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

Motions

Establishment of Adelaide University

Adjourned debate of motion of Hon. R.A. Simms:

That this council—

1. Notes that:

(a) according to a survey commissioned by the Australia Institute, six in seven (or 86 per cent) of South Australians agree that the details of the business case for the proposed university merger should be made public;

(b) support for releasing the business case is strongest in the regions, supported by 88 per cent of respondents; and

(c) there is a high level of support for releasing the business case among the voters of all political parties represented in the parliament.

2. Calls on the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide to publicly release the full business case to inform the community’s consideration of this proposal.

(Continued from 18 October 2023.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:02): I will be supporting this motion which seeks that the business case for the proposed merger of the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia be made public. A poll by the Australia Institute—and we have to be honest here, we know that their politics are usually aligned with the Greens, but nonetheless—found that 86 per cent of those surveyed wanted the business case to be made public, that there was a high level of support for releasing the case among voters of all political parties and in the regions. I am certain if you had to do a straw poll, this poll would reflect the views of a majority of South Australians, but the Malinauskas government has not, nor will it, heed the call.

We know that the merger is going ahead now and we also know that the government, along with the Premier, did not bother to look at the business case before ploughing ahead with their merger project using hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money. Yet even after the Premier admitted he had not seen it, the Attorney-General told us today that they still had not sought to view it, even confidentially, despite the clamour for this to happen.

The two universities continued to hide it under a shield of commercial confidentiality, saying that they provided a summary of the case to the parliamentary committee anyway and that should be enough. Well, it is not. It is shameful—no, make that scandalous—that the government could commit so much of taxpayer money without seeing if it stacked up. What public corporation would do business like that? Could you see big business, say like Santos or BHP, commit half a billion dollars or more towards a mining project before doing its numbers as to whether it was financially viable to do so, and not let its shareholders know? I could not see a small business doing that either.

Taxpayers are the shareholders of the South Australian government. This is all about transparency and accountability yet this government is quickly proving it shies away from being up-front and responsible for its big spending schemes. They do not like scrutiny. Good government is not only about delivering footy feasts, festivals, car races, golf tournaments, aquatic centres, road tunnels, hospitals, schools and other job creation schemes. It is also about how these projects are delivered, and whether taxpayers' money has been appropriately spent.

As the Auditor-General told the Budget and Finance Committee recently, his work as an independent auditor has been frustrated by this government because he was unable to access documents to determine whether transactions involving 18 projects valued at more than $20 billion were undertaken properly. This is disgraceful. Why and what are they hiding or hiding from, you might like to ask.

Mr Richardson also said the government and he should have been able to have a look at the business case, if one exists, for the merger of the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia. He, like the government, could have still done so without having to reveal what was in it, as long as someone with nous and business acumen had a look at it, but they did not do that. We must now take them on trust that it is sound and the whole thing will work, even if it takes a decade to determine success or failure. More vexing is that the government and the two vice-chancellors also refuse to tell us who created their business case.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: A secret society.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It could have been Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff for all we know. If you have not heard of him, google him.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:07): It probably will not surprise my colleagues opposite that I will not be supporting this motion. If only this motion was about transparency and accountability, if only it was intended to provide those things, then perhaps I would be more open-minded, but nothing my colleague opposite has said has convinced me of that. Before I get into that specifically, I want to touch on what did occur during that committee process.

As the chancellors and vice-chancellors indicated during their appearances before the committee on 12 August, the universities undertook detailed planning and assessment as part of the due diligence phases of the merger investigation. Concurrently to the appearance, the universities released to the university community and the committee detailed summaries of the key documents that informed the council's decisions.

The universities have responded to dozens of questions in the committee and on notice during its in camera evidence and appearance before the committee, something we have reiterated time and time again throughout other proceedings in this place. We have articulated that the university further outlined considerable work that has been undertaken—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: the member is actually talking about in camera evidence of a committee, something that many of us are not privy to and that I do not believe she is allowed to talk about in this place.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have not said what the in camera evidence is. I have referred to the fact that there was in camera evidence. I have not disclosed anything about that in camera evidence.

The PRESIDENT: And, of course, the Hon. Ms Bonaros, you would not disclose any evidence.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, I could not, and no I would not, Mr President, and the reason I would not is because it was given to the committee on a confidential basis, on the basis that it was commercial-in-confidence, on the basis that it covered issues like competitive advantage, on the basis that it covered the risk mitigation strategies that they had in place to deal with those things, and on the basis that it would disadvantage the new university merger if it was released publicly. That is why I will not comment on what was released in that evidence.

We do know, though, that there were lots of questions, lots of questions asked by me, even after that information was provided. There was, by me, a forensic examination of the information provided and questions back and forth about that, and there were responses to those questions, but it has been made clear that if the substance of those questions and the material that was actually debated is released, it compromises the merger, it compromises the new university, it compromises their ability to do the things they are going to do on a competitive basis. That is the reason they have not.

There are verbatim extracts from the business plan—some have questioned whether it even exists—that have been provided in camera to those members on the committee. We have had the opportunity of looking at that material, of scrutinising that material. They have released considerable material and provided detailed evidence to enable representatives from here to form a view on the proposed establishment of an Adelaide University merger.

Then there was a report. Those who were convinced supported the report, and those who were not convinced provided minority reports. That is the way things work in here. The universities have only withheld the information which, if released, could compromise the best interests of the exiting universities and the successful transition to Adelaide University. Those of us who were committed to that process and who made informed decisions about that went through that process and looked at the information that was provided and made sure, before signing up to a majority report, that they were satisfied.

I am not sure there is, to be honest, a lot left in the business plan to release publicly. I will touch on that because we have had, as I said, that ample opportunity to forensically scrutinise that material. I have made clear my position on the merger and on this motion. I am not falling for the politicking. The mover knows very well this to be the case; the mover knows very well that it is a great headline, a great catchcry: 'Release the business plan'. It is amazing, it sounds great, of course people support it, but we fail to tell people what has been disclosed, we fail to tell people that everything but the information that is in the best interests of the exiting universities and the successful transition to Adelaide University, everything but the things that compromise them, has been released to the inquiry.

This is what the Hon. Rob Simms told us the other day he wanted in here. He said that the Greens led the charge for a parliamentary inquiry, and there was a parliamentary inquiry in which both houses of parliament were involved. The Hon. Rob Simms, like I, was involved in that process, and we had the benefit of that material. That is the bottom line. The only material that has not been disclosed publicly is the material that will compromise the existing universities and the new university. I am not falling for the politicking, and I am not falling for the transparency lines that are being run.

As to the previous contribution of the Hon. Jing Lee, and anyone else who agrees with that position, the uncertainty and the reason we wanted to create some certainty, the dark cloud that she speaks of, has been created by the opposition. They are the ones who have created the uncertainty, they are the ones who have raised all the concerns about the merger, they are the ones who wanted to take this into next year, despite all the evidence raised at the committee that said, 'Don't take this into the next year.' They are the ones who have been creating the media headlines.

We knew all along that it would take a brave opposition to come into this parliament and oppose the merger. I dare anyone who has criticised the merger to do what the Greens are doing. If you do not back it, at least have the intestinal fortitude to come into this place and oppose it. That is precisely what I dare them to do.

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is not a deal, Ms Girolamo. Do you know what it is? I actually feel sorry for the shadow education minister because I do think that by the end of that process I saw the shift in that shadow minister. I saw the shift from 'Oh, crap!' I saw the shift from 'Oh, crap! This is not flying anymore. We cannot oppose this, and we have been out for months on end creating uncertainty and fearmongering in the community'—and your party was asleep. While your party was asleep, some of us were working to get outcomes. That is what happened here.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Point of order: I am all for rigorous debate but the honourable member is actually yelling at another member across the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I think you can just tone it down, the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is what you get when you interject. The opposition could have led. If I was the opposition and I was convinced, I know what I would have done. I know exactly what I would have done. I would have done what we see in poker machine debates. I would have gone and knocked on the door of the Premier and said, 'Peter, let's do a deal.' But they were sleeping while other people were working.

Since then, what I love most is that they realised they have missed out on that opportunity, they have realised that they cannot say to any of the people who provided evidence—groups that they back, business groups that they back—they have realised, 'We can't get out of this,' so they are trying to claw back victory, they are trying to claw back credit now for outcomes they did not negotiate, for commitments with the university and with the Premier that they did not land.

They put out a press release today saying that the $60 million, 'It was us; it was us; it was us who wanted the money for Flinders.' They put out a press release saying, 'The hubs, that was our idea. That was our idea.' That is rubbish. It is the biggest load of rubbish that I have heard from them in a while—not that long, actually—but it is a load of rubbish. While they were sleeping some of us were working, some of us were trying to figure out why a good idea should be made better.

As I said yesterday, and I will repeat today, I am exceptionally proud of those outcomes. I am not going to fall into the politicking and the headlines and the catchcries of 'Release the business plan, release the business plan,' when we know that every shred of evidence that could be released has already been released.

The opposition, and anyone else who thinks that they should just be able to stand in here and criticise and criticise and criticise, feed the uncertainty, feed the dark cloud that they refer to, and then at the last minute when all else has failed say, 'Well, we are going to support the bill anyway.' My challenge to you is: if that is your position, oppose the bill.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (17:17): I would like to start, and I hope I am not going to shock the mover of this motion, by saying that the government will not be supporting this motion. We believe the process to establish the new Adelaide University has been extremely open and accountable. The government took its university amalgamation policy to the 2022 state election. The councils of the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia subsequently resolved to explore the creation of a new university for the future, signing a statement of cooperation. The universities then commenced a joint feasibility assessment and released a vision statement which was subject to feedback from within the universities and the broader community.

Upon the university councils reaching a decision to proceed with the creation of a new university, the state government published a draft Adelaide University Bill for public feedback. Even more than that, the government established a joint committee of the parliament, chaired by a non-government MP, to explore and test the evidence supporting the establishment of a new university. That committee received more than 80 submissions and heard evidence from almost 50 witnesses, including academics, students, experts, and business and community groups.

The universities themselves supplied to the committee significant documentation that informed their decision, including comprehensive summaries of the joint white paper, business case, transition plan and heads of agreement. The universities publicly released a comprehensive summary of the business case, with the only information redacted being commercially sensitive material that, if it had been released, could be used by competitors to gain an advantage.

In an in camera session with the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University the universities provided further detailed information to the committee on the full business case. Committee members considered this additional information when reporting the committee's findings to parliament on the establishment of Adelaide University on 17 October.

Universities operate in a competitive environment both nationally and internationally, and the full business case on the amalgamation of the universities contains commercial-in-confidence material that is not appropriate to release publicly. Release of this information could provide information that has value to the university's competitors. For example, this could be commercial strategy and analysis, the university's intellectual property and/or information subject to legal professional privilege.

While I am on my feet, I understand that there is likely to be an amendment to this motion from the Hon. Jing Lee, and I would like to let the chamber know that the government will not be supporting the amendment either.

Leading up to the university's decision to proceed with the establishment of the new uni, the government worked closely with the universities to develop the financial package that helps the new university pursue some of its core objectives while being aligned to the achievement of key elements in the government's economic vision—things such as increasing levels of research and innovation and addressing equity considerations for people within the community who have experienced disadvantages.

I am advised that the university has provided the Department of Treasury and Finance with a confidential copy of their estimates of the financial profile of a new university, including core assumptions, which helped inform the government's financial package. In designing the funding package the government had regard to both funding that would assist the new university to achieve key objectives and that would address the state government's strategic objectives and benefit the broader South Australian community over time.

With respect to the disclosure of cabinet documents, the state government maintains exactly the same policy for providing access to cabinet documents as the former Liberal government. In fact, the disclosure rules were last updated in February 2019. The workings of cabinet in all Westminster democracies are governed by long established conventions of collective responsibility and confidentiality. These practices have been in place for generations and should be preserved.

We have proposed a number of options to the Auditor-General that we believe should satisfy his request for information without impacting on the long established principles of cabinet confidentiality.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:22): I rise briefly to state that I will not be supporting the honourable member's motion and also to echo the statements from my colleagues the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Reggie Martin that, due to the nature of the committee process, there has already been ample evidence put on the public record. As the Hon. Connie Bonaros mentioned, there rightly should be pride in the negotiated outcomes, which seems to be absent from the commentary completely, that this merged university will in fact allow more students from rural areas and disadvantaged backgrounds to attend university.

I also just want to state that we cannot really keep perpetuating this misinformation about $500 million of taxpayers' money being given to universities. That is completely incorrect. You cannot actually amount the figure to $500 million no matter how you add it up. But regardless, that money is actually for research and development to benefit all South Australians, and it is for people—disadvantaged people and people in rural communities—to attend university. That is what the bulk of the money is for.

The universities have publicly released a comprehensive summary of the business case, with the only information redacted being commercially sensitive material. That redacted information, if released, could be used by competitors to gain an advantage. The universities have previously provided detailed information to the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University on the full business case at an in camera committee hearing.

Universities operate in a competitive environment at both the national and international level. The full business case on the amalgamation of the universities contains commercial-in-confidence material that would not be appropriate to release publicly. As I mentioned, releasing this information could provide information of value to the universities' competitors: information including commercial strategy and analysis, the university's intellectual property and information subject to legal professional privilege. Such information will, of course, be valuable in ensuring the new university's success.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:24): I have heard over and over again in this debate, which is calling for the release of the business case, that the only information that has been kept from us as a parliament is that which is commercially sensitive material that may indeed impact on the merger.

We still do not know who wrote the business case. We have asked in parliament today. I asked in the committee in September. In fact, I addressed 15 of my questions to the universities where I asked directly:

Whilst carrying out the merger feasibility studies can you indicate which consulting companies were appointed and their roles?

The answer I received back—although by the time this answer was received, it was forwarded to my colleague who had taken over my role on the committee—was:

A range of additional external (commercial services) expertise was contracted by each institution separately and individually to support the creation of artefacts which provided input to the Councils' individual decision-making processes.

InDaily, an independent newspaper of this town, followed up with questions directly to both universities, where InDaily asked:

Did the University of Adelaide and/or UniSA engage any consultants/consultancy firms in compiling the business case and financial plan for the merger? If so, who were they and how much were they paid?

Both universities replied with a joint statement to InDaily:

'The approach to establishing a new university for South Australia has been complex and involved assessing legislative options, consumer and competition legislation, Commonwealth regulation, and higher education accreditation, in addition to the development of a business case and transition plan,' a spokesperson said.

They did not even name the spokesperson.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: It's a secret, Tammy.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It's a secret. The joint statement continued:

'Both universities established project teams made up of internal seconded staff, and engaged legal and strategic independent advisers to verify the analysis and projections.'

InDaily then asked:

Who were the independent advisors? Will the universities name them and if not, why? And how much did the universities pay for this independent advice?

It will shock members of the council to know that the response was:

Any further detail on the engagement of advisors is commercial and confidential.

If somebody can explain to me why the question of 'who prepared the business case?' is required to be kept secret from the people of South Australia and this parliament, and how that in and of itself will sink the merger, I will be very interested in hearing a legitimate reason why that is the case.

For me, it goes to the heart of how some members of this place protest a little too much, claim a little too much credit and claim to have done their due diligence when they do not even know, and we do not even know—or perhaps they do, but we do not—who wrote the document we seek to compel through an order of production of documents today. Information that is commercially sensitive can be redacted, but one wonders: if the consultancy or advisory people or groups are so commercially sensitive that they need to be redacted and hidden from the South Australian public, are there more questions that should have been asked by all of the members of the committee? With that, I commend the motion.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:28): On behalf of the Liberal opposition, I would like to make some remarks to this motion introduced by the Hon. Robert Simms. The business case refers to a range of documents provided to university councils ahead of their decision to proceed with the merger.

The Premier and Deputy Premier unwisely advised media that they had not read the business case, perhaps without fully understanding what it was. Both Treasury and the Department for Industry, Innovation and Science indicated to the joint committee that they had sought various materials from the university to inform their cabinet submissions, but that they had not specifically asked to see the business case. If this does not set off alarm bells in terms of transparency and accountability, I do not know what will.

I congratulate the Hon. Robert Simms for introducing this motion because, as I said yesterday, when you Google search articles on the university merger, there are over 200 articles published in all the mainstream media, so there is a serious public interest. We can reasonably argue that the public has a reasonable expectation that more information be made available than has been.

Given the proposed establishment of the perpetual fund that will, in time, provide significant financial support to the institution, the proposed amendment is therefore suggested, as we did in the minority report. It is also worth commenting that government processes are a much bigger problem than university processes. The government's first duty to the people of South Australia is to responsibly disclose information the public wants to know.

Never once has the Liberal opposition ever said we are going to block the legislation—never. We have stayed open-minded, so I do not agree with the Hon. Connie Bonaros' earlier—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.S. LEE: It looks like you are holding hands—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S. LEE: —with the Hon. Sarah Game.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon Ms Lee!

The Hon. J.S. LEE: This is a disgrace.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: It was us! It was us!

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Bonaros, you are making a fool of yourself. The Hon. Ms Lee, will you continue, please?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Girolamo! I am trying to listen to the Hon. Ms Lee.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I would like to move some sensible amendments in my name. I move:

Leave out paragraph 2 and insert new paragraph as follows:

2. Calls on the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide to publicly release the full business case to inform the community's consideration of this proposal, recognising that redactions of some documents will be appropriate to protect our state's interests;

After paragraph 2 insert new paragraph as follows:

3. Calls on the government to improve its processes and practices, including:

(a) before providing substantial government funds to third-party institutions, ministers should fully inform themselves of all available information relating to the proposal in question;

(b) ministers should at all times comply with Treasurer's Instruction 17; and

(c) cabinet should provide full submissions to the Auditor-General to enable that office to conduct its legislative duties.

I understand that some members say that perhaps releasing the full business case could be a problem, that it compromises confidentiality and also commercial-in-confidence. I appreciate that. The amendments that I propose to introduce actually amend paragraph 2, which is:

Calls on the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide to publicly release the full business case to inform the community's consideration of this proposal, recognising that redactions of some documents will be appropriate to protect our state interests.

That is one area of amendment. The other amendment, of course, goes to the heart of transparency and accountability, where we call on the government to improve its processes and practices, including:

(a) before providing substantial government funds to third-party institutions, ministers should fully inform themselves of all available information relating to the proposal in question;

(b) ministers should at all times comply with Treasurer's Instruction 17; and

(c) cabinet should provide full submissions to the Auditor-General to enable that office to conduct its legislative duties.

I think these are sensible amendments. I am very disappointed in the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game. The whole time they have been talking about scrutinising the merger, scrutinising the bill, etc., and yet when it comes to getting the processes right to make sure due diligence is actually applied by ministers and by government, it is not supported. That is such a disgrace. With those comments, I commend the motion.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:34): What a debate it has been. I had no idea when I proposed this motion that it would set off such a cacophony of criticism from one side of the chamber. I am perplexed because what we are seeing, of course, is the Labor Party opposing this and their Praetorian Guard, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game, leaping to the government's defence to try—

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: —to aid the government with a political problem. I am not trying to play politics with this, but I am a politician. The role of a politician is actually to engage in political work and, quite frankly, if you do not want to engage in political work, do not be a politician.

This motion is responding to the concerns of the community. This is not a debate about what the committee has or has not seen; this is about what the people of South Australia have seen who do not have the benefit of being in the committee room and getting access to whatever information may have been presented to the committee. That is not what this is about. This is about getting information to the people of South Australia so they can form a view so they can form an informed judgement around the proposal.

The motion references some opinion polling that demonstrates there is strong community support for that proposition, particularly in the regions and across supporters of all political parties. The amendments that the opposition are putting forward I think dilute the motion a little way; however, I am happy to live with those amendments and I am happy to support them. I think the additions they have added in terms of improving processes and practices are good.

So I am happy to support this amendment and, of course, advocate supporting the motion overall. There is no reason why, particularly with the opposition's amendment, which notes that redactions may be necessary, that this motion could not pass this chamber, notwithstanding the concerns of some of the members opposite and their supporters on the crossbench.

The PRESIDENT: The first question I am going to put is that paragraph 2 as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. J.S. Lee stand part of the motion.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M.
Game, S.L. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Martin, R.B. (teller) Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

NOES

Centofanti, N.J. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Hood, B.R. Lee, J.S. (teller) Lensink, J.M.A.
Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A.

PAIRS

Wortley, R.P. Henderson, L.A. Maher, K.J.
Hood, D.G.E.

Question thus agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The next question is that new paragraph 3 as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. J.S. Lee be so inserted.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Hood, B.R. Lee, J.S. (teller) Lensink, J.M.A.
Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M.
Game, S.L. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Martin, R.B. (teller) Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Henderson, L.A. Wortley, R.P. Hood, D.G.E.
Maher, K.J.


Question thus resolved in the negative.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Hood, B.R. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Pangallo, F. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M.
Game, S.L. Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Martin, R.B. (teller) Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.

PAIRS

Wortley, R.P. Henderson, L.A. Maher, K.J.
Hood, D.G.E.

Motion thus negatived.

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