HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Statutes Amendment (Universities - Caps on Vice Chancellor Salaries) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 September 2025.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:59): As shadow minister for training and skills, I rise to briefly speak on behalf of the opposition to the Statutes Amendment (Universities—Caps on Vice Chancellor Salaries) Bill 2025. I indicate, I think probably to nobody's surprise, that we will not be supporting the bill. The bill seeks to amend the Adelaide University Act 2023 and the Flinders University Act 1966 by inserting a provision in each of these acts to cap the salary of the universities' vice-chancellors to that of the salary payable to the Premier of South Australia.

With respect to the two universities in our state, I note that the total remuneration for the Adelaide University Chancellor, Professor Nicola Phillips, this financial year will be in the range of $936,200 to a maximum of $1,135,200—nice work if you can get it—and the remuneration for the Flinders University Vice-Chancellor, Colin Stirling, last financial year was over $1.43 million.

I want to stress that I do have some sympathy for the Hon. Robert Simms' motivation and intentions for introducing this bill, given that these salaries appear very, very high when compared with that of the Premier's annual salary, which is currently $436,000, and considering the vast responsibilities of his role in comparison. Indeed, I note that the Prime Minister of Australia earns a base salary of $607,500 a year, which is still far less than each of the vice-chancellors is receiving, as I have just outlined. Regardless, the state Liberal Party does not believe a restriction on salaries of vice-chancellors should be enshrined in legislation. We are the party of the free market and ultimately believe that that should be the tool or the mechanism to set salaries for these positions.

Whilst universities are indeed public entities, there are no limitations placed on the salaries of vice-chancellors in other jurisdictions that we are aware of, where those appointed to these positions are similarly remunerated in most cases. The salaries of vice-chancellors should therefore not be restricted by state legislation in South Australia in our view. It would not be appropriate to inhibit our state's universities from freely negotiating with prospective candidates for their vice-chancellor positions, and for that reason we will not be supporting this legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:01): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Universities—Cap on Vice Chancellor Salaries) Bill 2025. I suspect if you asked the average South Australian who earns more—the Premier, the Governor or a university vice-chancellor—most would hazard a guess to say the Premier or maybe the Governor. The cynics amongst us might guess that a vice-chancellor makes more. But in actuality, the pay of South Australia's vice-chancellors can be more than that of the Premier and the Governor combined, with room to spare.

A report from The Advertiser revealed that the current co-vice-chancellors of the taxpayer-funded merged Adelaide University, Professor Peter Høj and Professor David Lloyd, both made upwards of $1 million in 2023 and 2024. I am sure both must be green with envy when they look at their Flinders University counterpart, Professor Colin Stirling, who made an eye-watering $1.4 million in 2024. That is 3½ times the salary of the Premier. To put those numbers into perspective, it would take someone earning minimum wage over 56,000 hours to earn what these vice-chancellors make in a year. That is roughly 6½ years of work: no breaks, no sleep, just work 24/7.

Compared with their international counterparts, in the UK vice-chancellors average roughly £413,000, which is about A$843,000, while in the US vice-chancellors average some US$251,500 or A$375,866. The pay packets of these Australian university bosses are out of control and they demonstrate the growing inequality and warped priorities of our Australian universities.

Indeed, I would say that I am surprised that the Liberal Party says 'it is not a surprise to anyone' that their position is to oppose this bill. I would remind them that when Simon Birmingham was education minister, it was well chronicled back in 2017 that he was gearing up for a propaganda war against the universities and specifically targeting their healthy surpluses, lavish new buildings and university vice-chancellors' then million-dollar salaries. In fact, Mr Birmingham's talking points were described by the Australian Financial Review article to be that vice-chancellors earn more than the Prime Minister and most senior public servants. How the Liberals have changed in just a short period of time, but how the vice-chancellors' salaries have ballooned.

While vice-chancellors are making their millions year after year, most academics working under them are struggling to make ends meet. I have heard countless stories of university lecturers and tutors who are not paid enough to even complete the marking that they are required to do for their students, forcing them to work unpaid hours of marking just to make sure that their students get timely and helpful feedback.

Back in 2023, a report from the NTEU found that more than 97,000 employees across our Australian university system were victims of wage theft to the tune of some $158.7 million. Among South Australian universities, UniSA was said to have 16 employees owed a total of $182,709. Flinders University was found to have two staff owed $67,578, and the University of Adelaide was found to have two staff owed $52,000.

So while these vice-chancellors are bringing home million dollar plus pay packets, university staff are actually having their wages stolen. What is worse is the newly merged Adelaide University, which the Malinauskas government has been proud to champion, plans to completely scrap in-person lectures, opting for, I quote, 'rich digital learning activities'. I am sorry, but I fail to see how sitting at a computer and watching a slideshow presentation with a voiceover can be seen as rich digital learning. Something is rich, but it is not the learning.

So apparently universities do not have the money to pay their staff, they do not have the money to run in-person lectures, but when it comes time to hand over massive salaries and bonuses to vice-chancellors, the bank appears to be open. Those salaries demonstrate a sad reality: our universities have become more about turning a profit and making money than educating people and providing us with the skills that benefit our society. These salaries treat vice-chancellors more like CEOs than educators, rewarding them not for their ability to have a great institution with a high quality of education, but for their ability to make money for that university.

Students deserve better, South Australians deserve better, academics deserve better. Clearly, universities are not going to willingly drop the salaries of their vice-chancellors and redirect those funds to better quality of education for their students, so this parliament should give them a push. This bill would, of course, cap the salary of South Australian vice-chancellors at that of the salary of the Premier. That is a pretty reasonable salary. I do not think the Premier is complaining that he does not make enough.

I look forward to the vote on this bill. I remind the Liberal Party of their former education minister's words and ask them to reflect on whether or not they have, in this case, judged too hastily what the outcome should be. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:07): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Universities—Caps on Vice Chancellor Salaries) Bill 2025. I thank the Hon. Robert Simms for introducing the bill. While I appreciate the intent behind the bill, I indicate that I will not be supporting it. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University, I witnessed firsthand the scale of transformation involved in merging two major institutions, an undertaking that required visionary leadership, robust governance and significant public investment.

Throughout that process, I had the privilege of working closely with stakeholders from both the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide, which gave me deep insight into the complexity of university governance, the scale of institutional transformation and the expectations placed on university leadership in this state.

This bill seeks to cap the salaries of vice-chancellors at South Australian public universities, aligning them with the salary of the Premier, currently around $436,000. The intent is clear: to ensure that the executive remuneration in our universities reflects public expectations, especially at a time when students and staff are under increasing financial pressure. There is no doubt that the figure cited in recent media reports of vice-chancellors earning upwards of $1.3 million has raised eyebrows in the community, and rightly so. These are public institutions supported by taxpayers' dollars and they must be accountable to the public they serve. For instance, the University of Adelaide's annual report revealed that Prof. Peter Høj received a 24 per cent pay rise last year, bringing his salary to over $1.3 million. Similarly, Flinders University's vice-chancellor earned over $1.43 million.

These figures underscore the need for greater transparency and public scrutiny. However, while I support the principle of transparency and fiscal responsibility, I also believe that we must proceed with caution when legislating salary caps in a sector as globally competitive and strategically important as higher education. At a time when South Australians are facing significant cost-of-living pressures and students are incurring substantial debt to pursue higher education, it is reasonable to expect transparency in how public funds are allocated, especially in executive remuneration.

Our universities are not only centres of learning, they are also economic drivers, research powerhouses and international ambassadors for South Australia. The role of a vice-chancellor today is not merely academic; it is executive, diplomatic and entrepreneurial. These leaders are tasked with managing billion-dollar budgets, navigating complex industrial relations, attracting international students and securing research partnerships in an increasingly competitive global market. If we are to attract and retain the best talent—leaders who can deliver on these expectations—we must ensure that South Australia remains a competitive and attractive jurisdiction. A rigid salary cap, while well-intentioned, will inevitably limit our ability to recruit the calibre of leadership our institutions require.

That said, I share the concern raised by the Northern Territory education union and others regarding the lack of transparency around the remuneration of the incoming vice-chancellor of the merged Adelaide University. With $450 million in public funding allocated to support this merger, the public has every right to know how those funds are being used, including executive pay.

This not a binary debate between high salaries and low accountability. It is a conversation about balance, between fair remuneration and public trust, between institutional autonomy and community expectations. I would encourage the government and the university to consider alternative mechanisms to achieve the bill's objectives. I believe there is a genuine scope for reform in how our universities approach executive pay and governance.

While I will not be supporting the bill in its current form, I do thank the Hon. Robert Simms for bringing forward this important issue. There is a clear need for reform in how our universities approach executive remuneration and governance. This bill has sparked a necessary conversation, one that should continue beyond this chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:12): I rise briefly to put on the record my full support for this bill and just to comment briefly that any suggestion that we need to be paying $1 million a year to someone to get a high-calibre, high-performing individual is of great insult, really, to the rest of the population. Many people are working as professionals, as doctors, dentists, veterinarians, for much less than that, and they are doing a really great job. I really object to the idea that we need to be paying such levels to attract a high-calibre individual who can do the job.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:13): On behalf of the government, I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Universities—Caps on Vice Chancellor Salaries) Bill 2025, which this government will not be supporting. With the growth of the higher education sector in South Australia, our universities have become increasingly sophisticated and complex organisations. They manage significant budgets and substantial infrastructure. Investing in research and teaching, they employ thousands of staff, educate thousand of students and provide extensive student services.

Strong and effective leadership is central to ensuring that universities retain their reputations as highly respected institutions of learning and research. Australian society benefits from strong and effective university leadership in multiple ways. High-quality teaching and research drive innovation. It also helps businesses develop new products and services, which in turn creates jobs and boosts economic growth.

Universities also train the next generation of professionals, from doctors and teachers to engineers and public servants, ensuring Australia has the skilled workforce it needs. Strong research programs influence evidence-based policymaking and improve social outcomes in health, education and environmental sustainability. Culturally, universities act as hubs for debate, discovery and artistic expression, which enriches our national identity and international reputation by fostering international collaborations. Student exchanges at universities enhance Australia's soft power and diplomatic ties, strengthening our political and social standing on the world stage.

Whilst it is important to ensure the remuneration of vice-chancellors is transparent and appropriate to the level of responsibility and the skills and expertise required for the role, it is equally important to ensure the remuneration is competitive. In the absence of a national approach, a cap on vice-chancellor salaries in South Australia alone would put the state at a competitive disadvantage when recruiting the finest talents to lead our universities. Consequently, this government will not be giving its support to the honourable member's bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:16): I thank honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Jing Lee. I did have a sense of optimism around this, until I saw the Hon. Tung Ngo rise to his feet, and then I knew. I had that familiar sinking feeling that the bill was going to be killed off, because you know that when there is a sensible proposition in this chamber the Labor government deploys the Hon. Tung Ngo to kill off the bill, the smiling assassin who destroys good policy. He is always the one they deploy to deliver the bad news.

I am very disappointed. I do think the position that both the Labor and Liberal parties have taken here is a slap in the face to hardworking South Australians, particularly in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. I think the Hon. Sarah Game makes a compelling point when she says that there are lots of people in our community who work very hard, who do vital work and who would never dream of being able to earn the exorbitant salaries that these vice-chancellors earn. This nonsense that you need to pay people salaries in excess of $1 million to attract talent is just a complete nonsense.

I note also the point made by the Hon. Tammy Franks when she highlighted the inconsistency of the Liberal Party on this issue. It is a very important point. Simon Birmingham was the federal education minister, and I was in the federal parliament during that period. He and I disagreed on many things, but one area where we did agree was the need to curb these exorbitant salaries and to have a discussion around that. Sadly, it seems the South Australian branch of the Liberal Party has moved away from that position.

There is an opportunity for us as a state to show some leadership here and to demonstrate that we are trying to get this under control, particularly at a time when we have a new institution that will be coming into fruition in the new year. Might I say that at the time when we were debating the establishment of the new Adelaide University the Greens moved an amendment that would have allowed the vice-chancellor salaries to be set by the Remuneration Tribunal. That was opposed by the Labor and Liberal parties as well, so it seems that they are very reluctant to have a commonsense and transparent approach adopted in relation to vice-chancellor salaries.

This is an issue that the Greens will continue to advance, because I think the broader community expects that these public institutions should be reflecting what is the public standard. These salaries are exorbitant and they are wildly out of touch with community expectations. I do thank, however, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Sarah Game for their support, and I indicate to members that I do plan to call a division so that the views of members can be put on the public record.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 3

Noes 14

Majority 11

AYES

Franks, T.A. Game, S.L. Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E. Hood, B.R.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T. (teller) Pangallo, F.
Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

Second reading thus negatived.

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