12-month review clause, because the purpose is to acknowledge the fact that we are awaiting the final accord report, the recommendations that are made and changes such as this one, amongst many, many others.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition does support the principle, similar to what the Hon. Connie Bonaros said, but we do agree with what the government has articulated in terms of pending the accord final report. We also feel that this seems like a proposed industry policy for new institutions and, without knowing all the elements that come from the accord report, at this moment in time the opposition will be opposing this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 7, lines 39 and 40 [clause 7(1)(h)]—Delete paragraph (h)

This removes the requirement for the new university to support and contribute to the realisation of South Australian economic development priorities. It is not the role of the university to realise the economic aims of the government of the day, and I am concerned that this clause could be used as an avenue to pursue further commercialisation of our universities moving more to a corporate model. That is particularly worrisome when one considers the absence of provisions that might protect workers that were opposed by the other parties in this place, except for the Hon. Frank Pangallo, so I think this is an important element to remove from the act.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be opposing the honourable member's amendment. My advice is that this does not talk about the economic development priorities of the government of the day, but we think it is reasonable that universities broadly take into consideration the realisation of South Australia's economic development goals as a whole.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that I will be supporting this, and I would like to know from the government whether they expect that this is happening now with the other three universities. Would they expect that of them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might answer that. My advice is that the three universities do make a very significant economic contribution to the state and do help to realise the economic goals of South Australia. I am sure that will continue into the future, and this reflects that as well.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The opposition will be opposing this amendment because we feel that, with the government investment into this merger, somehow some economic measures need to be taken into account, so we will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment, and I will make one comment which was just alluded to but I think applies across a number of the amendments that are being moved; that is, we are dealing with the new university act. As I said previously, there is a 12-month review that we are expecting following the accord final report. Some of the amendments that we are discussing do need to take into account the Flinders University Act, and they also need to take into account the issue of national competition. My position remains firmly that that should happen once we have had the opportunity to see the final review of the accord.

It is worth noting again for the record that there was a letter that was tabled during the parliamentary process, which I am happy to table again now, Chair, which indicates that there is absolutely nothing about this merger under the current accord process preventing the merger from going ahead now, but there is an acknowledgement that once that report is done there will need to be a number of changes made. I think that is a general statement that applies to many of the amendments we are considering, because it will not just be this legislation that needs review, it will be others as well.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I do not find that argument very compelling given the decision has been made to press ahead with the merger in the midst of the accord process, yet apparently any changes or improvements to the act are somehow pre-empting the accord outcome. I do find that a little bit of an inconsistent argument. The proof will be in the pudding. If in 12 months' time there will be a review, I really look forward to the members who are speaking out against these quite sensible changes to get fully behind the proposals of the Greens in 12 months' time. We will see.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 8 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Simms–1]—

Page 9, after line 35—Insert:

(3) Any fee payable to the University by a student relating to the provision of student services at the University must be paid by the University to the associations formed under this section.

I am not sure if the accord speaks to this one, but it is an important issue that I hope the committee will consider. It picks up on some of the submissions made to the inquiry from student organisations asking that they get 100 per cent of the student services and amenities fee to assist with their vital work. We in the Greens think that is very important. Both the Hon. Tammy Franks and I have a proud association with student unions and we see their work as being vital. It is important that, when students are paying a student services and amenities fee, that money goes to support those associations in the way that students would envisage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his amendment. Whilst we understand, and it is a noble principle, we will not be supporting it. The commonwealth government has very clear stipulations on the student services and amenities fee, including what the fee can be spent on and requirements for a formal process of consultation with students, including elected student representatives, regarding the specific use of the student services and amenities fee. These stipulations are part of the federal Higher Education Support Act, which require higher education providers to have a formal process of consultation with democratically elected student representatives and representatives from student organisations of the university regarding the specific proceeds from the fee.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will speak to this issue again when I get to my amendment. Indeed, I will have a letter to table at that point, which deals with this issue as well and ties in to the amendment that I will be moving. I do note that, for the reasons that have been outlined, there are other federal pieces of legislation at play here, and there is the very real opportunity, when we move through these amendments, that we are going to be faced with questions of constitutional validity in terms of how those fees are actually set under the Higher Education Support Act.

The mover may scoff, but I have actually gone and sought advice on that issue—I have gone and sought that advice myself. It is a real issue. Regardless of that, I am not supportive of this on the basis that there is a letter that will be tabled which will outline commitments that have been made and will also tie that back to the bill in terms of a further amendment. It is on that basis that I will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that I will be supporting the amendment by the Hon. Robert Simms. I endorse the comments that he has made and also those of the Hon. Tammy Franks in relation to services and the ability of students to be able to operate efficiently and to be able to access appropriate funds to ensure that they carry out that work. I will be supporting it.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment. We concur with the explanation given by the government. We also feel that there is an assumption with this amendment that student services must only be provided by a student union or association. We feel that this amendment is not adequate and we will be opposing it.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I have a question for the minister. Under the protection of interest, there seems to be a drastic increase of fines—for example, $20,000 to $50,000 fine for misuse of the insignia, the expiation of parking fines increased from $80 to $250, and prescribed fines up to $2,500. Are we talking about international students, domestic students, students from low socio-economic or disadvantaged sectors? I just want an explanation as to why those fines are so high.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am advised that the previous levels were set when the last legislation was done in 1990, so three and a half decades ago. The reason they have been updated is it was 33 years ago that they were at those levels, so to update with the passage of time.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Supplementary question: is that consistent with other universities across Australia, or with Flinders University in this state?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I can take that on notice. We do not have a comparison with interstate jurisdictions, but I am happy to have that done to provide the honourable member.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Simms–1]—

Page 11, line 17 [clause 14(4)]—After 'University' insert:

and educational and research outcomes for the University and must have a primary focus on the student experience.

This is a pretty straightforward amendment. I have said a few times during this debate that I have been concerned that students have not been central to the discussion around this new university. This just makes it really clear that the university is going to have a focus on the student experience.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be opposing this. It is the government's view that by adding those extra words onto the end—specifying educational research and student experience—would tend to narrow the interpretation of this section.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Sorry, before we go on, can I get the minister to elaborate on that? How exactly does the inclusion of the student experience narrow the clause? Could he share that advice with us?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. As it is currently stated, the council must in all matters endeavour to advance the interests of the university. Putting on other features after that necessarily will narrow it. I am advised that the functions clause captures many activities of the new university and these include research, education, and staff and student success within the functions of the university already.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition believe this amendment might put restrictions on the degree to which council members can pursue important matters of those interests of the university that do not necessarily relate to student experience. Significant proportions of the research effort by universities, including that directed towards areas of strategic interest for South Australia, do not necessarily have a substantial overlap with students' teaching and learning. Requiring a primary focus on the student experience might just create negative unintended consequences and for those reasons the Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, line 5 [clause 16(1)(d)]—Delete '8' and substitute '4'

This would change the composition of the council so that it would have four members recommended by a selection committee rather than eight.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be opposing this amendment. Public universities are sophisticated and complex organisations managing very significant budgets and substantial infrastructure, providing extensive student services, investing in research and teaching and employing many thousands of staff and educating many more thousands of students. A strong and effective internal governance is central to ensuring universities retain their reputation as highly respected institutions of learning and research benefitting Australian society in a number of ways.

As increasingly complex organisations, universities require very highly skilled council members to govern them. It is the government's view that having eight appointed council members is an important provision to ensure the appropriate skills mix on a university council.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In order to save time, a whole heap of these amendments I am about to deal with relate to the composition of the university council, so what I might do is just outline what the amendments do as a block and then I will move each one individually and then members may want to indicate their position.

The first amendment I have just moved will reduce the number of members that are recommended by a selection committee, but then we will be proposing that there be two members of academic staff elected by academic staff, rather than the existing, which is just one. We will also be moving a subsequent amendment that will ensure there are two members of professional staff elected by academic staff.

Finally, we will be moving that there be one postgraduate student elected in a manner determined by the council and two undergraduate students who are appointed or elected by students. We would also want to see three graduates of the university who are elected. I will also be moving an amendment that will require the council to include two members who are culturally and linguistically diverse. What this would do, in effect, is ensure that there is a majority of students and staff on the council.

One of the issues the Greens have been very concerned about over many years is the composition of university councils and the fact that there is often a fairly narrow skills base represented at the table. There is a disproportionate influence of figures from business, retired politicians and people from the fossil fuel industry and commercial enterprise. There is often a lack of diversity and, in particular, a lack of respect for the principles of industrial democracy within our universities. What we are seeking to do is ensure that a majority of this new university council would be staff and students.

The CHAIR: Attorney, I do not know if you can give us an indication of whether you are going to be consistent in the way you intend to vote on these.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is what I intend to do. I indicate that, as the government, we will be opposing all of the range of amendments the honourable member has helpfully spoken to that will follow. As I said earlier, with the increasing complexity and the skills needed to manage such important and very large organisations, we think this gets the mix right.

What is being proposed at this university is consistent with what is reflected in councils at universities right around Australia. The composition of the council under this bill has a governance of the university with staff and students comprising 37½ per cent of council membership; that is, six out of 16. While I understand the honourable member's motivations, we think that strikes the right balance in terms of what the university needs. With amendment No. 8 that talks about student representation, I am advised there is no jurisdiction in Australia that currently has more than two students on their council.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Let's be a leader.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Indeed, there are jurisdictions in New South Wales and Victoria that have just one student on their council, so even under this it is more than some others, but my advice is it is no worse than any others in terms of student representation.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing the range of amendments introduced by the Hon. Robert Simms. The reason is that the Liberal Party has traditionally supported university leadership having access to skills-based councils, taking into consideration, of course, the complexities and also contemporary needs of their skill sets as well. For those reasons, the Liberal opposition will be opposing those amendments.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that I will be supporting those amendments, and I will just go back to what I was saying yesterday in my speech in relation to the survey into student satisfaction at universities. Many of them are dissatisfied with their experience at some of the universities that they are attending and, quite clearly, are expressing that they should have a bit more say in what happens in those institutions, particularly when it affects them and their learning experience and other outcomes from their period of study, so I will be supporting it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting the amendments, and I might speak to them as a package, given that we have just had that discussion. I do agree with the comments made by the Attorney, particularly in relation to the complex nature of these organisations. Under this merger, they are going to become even more complex and, as a result, there is a need then for having highly skilled council members to govern them.

I think one of the points that has not been made, though, and is important, is the requirement and the necessity indeed for those governance arrangements and best practice principles that the majority of members should be independent. That is something that I do not think has been mentioned, but is very important. I understand the issue around increasing staff members. I think there is only one jurisdiction, Victoria, that has more than one staff member on their council. In relation, specifically, to the issue of students, the same best practice governance principle does apply, in terms of having a majority of members being independent.

I will note, though, that—and there is no jurisdiction in Australia that currently has more than two students; some of those only have one—this was the issue of discussion during the accord interim report. There was no recommendation made in that report regarding an increase to numbers. There is discussion, however, in terms of governance arrangements more generally. I think also it is important to note that there are differences in terms of the current compositions, which we should remember as well.

There is a preference that the Adelaide University legislation is consistent with the outcomes of the accord, and of course the new review provision—which we have referred to now a few times—will play a key part in considering that when that final report comes out and any recommendations are made specifically regarding governance. I think it is also worth noting that, in addition to the independence, there is also the issue of having students elected determined by the council providing greater flexibility around student appointments.

We have examples, I think, with the current universities. At UniSA, the students on council are appointed by the council following their election by students onto the student association. That reduces the need for two sets of elections. The provision is broad enough that if this approach was not adopted, the council could run their own elections. The University of South Australia Act does not include a graduate on council, while the Uni of Adelaide does, so there are some differences.

I think all those things are worthy considerations, but we are awaiting that final report. Governance is an important issue. Independence is an important issue. Qualifications and skilled people is a really, really important issue and so we are best placed to deal with that following the release of the accord report and any recommendations that may ensue.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just to assist members in terms of planning their afternoon, I will call divisions on the next suite of amendments that relate to the composition of the council. I have spoken to them as a block, but I will call divisions on each of the sections, just so that you know where you are at. Again, it is interesting to me to hear the accord being used as the rationale, that we need to wait for the accord, but we need to rush ahead with the university merger at the moment while the accord process is still in train.

I do not accept the argument that staff are not necessarily qualified or best qualified to be on the university council. We are talking about academics, people who have significant experience in the university sector, so I think they would certainly make an important contribution.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, line 7 [clause 16(1)(e)]—Delete '1 member' and substitute '2 members'

Amendment No 7 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, line 8 [clause 16(1)(f)]—Delete '1 member' and substitute '2 members'

Amendment No 8 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, lines 11 to 14 [clause 16(1)(h) and (i)]—Delete paragraphs (h) and (i) and substitute:

(h) 1 postgraduate student, appointed or elected by students in a manner determined by the Council;

(i) 2 undergraduate students, appointed or elected by students in a manner determined by the Council;

(j) 3 graduates of the University (not being a current staff member or a current student of the University), elected by graduates in a manner determined by the Council.

Amendment No 9 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, after line 14—Insert:

(1a) If a person is appointed to the Council, the appointing authority must recognise that the Council should, as far as practicable include at least 2 members from a culturally and linguistically diverse background.

Amendment No 10 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, after line 34 [clause 16(4)]—Insert 'and'

(d) a majority must be staff members or students of the University.

Amendment No 11 [Simms–1]—

Page 12, after line 38—Insert:

(7) A reference in subsection (1)(j) to a graduate of the University includes a graduate of the University of Adelaide or a graduate of the University of South Australia.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

Amendments thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 12 [Simms–1]—

Page 15, line 9 [clause 22(b)]—After 'University' insert:

and educational and research outcomes for the University and must have a primary focus on the student experience.

This amendment would require council members to act in a way that the member thinks will best promote the interests of the university as well as educational and research outcomes for the university, and place a primary focus on the student experience. The rationale is very similar to that I outlined in relation to the other amendment. What we are seeking to do is ensure that the interests of students and educational and research outcomes are front and centre. We regard that as sometimes being a different focus from the broader interests of the university, and that is why we have sought to stipulate it in this way.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his amendment. It is very similar, if not identical, to that we traversed in, I think, the honourable member's amendment No. 4. For the same reasons, we have a concern that this may narrow it down by putting those words in rather than just the interests of the university. In any event, the functions at clause 7 capture many of the activities the member has outlined.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment based on the reasons we have already explained, which are that we believe it is consequential to amendment No. 4 moved earlier.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I also indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment. I agree that the current wording is deliberately broad to cover all interests of the university and is appropriate.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to indicate I will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 23 and 24 passed.

New clause 24A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 13 [Simms–1]—

Page 15, after line 21—Insert:

24A—Code of conduct

(1) The Council must have a code of conduct for its members.

(2) The code of conduct will be determined by the Council.

(3) A member of the Council has a duty to comply with the code of conduct.

(ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest;

I think the rationale for the amendment is self-evident.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate, very happily, that the government will be supporting the honourable member's amendment No. 13, and also what I suspect will probably be a consequential amendment at No. 14. I want to make the point that all public officers in the university are subject to obligations under various state legislation, including examination by state integrity agencies. However, we are happy to support this amendment.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will also be supporting this amendment. We believe this is a very sensible suggestion, reflecting the requirements of many organisations at this level to have accountability, so we will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting it as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I, too, will be supporting the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 25.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 14 [Simms–1]—

Page 15, line 24—Delete 'or 24' and substitute ', 24 or 24A'

As has been explained, this is a consequential amendment and relates to the previous amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question at clause 24.

The CHAIR: Sorry, you have a question at clause 24?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes. If a student does not wish to have Adelaide University on their transcript, will they be given that option to keep either the University of Adelaide or the University of South Australia?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, we have actually put and agreed to clause 24 and new clause 24A, so you may wish to raise that later.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I cannot imagine there is another place to raise it because that is that clause.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I may wish to point it out at some stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, that would be good.

The CHAIR: We are at clause 25, but the Hon. Ms Franks has asked a question and I believe the Attorney is prepared to provide an answer; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I thank the honourable member for her question. I will have to get a little more detail. My initial advice is there is a transition period when the student can to choose to have, essentially, the parchment co-badged, and after that transition period it will be the new university. I do not have the details of what that time period is, but I am happy to get that for the honourable member.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Simms, you have an amendment at clause 25.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I just moved it, yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Amendment No. 14 [Simms-1] is consequential to the one we just supported, so we will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Similarly, the Liberal opposition will be supporting this amendment because it is consequential.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will be supporting it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 26 passed.

New clauses 26A and 26B.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 15 [Simms–1]—

Page 16, after line 1—Insert:

26A—Meetings to be held in public except in special circumstances

(1) Subject to this section, a meeting of the Council must be conducted in a place open to the public.

(2) The Council may order that the public be excluded from attendance at a meeting to the extent (and only to the extent) that the Council considers it to be necessary and appropriate to act in a meeting closed to the public in order to receive, discuss or consider in confidence any information or matter listed in subsection (3) (after taking into account any relevant consideration under that subsection).

(3) The following information and matters are listed for the purposes of subsection (2):

(a) information the disclosure of which would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information concerning the personal affairs of any person (living or dead);

(b) information the disclosure of which—

(i) could reasonably be expected to confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the University is conducting, or proposing to conduct, business, or to prejudice the commercial position of the University; and

(ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest;

(c) information the disclosure of which would reveal a trade secret;

(d) commercial information of a confidential nature (not being a trade secret) the disclosure of which—

(i) could reasonably be expected to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information, or to confer a commercial advantage on a third party; and

(ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest;

(e) matters affecting the security of the University, members or employees of the University, or University property, or the safety of any person;

(f) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the maintenance of law, including by affecting (or potentially affecting) the prevention, detection, or investigation of a criminal offence, or the right to a fair trial;

(g) matters that must be considered in confidence to ensure that the University does not breach any law, order or direction of a court or tribunal constituted by law, any duty of confidence, or other legal obligation or duty;

(h) legal advice;

(i) information relating to litigation, or litigation that the Council believes on reasonable grounds will take place, involving the University or an employee of the University;

(j) information the disclosure of which—

(i) would divulge information provided on a confidential basis by or to a Minister of the Crown, or another public authority or official (not being an employee of the University, or a person engaged by the University); and

(ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest;

(k) tenders for the supply of goods, the provision of services or the carrying out of works;

(l) information relevant to the review of a determination of the University under the Freedom of Information Act 1991.

(4) In considering whether an order should be made under subsection (2), it is irrelevant that the discussion of a matter in public may—

(a) cause embarrassment to the University; or

(b) cause a loss of confidence in the University; or

(c) involve discussion of a matter that is controversial within the University area; or

(d) make the University susceptible to adverse criticism.

(5) If an order is made under subsection (2), a note must be made in the minutes of the making of the order and specifying—

(a) the grounds on which the order was made; and

(b) the basis on which the information or matter to which the order relates falls within the ambit of each ground on which the order was made; and

(c) if relevant, the reasons that receipt, consideration or discussion of the information or matter in a meeting open to the public would be contrary to the public interest.

(6) A Council meeting will be taken to be conducted in a place open to the public for the purposes of this section even if 1 or more members of the Council participate in the meeting by telephone, audio-visual or other electronic means in accordance with any procedures determined by the Council (provided that members of the public can hear the discussion between all Council members).

(7) In this section—

personal affairs of a person includes—

(a) the person's—

(i) financial affairs; or

(ii) criminal record; or

(iii) marital or other personal relationships; or

(iv) personal qualities, attributes or health status; and

(b) the person's employment records, employment performance or suitability for a particular position, or other personnel matters relating to the person.

26B—Public notice of Council meetings

(1) The Chancellor must give notice to the public of the time and place of any meeting of the Council.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) must—

(a) be given at least 3 days before the date of the meeting; and

(b) be publicly available and continue to be publicly available in accordance with section 27B(1) until the completion of the relevant meeting.

(3) The Chancellor must ensure that a reasonable number of copies of any document or report supplied to members of the Council for consideration at a meeting of the Council are available for inspection by members of the public—

(a) in the case of a document or report supplied to members of the Council before the meeting—on a website determined by the Chancellor as soon as is practicable after the time that document or report is provided to members of the Council; or

(b) in the case of a document or report provided to members of the Council at the meeting—at the meeting as soon as is practicable after the time that the document or report is provided to members of the Council.

(4) However, subsection (3) does not apply to a document or report that relates to a matter dealt with by the Council on a confidential basis under section 26A.

Basically, this amendment requires the university council meetings to be held in a place open to the public. It gives the university council the power still to exclude members of the community from a council meeting if need be if they are dealing with commercially confidential information and the like. It is a very important principle for the Greens that public institutions should operate in an open and transparent way, and members of the university community should have an opportunity to attend university council meetings. That is a very important principle and one in line with industrial democracy.

These are public institutions, they are not secret societies, and they should not be able to have secret meetings behind closed doors unless there is a very good reason to do so. You will see that our proposed amendment outlines the reasons why they may wish to have a meeting behind closed doors.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I outlined previously, we will not be supporting this amendment. As I outlined previously, given the very complex nature of organisations that are public universities today, the very competitive nature of these complex organisations that are public universities today, we think there will be necessity for universities to discuss matters about how they operate that they would not want those that they are operating in a competitive environment with to have full access to.

It is our view that clause 27 of the bill makes adequate provision for the conduct of meetings, including the taking of minutes. I note that the proposed amendments appear to be in line with or very similar to those that apply in chapter 6 of the Local Government Act in relation to the conduct of meetings. It is the government's view that they are two very fundamentally different things. A local government authority that is directly elected by members has a compulsory rating and spending power as opposed to a university. It is the government's position that they are not the same sorts of things and there are very different competitive pressures on those two very different types of organisations.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment because we believe universities compete with other universities for domestic students, international students, research funding and private sector partnerships. It is not in the state's best interests to put all of this business in the public domain when the people most interested in that business will invariably be competing institutions from other jurisdictions. For this reason, we will be opposing the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the reasons outlined, I will be opposing this. I am glad the Attorney pointed to the differences and entirely different situations that this wording appears to be based on. It seems to be consistent with what is in the Local Government Act, and a university is in an entirely different position. I do not think that you can simply pick up one and apply it to the other.

I think the other very important point that has been made is that there is the opportunity already for the universities to consult with communities. But importantly, we know that at these council meetings there will be strategic decisions being made on issues of a competitive nature and a commercial nature, involving confidential information which you do not want to discuss in the open.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Which is covered by my amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate that the member says it is covered in his amendment, but overall there is already the ability for the council to undertake those levels of engagement. There are already provisions in the bill about what is required of the council meetings, and I simply do not agree that those should apply and extend to council meetings, given the issues that have been outlined.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to support the Hon. Robert Simms about this. Let's make it quite clear: even though we have not had the accord yet or whatever and what status they are going to give this new institution, it is a public institution and not a private institution. It is public, and public money is going in to support this. The public have a right to know how those institutions are being operated, being governed.

The Hon. Robert Simms has actually put measures in place there to ensure the confidentiality of certain business the university might be able to do. All this does is just allows the public to be able to peer inside this elitist organisation and to have some knowledge about what is being discussed. If there is anything that is going to be secretive or business-related that may impinge on its advantage, that can be covered quite easily.

Again, let me just say this: as we pointed out yesterday, I do not know why people are worried about competition. Competition is actually good. If you have a university that has some great ideas that actually might flow on outside into the community, it is all well and good if we know about it, rather than keeping it all secret. I will be supporting it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I seek clarity from you, Chair: in relation to 26B, am I moving that at the same time, or am I moving that subsequently?

The CHAIR: You can move both, but I am going to put—

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I might speak to that, too, if you like?

The CHAIR: You can speak to it, but I am going to put two separate questions.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I will speak to that now and then that will close things off. I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for his comments and I reiterate them. In terms of this issue around meetings to be held in public, just so that members are under no misapprehension around what I am proposing, it states quite clearly in the amendment 'except in special circumstances' and it details the range of circumstances in which meetings may not be held in public.

That includes in circumstances where there might be information the disclosure of which could involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, or information that could confer a commercial advantage on someone with whom the university is conducting business, or anything, in fact, that would be contrary to the public interest, or the revealing of a trade secret or commercial information. So I would be really interested to know what scenarios the members think might be contemplated within a closed door meeting that would not be covered by those provisions.

The other part of this relates to public notice of council meetings. My amendment to insert 26B requires the chancellor to give notice to the public of the time and place of any meetings of the council. Again, these are public institutions, as the Hon. Frank Pangallo has said. Members of the community have an opportunity to know when they are meeting and there should be transparency around that. I do not think the sky is going to fall in if this change is supported by this council. If anything, it might give members of the community more confidence in the new university as it moves forward.

The CHAIR: I am going to put the question, first, that new clause 26A as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Mr Simms be so inserted.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The CHAIR: I am going to put the question that new clause 26B as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Mr Simms be so inserted.

The committee divided on the question:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

Question thus resolved in the negative.

Clause 27.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 16 [Simms–1]—

Page 16, lines 34 and 35 [clause 27(7)]—Delete subclause (7)

Just to explain to members the rationale behind the amendment, it is a deletion of that clause because the next amendment, amendment No. 17 [Simms-1], relates to inclusion of a new clause that requires minutes to be publicly available and to be kept to ensure proper reporting of the work of the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment. It is the government's view that having a subclause specifying that the minutes of council proceedings must be kept in a manner determined by the council under clause 27(7) is sufficient.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment for the reasons that were given earlier for amendment No. 15 moved by the Hon. Robert Simms.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the amendment of the Hon. Robert Simms.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will not be supporting this amendment and I suspect it has been drafted probably as part of two amendments, including the next one. It will disappoint my friend on the other side to know that I will not be supporting that one either. As a standalone amendment, I do not support it on the basis of poor governance practice.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

New clauses 27A and 27B.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 17 [Simms–1]—

Page 16, after line 36—Insert:

27A—Minutes

(1) The presiding member of the Council must ensure that accurate minutes are kept of the proceedings at every meeting of the Council.

(2) Each member of the Council must, within 5 days after a meeting of the Council, be provided with a copy of all minutes of the proceedings of the meeting kept under this section.

(3) Section 27B(1) does not apply to a document or part of a document if—

(a) the document or part of a document relates to a matter dealt with by the Council on a confidential basis under section 26A; and

(b) the Council orders that the document or part of the document be kept confidential.

(4) No action for defamation lies against the Council in respect of—

(a) the accurate publication under this section of any information, statement or document (in whatever form); or

(b) the accurate publication under this section of a transcript, recording or other record of a meeting of the Council.

(5) A document purporting to be minutes of proceedings at a meeting of the Council signed by the Chancellor, or a copy of or extract from such minutes, will be accepted as proof, in the absence of proof to the contrary, of the matters contained in the document.

27B—Access to documents

(1) The Council must—

(a) make prescribed documents publicly available on a website determined by the Chancellor; and

(b) on request, provide a person with a printed copy of a prescribed document (on payment of a fee (if any) fixed by the Council).

(2) This section does not limit or affect the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 to University documents.

(3) In this section—

prescribed document means—

(a) the minutes of a meeting of the Council; and

(b) the agenda for a meeting of the Council; and

(c) schedules of dates, times and places set for meetings of the Council.

That is, that a new clause on page 16 after line 36 be so inserted.

The CHAIR: So you are moving 27B as well?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can I do them together? Is that your advice? I thought I could not.

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: In that case, I will move 27B and I will call a division that will relate to both clauses. This amendment would ensure that the council is required to make prescribed documents publicly available on a website determined by the chancellor and on request provide a person with a printed copy of a prescribed document. Again, I think the rationale for this is fairly clear. I have outlined the reasons for the Greens' commitment to transparency at a university level, but it is also something that the NTEU and others have been advocating for. There is significant public interest in these institutions and they should be transparent about their work.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I very briefly rise to say the government does not support these amendments. The honourable member's reasons are very similar to previous amendments he has moved and the government's opposition is very similar to what I outlined before about the competitive nature of these organisations in an Australian context.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the new clauses:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

New clauses thus negatived.

Clause 28.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 18 [Simms–1]—

Page 17, after line 8—Insert:

(4) The salary of the Vice Chancellor is to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal established under the Remuneration Act 1990 and is payable by the University.

What I propose I do, Chair, because I am conscious that I have been taking up a bit of the time of the council with divisions, is I will speak to a block of these amendments now and then I will move them separately, just to save the council a little bit of time.

Amendment No. 18 relates to the salary of the vice-chancellor and suggests that it should be set by the Remuneration Tribunal. At the moment, it is the university council or a subcommittee of the council that sets the salary and, quite frankly, I think the salaries of the vice-chancellors are obscene. I mean no disrespect to the vice-chancellors, but I do think they are significantly out of step with community expectations.

I have had a bill before this parliament to cap vice-chancellor salaries in line with the Premier, who is somebody who is very hardworking and does not earn anything next to a million dollars a year. I think it would be appropriate to have a cap in place. I recognise though that there has not been support from the government or the opposition for that proposition, so I proposed instead that the salary be set by the Remuneration Tribunal as it is with many other public officials.

The other amendment that I will be moving—and I indicate I will be calling a division on amendment No. 18 and the next amendment No. 19—requires the disclosure of certain agreements; that is, when a council or a vice-chancellor:

…enters into a contract, agreement or…arrangement with a person for the purposes of that person providing advice to the Council…

This relates to the role of consultants and ensuring that that information is put into the public realm. It has been a key issue during this debate around the university merger and I think the community has a right to know that information. There have been lots of questions asked during the committee stage about the involvement of external consultants that the government has been unable to answer, so that amendment will relate to that. I will do those two as a block and I will revisit the other issues down the track.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I rise to indicate that the government will be opposing both of the amendments that the honourable member is putting forward. I appreciate the honourable member's consistency with his views about putting the University of South Australia at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the nation in relation to salaries.

I can understand the motivation: you see the huge salaries some people are paid and some of them are staggeringly high salaries, but that would put this new university as the only university that was subject to that restriction, which we fear would put this university—with everything we are doing, aiming to become exceptionally competitive and world class—at a competitive disadvantage. For that reason, we will be opposing the amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question for the minister. He has noted 'world class' in his response about competitiveness. Can he explain why Australian vice-chancellors are paid so much more than they are internationally?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have advice on why that is, but we are talking about not just how we compare with the rest of the world but how we compare with other universities around Australia.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the minister for that answer. Can he tell us how we compare with the ANU?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is the ANU has recently appointed a new vice-chancellor and we do not have information as to what the remuneration is.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister provide advice as to what the previous ANU vice-chancellor was paid?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the previous vice-chancellor was paid less and that, my advice is, was a decision of the vice-chancellor before that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does the minister think that the ANU could not attract the best and brightest vice-chancellor in the country and that perhaps monetary gain is not everything in this consideration of being a vice-chancellor?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not aware of the negotiations that were held. As I said, we are not aware of the new vice-chancellor's salary, but certainly there will be individuals who may make that decision that, because of their circumstances in life, they do not wish for a salary even if it was offered.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the minister aware that you can read the ANU's minutes and agendas of their university council online as a member of the community, and does he find that that is somehow endangering their competitive advantage?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member for her question. My advice is that different universities have different policies and principles about what is published, including information by newsletters and other forms of public information.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Just one final question: is it not the case that under the Remuneration Act, the Remuneration Tribunal, in setting the salaries, would take into account competitive factors anyway?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. It may be the case that that is but one of the factors that may be taken into account, possibly.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: So then why is the government opposed to the change?

The CHAIR: So this is the final, final question, the Hon. Mr Simms. I am sorry I did not hear it. Are you asking something or not?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the reasons that I have outlined before, we think that, although it could be something that could be taken into account, there would be other factors in that, and we do not wish to place this new university at a relative disadvantage to other universities around Australia.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Irrespective of what one thinks about any VC salary decisions, these positions are competitive across the country, as we heard, and creating uncertainty over the university's potential to offer a competitive package when compared with other institutions would create a risk in our view to the new university's prospect of success. For this reason, we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting this, and whilst I understand the intent, I also live in the real world. There was a lot of discussion during the inquiry process about the lengths that we would be going to to recruit the finest talent to lead the university. I hasten to say that that Remuneration Tribunal process is one that at present would be unfamiliar with the higher education sector, but also it would put us at odds and, in fact, at a huge disadvantage with other universities that do not have those same requirements in place.

We did talk extensively. There are recommendations around the appointment of the new VC and the need to go out far and wide to attract the best talent available to lead this new university. I say I live in the real world because attracting the best talent available sometimes does come with a price tag, and I do not think that it is appropriate, regardless of whether it does or not, to be putting us at a competitive disadvantage given the magnitude of the merger.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms. Let me just say from the outset that I have no objection to attracting the best possible talent to any job, but a million dollars to run a university to me is totally obscene. It is more than twice what the Prime Minister of this country gets.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: He gets a nice pension, though.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am sure there are benefits also for chancellors at universities as well, but a million dollars is totally obscene in anyone's language. As to the fact that you have to keep these salaries at this level to attract the best possible talent, I do not buy that at all. It just does not ride. The fact is that the Remuneration Tribunal can easily familiarise itself with terms and conditions for a position such as this.

If you are going to set a base level, and let's just say you are going to set it at a million dollars like it is now, from there on in the Remuneration Tribunal can determine what the salaries are going to be. I just think that what is going on here is to try to keep a cap on these outrageous costs that go towards the salaries of vice-chancellors, not just here in South Australia but also in the country, that get out of hand. I am not familiar with what vice-chancellors get in other jurisdictions overseas, but I am sure they do not hit these types of levels. With that, I will be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 29 and 30 passed.

New clause 30A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 19 [Simms–1]—

Page 17, after line 28—Insert:

30A—Disclosure of certain agreements

If the Council or the Vice Chancellor enters into a contract, agreement or other arrangement with a person for the purposes of that person providing advice to the Council or the Vice Chancellor in relation to the performance of their functions or powers under this Act, the Council or the Vice Chancellor (as the case may be) must, as soon as practicable after entering into the contract, agreement or other arrangement, make publicly available on a website determined by the Chancellor—

(a) the names of each party to the contract, agreement or arrangement; and

(b) the date on which the contract, agreement or other arrangement was entered into by the parties.

This relates to the disclosure of consultants, and I outlined the rationale in my previous contribution.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be opposing this amendment for the reasons we have previously outlined.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing the amendment.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
El Dannawi, M. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

New clause thus negatived.

Clauses 31 and 32 passed.

New clause 32A.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 20 [Simms–1]—

Page 18, after line 21—Insert:

32A—Prohibition on assets and investments in certain companies

(1) The University must not acquire assets or invest in companies involved in—

(a) the extraction, processing or distribution of fossil fuels; or

(b) the defence industry.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the commencement of this section, the University must divest itself of all assets and investments held in companies of a kind described in subsection (1).

(3) No liability attaches to the Crown in respect of any loss suffered by the University in complying with subsection (2).

This relates to divesting our universities from fossil fuels and from the defence industry. It is concerning to the Greens to see the relationship that has developed between fossil fuel companies like Santos and our universities, and the proliferation of contracts with organisations like Saab, for instance, at Flinders University—a defence organisation. These things are concerning to us. When you are creating a new university, it is a great opportunity to divest from fossil fuels and divest from the defence industry, particularly at a time of growing international unrest.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government will be opposing these amendments. The universities will be aware of social obligations and will invest after relevant considerations, also noting the defence industry's importance to this state.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate I will not be supporting this; in fact, I probably do not support this more than some of the others that I have not supported. It does take me back to the government's bill in relation to super and the change that was made then. I did not support that either when we talked about investing in Russian assets. I think there is a social obligation there that the university is well and truly aware of. I do not think it is for us to be making laws in terms of the acquisition of assets or investments in companies beyond that social obligation.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: The Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment. We feel that the university must maintain its independence in terms of social obligations as well as corporate responsibility. Therefore, we oppose this amendment.

New clause negatived.

Clauses 33 to 39 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:17.

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