16 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:35): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Public Sector on the topic of public school teachers.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I was concerned the Attorney-General was missing out, so I thought I had better ask him a question. Yesterday, The Advertiser reported that public school teachers may strike again in week 9 of the school term if the government does not accept their request by the start of December. The Australian Education Union President, Andrew Gohl, was quoted in the article as saying, and I quote:

Industrial action is certainly part of what we are considering, all we've got as leverage is our labour. So there are two options really, either…strike in week nine or strike in the upcoming year…We're trying to increase salaries to attract and retain…and it's important for the [government] to understand that unless we have those measures, we will continue to lose teachers.

My question to the minister therefore is: can the minister update the chamber on the progress of negotiations with the Australian Education Union? Will the government commit to meeting the teachers' demands to reduce the pressure on teachers and ensure we can retain the skilled workforce we need in our public schools?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:37): I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this area. I can absolutely assure the member that the government will continue talking, negotiating and bargaining in good faith. There have been meetings as recently as this week between representatives of the government and representatives of the union that represents teachers in this state.

I think I have outlined in this chamber before, and certainly it has been publicly reported, that the government has to date put forward three offers to the teachers' union, each offer being in totality of greater value than the last. I think all three offers are of escalating value, having been in totality the biggest offers that have ever been made as part of an enterprise bargaining negotiation with the teachers' union.

I think the third offer that was put—and I can't remember exactly how long ago it was, but I think it was early last week, Monday afternoon last week, so a week and a half ago—has sunk in value to somewhere between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion of additional funding, comprised of a number of factors. It partly comprised increased pay but also comprised other things that the teachers' union had put forward as important to them, particularly non-instructional time.

One of the issues that the teachers' union has raised, and that the government has given in principle support for in the negotiations, pending a final resolution, is a reduction of one hour per week of non-instructional time. There is a discussion underway about how quickly that escalates under the government's third offer that would be introduced over seven years—the seven different categories of schools, with the most needy schools being the first ones to be introduced in the first year for that one hour less of non-instructional time.

Simply as a matter of practicality, it would be difficult to do it much sooner than in seven years. I know the teachers' union and most people wish we could do it a lot quicker, but, given the head of the teachers' union, Andrew Gohl, talks about a teacher shortage not just in South Australia but right around Australia, to have one less hour of non-instructional time a week there would be one less hour of teaching children, which is something that I don't think either the union or the government or any South Australian would like to see. Less time of children being taught in schools would mean extra teachers. To have that one extra hour a week, you would need I think it is 502 or 503 additional teachers being employed.

That, of course, would cost a substantial sum, but given the views expressed that there is a teacher shortage crisis around the country, it would be almost impossible to fill those positions. We are continuing to negotiate, and we will continue to negotiate, bearing in mind all the competing factors that weigh in industrial negotiations.

As I have said, we have successfully completed negotiations with a number of public sector unions, the first one I think being the ambulance officers that are employed in South Australia that for the whole of the term of the last government did not have a single pay rise. They were four years without a pay rise. Early on in the term of this government, we resolved that enterprise bargain and gave back pay for all of the years that were missed out. We have concluded negotiations since then with the firefighters and with the nurses in the public sector.

These things do take some time sometimes, but I am pleased that everyone is back around the negotiating table and hopefully we will have a resolution as soon as we possibly can, weighing up all the factors and needing to be a government that is responsible with taxpayers' money but looking to make sure we are appropriately paying and appropriately taking into consideration our teachers' workloads.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:40): Supplementary: can the minister commit to resolving the matter by Christmas?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:41): I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not going to put an artificial deadline on exactly when things will be resolved. Often, particularly with something as complicated as the teaching profession, it typically has taken many, many months. As I say, I am pleased that everybody is back around the negotiating table this week and I think everybody wishes it to be resolved as quickly as possible, but it needs to be resolved not just responsibly but in a way that can practically work.

15 November 2023

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS MLC (18 October 2023):

1. Can the government clarify whether the One Nation education policy was considered as part of its negotiations with One Nation with regard to the university merger?
   
2. Will the government rule out inclusion of a One Nation freedom of speech clause similar to that that the party proposed at a federal level in any state university act?
   
   

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector): The Minister for Innovation and Skills has advised:

1. The One Nation education policy was not considered as part of its negotiations with One Nation with regard to the university merger; and
   
   
2. The federal Higher Education Support Act 2003 includes a definition of academic freedom. All table A providers, including South Australia's three public universities, are subject to this legislation. Following appropriate approvals, the new Adelaide University will be a table A provider and will be subject to the Higher Education Support Act. Given the definition exists in federal legislation, the government sees no reason to include any additional requirements for free speech or academic freedom in university establishing legislation.

1 November 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (21:19): I want to make a few very brief remarks, given we have come to the end of this bill. I think it is appropriate to recognise that this has been one of those difficult political debates for the chamber and certainly one of the more difficult ones over the last six months. I do want to acknowledge that, whilst it has been disappointing from the Greens' perspective that a number of our amendments have been unsuccessful—indeed, all of the amendments bar one—it is our hope that this new institution is successful.

Universities play a very important role in our state and whilst we have not been supportive of the approach that the government, and indeed the parliament, has taken, it is my sincere hope that the new university is a success. I want to take this opportunity to wish the staff and the students of the university well as they transition into this next phase, and also to make a few remarks about my relationship with the government in terms of dealing with this matter.

I have known the higher education minister for many years. I have known her to be a good person and someone who cares a lot about the university sector. Whilst we have differed on this issue, I am sure we will work together on different issues. We have had some very intense debates in this chamber over the last few days on this issue, but I think everybody has tried to engage with this with the best of intentions. I look forward to us working together on other matters in the future.

Bill read a third time and passed.

1 November 2023

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

NOES

PAIRS

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

NOES

PAIRS

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

31 October 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:08): I rise to indicate on behalf of the Greens that we will not be supporting this bill. We will, however, be working very hard during the committee stage to try to get better outcomes for staff and students, as we have done during this entire process. I will be moving 23 amendments and I will use my second reading contribution to talk to some of those amendments and detail their rationale for the chamber.

It is appropriate that we are meeting today on Halloween because last week we saw the horror of the Labor Party doing a deal with One Nation, and this week we are seeing the potential for a Frankenstein's monster as the government seeks to rush through this legislation without appropriate safeguards for a new university.

I bring to this chamber my experience in having worked in the university sector. Indeed, I have an association with all three of our universities. I hold a bachelor's degree from Flinders University, a graduate certificate from the University of South Australia, and I have worked at both Adelaide University and Flinders University, and I have seen all the different elements or applied the different lenses of what it is to be in our university sector.

I was a student activist during the noughties and a student president at Flinders Uni. I later went back to Flinders and worked as a casual academic, doing some casual teaching work, and later I have worked on professional staff, on casual contracts and on longer term contracts. I have seen the effect that the corporate university model has on staff and on students.

We have an opportunity with this reform to actually remake this new university and to make it something better, to make it a leader when it comes to governance. I am really disappointed that that opportunity has not been embraced by the crossbench in their negotiations with the government—not all of the crossbench; I recognise that the Hon. Frank Pangallo did not sign up to that deal. It is disappointing that the opportunity to make this new institution something better was not embraced by One Nation and the Hon. Connie Bonaros in their negotiations with government.

I really do want to acknowledge the leadership of the NTEU in the way they have engaged with this issue. I was proud to have been a member of the NTEU in the past. I am not currently a member of that union, but I have been previously. They offer a really good service to their members and they have played a very important role in highlighting the concerns of staff and highlighting the potential implications of this proposal for staff. The Greens share the concerns of the union and the anxieties that staff have around this proposal, and they have certainly been in our thoughts during this time.

I might use this opportunity to refresh some of the arguments the Greens touched on in our minority report. The legislation has come to the parliament today after a committee process. It is a matter of public record that that committee would not have been established if not for the leadership of the Greens, if not for the leadership of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the leadership of the Liberal Party, because the government made it very clear that they wanted to rush forward this legislation without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. It was the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Greens and the Liberals that put the brakes on that and ensured there was appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and I think that process was really worthwhile.

Of course, we may not have needed to have a parliamentary inquiry if the Labor Party had met the commitment it took to the last state election, that is, to establish an independent commission of inquiry. It is a regrettable outcome that this process has been politicised by the government. It was really disappointing to see the two vice-chancellors lining up with the Premier and announcing their plan without having brought that direct to members of parliament. There was no approach to reach out to the Greens from the vice-chancellors of those two universities, and this proposal was presented to the parliament as a fait accompli.

Basically, the message we got from the government was that any delay is denial, that you have to sign on the bottom line and make it happen, do not ask any questions. That is not the way we do business in this place and that is certainly not the role of the upper house. There needs to be appropriate scrutiny of these sorts of proposals. It should have come from an independent commission of inquiry that could have considered this fundamental question of whether or not this is the right direction for our state. That should have been the threshold question and an independent person could have asked that and then made some proposals for the parliament to consider.

Alas, that was not the process that was adopted. Instead, sadly, some members of the university community, some university staff, found out about this plan via an article in The Advertiser. That is not the way that people should be advised of key decisions that impact on their jobs and livelihoods. That is not a respectful way to approach university staff or students.

One of the key issues that the Greens have been concerned about throughout has been the secrecy that has underpinned this proposal. It has been very concerning to us that cabinet did not review the business case before putting money on the table to support this merger plan. Today, we had discussion in question time about the need for the government to step up and support teachers, yet they were willing to commit nearly half a billion dollars sight unseen on this merger plan. They say they cannot afford to meet the needs of teachers at the moment but they were very happy to put half a billion dollars on the table without even reading the business case. When does that ever happen?

It is not an appropriate approach to take and that is why the Greens have been advocating consistently to say that business case should be put out into the public realm so that the community can consider it and form a view. That is why tomorrow in this chamber I will be moving a motion calling on the universities to do just that, to make those business cases public.

We also need to know what external consultants, if any, were engaged in developing this proposal. It was very concerning to me to read the revelations of InDaily regarding potential conflicts of interest and the involvement of Deloitte in this plan. Any consultants engaged with this university merger proposal should be named and the community has a right to that information.

In my opening remarks I talked a little bit about governance and one of the key issues I think, and it has been a fundamental problem in our universities over many years, has been the lack of diverse voices on university councils. We have an over-representation of people who come from the business community; we have an over-representation of people who have links to fossil fuel companies; and we have an over-representation of people who have been former ministers of governments, in particular might I say the Liberal Party.

It is appropriate that we have members on university council who actually bring skills and expertise relevant to the higher education sector. There is the old saying that it is the cobbler who makes the shoes but it is only the wearer who knows how it fits. Really, you need to have staff and students in the room for those decisions.

I mentioned before that I used to be a member of the university council when I was a student representative at Flinders University back in 2004 or 2005. At that time, there was more representation of students on those councils. We know it was a sad day when the former Labor state government reduced the number of students on those university councils. I recognise your leadership, Acting President, in standing up against that at the time because that was a backward step and one that has robbed students and staff of vital power at the decision-making table. That is something the Greens are seeking to remedy through our amendments today.

Another issue that has been of considerable concern to us has been the remuneration of vice-chancellors. I have talked about this at length. Indeed, members will know I have a bill before parliament to cap the salaries of vice-chancellors in line with that of the Premier. In our view, it is obscene that a vice-chancellor can be earning over $1 million a year in the middle of an economic crisis. That is why we are moving an amendment that will require the vice-chancellor's salary to be set by the Remuneration Tribunal. That is the rule that applies to politicians, and that is the rule that applies to other key public officers.

These are public institutions getting public money, so why should that rule not apply to them? It is obscene that we see vice-chancellors earning over $1 million a year, particularly after the difficult years of COVID when staff saw a reduction in their pay and when staff were being laid off. I think it is really rich to see them raking in those huge salaries. We have an opportunity to fix that with this bill.

Another issue that we are concerned about is the student experience. We need to ensure that there is a student association in this new university bill and they need to get the lion's share of the student services and amenities fee. That is vitally important. We need to see support for low socio-economic students across the board, not just those who seek to go to this new university. We do not want to see students who are going to Flinders University being disadvantaged.

I might make some general comments about the impact on rankings, because I know that is one of the key issues that has been the basis of this proposal. At the committee level, we got some contradictory evidence around university rankings, and this idea that we are going to see a boost in the rankings does seem to be highly contested. Indeed, there was some evidence that we might see a reduction in rankings in the short term. The Greens are concerned that that might impact on the potential for this new university to recruit students.

I should say, of course, that it is our view, and we remain concerned, that international students are being used as cash cows in our university system and that we do not have enough resourcing of our universities. University should be free. It should be accessible to everybody. Your access to university should be determined by your brains, not your bank balance.

That is a simple proposition, but it is one that has been undermined by the Liberal Party, in particular in Canberra over the bleak Howard years, but also by the lack of leadership by the federal Labor Party under Gillard, under Rudd, under Gillard-Rudd again, and there still has not been the leadership under this new government either. That is key for us in terms of addressing the needs of the sector.

We should be moving away from this corporate university model, one that actually treats students like consumers rather than students who have a right to have a say in the direction of the institution and who are there to build their skills and capacity and to reflect on life and to make a positive contribution. Should that not be what universities are about, rather than being about just trying to make money?

I will talk a little bit about the amendments that the Greens will be seeking to advance today. I want to flesh those out in a bit more detail, and in doing so it might save us a bit of time in the committee stage. The first amendment that I will be moving will require the university to be an exemplary employer. This draws on some of the evidence presented to the committee. We will talk about making the new university an exemplary employer that offers secure and meaningful employment to staff. That is one of the key objectives for this new university.

I cannot fathom why anyone in this place would oppose that. In particular, it is difficult to comprehend why the Labor Party, the party of the worker, would oppose such a simple inclusion in the act, but let's see what happens. I will call a division and we will see how they vote, whether they stand with staff of the university sector and advocate to improve their conditions or whether they fall into line with the university chiefs. We will see.

The other amendment that I will move will remove the requirement for the university to support and contribute to the realisation of South Australian economic development priorities. It is not the role of a university to realise the state's economic development priorities. That is not the role of a university. The role of a university is to make a contribution to the community, to educate the community and to be a key civic and community leader.

We are also going to be moving an amendment to require the fees for student services to be paid to a student representative body and we will be moving an amendment to require the university council to in all matters endeavour to advance the interests of the university educational and research outcomes for the university and have a primary focus on the student experience. It does worry me that there has not been enough discussion around students in this push for a university merger and the impact this may have on them, their experience in university and their access to a diverse range of courses and opportunities, and it is really important that that is put in the act.

The other key thing we are suggesting is that there be some changes to the composition of the council. We want to see an increase in student members and academic staff and that also will follow through to the transition council. We are going to be moving an amendment to ensure that the council will include two members who are culturally and linguistically diverse and we will also be moving amendments to ensure that a majority of the council are staff and students. We will also be pushing to have graduates from the previous universities involved.

We will be moving another amendment that requires council members to act in a way that the member thinks will benefit and promote the best interests of the university and educational and research outcomes for the university, again putting that primary focus on the university experience.

We will be moving an amendment that requires the council to have a code of conduct and a requirement for its members to comply with that. This is an important measure because we are bound by a code of conduct and most staff of the university are bound by a code of conduct. That should also apply to those on the university council. There are some misconduct provisions relating to what happens if people do not comply with that code.

We are also moving a number of important transparency-related amendments. One of those will require meetings to be held in public with public notice. We will be moving for the universities to publish their minutes and we will be moving for them to publish their agendas. These are public institutions and they receive public money. They should not be secret societies operating behind closed doors, operating under the guise of commercial-in-confidence and shutting the community out of their decisions, so we will be moving to get that information into the public realm.

We will be moving amendments relating to the vice-chancellors' pay, and I have touched on those, and we will be looking at the disclosure of any consultants that are providing advice to the council. We will also be moving to divest this new university of fossil fuels and its assets in the defence industry. We are very concerned about the potential for this new university to be playing a role in advancing the climate crisis and the ongoing militarisation that we are seeing, and the militarisation agenda for our state, so our amendment will nip that in the bud.

We will also be seeking some important disclosure through the annual report of information on the arrangements relating to staff. Under our proposal, the university would be required to report on the number of casual staff it employs and those that are ongoing and the nature of their contracts. This is important information because it would shine a light on the way in which our universities treat their staff. Again, what will the party of the workers do? I pose the question: what will the party of the workers do? Will they line up with the Liberals and oppose this amendment or will they actually advocate for this important principle to be established in the legislation to provide some transparency around arrangements relating to staff? Let's see. We will have an opportunity to test that proposition tomorrow.

Finishing with staff, I do want to just touch on some of the important figures that come out of the National Tertiary Education Union's submission that it made to the committee on the establishment of the new university. They did a survey of their staff and I think it is really important to look at some of the findings of that survey, because I think it should focus the mind of the Labor Party in terms of how they approach this bill and the opportunity that they have had presented to them that the Greens' amendment provides.

I want to look at the survey results that relate to consultation and stakeholder engagement. The NTEU asked the university staff as part of their survey how they had been engaged with this process. Ninety-five per cent of survey respondents indicated that they had not been appropriately consulted by the SA government: 95 per cent. Sixty-six per cent of University of Adelaide and 49 per cent of University of South Australia staff indicated that they had not been appropriately consulted by their respective employers before and during the feasibility project.

Indeed, the union makes the claim that these results show that the process to date is failing the stakeholders they are meant to empower and the prevailing governance institutions are failing their communities. They say that if the merger process is to succeed, staff, students, unions and community stakeholders must be front and centre of all decision-making moving forward and have active participation at every stage of the co-creation process.

We entirely agree and that is why we will be moving to ensure that staff and students play much more of an active role in the interim council that is setting up this new institution. Again, what will the Labor Party do? Will they listen to the staff and students or will they simply fall in behind the university chiefs, who we know regard staff and students as often being an inconvenience?

I think I have ventilated the concerns that the Greens have with this bill. I will make further contributions during the committee stage and I urge members to carefully consider the Greens' amendments. While we are not supportive of this bill, we are presenting members with an opportunity to achieve some better outcomes for students and staff. There are 23 amendments there. I urge members to take up that opportunity. With that, I conclude my remarks.

31 October 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:42): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector on the topic of public school teachers.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Last week, the Australian Education Union indicated that it would be considering striking again on 9 November if no acceptable offer has been made by the government by the deadline of 6 November. On 1 September this year, thousands of educators went on strike, calling for better pay conditions, more school services officers and more time face to face with students.

AEU SA Branch President, Andrew Gohl, has told The Advertiser that he believes it is becoming increasingly clear that the Premier doesn't see public education as a priority for his government. My question to the minister therefore is: does the minister see public education as a priority for the government, and what action is he taking to meet the needs of teachers by the deadline of 6 November?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:43): I thank the honourable member for his question. This is an area we have traversed previously in this chamber. In relation to the first part of the question, the Premier, the Minister for Education in another place, myself and in fact the entire Labor team see public education as critically important, and certainly support for public education has been a hallmark of this government. I won't go into laborious detail, but many, many initiatives, many, many millions of dollars, have been put towards improving public education outcomes in South Australia.

In relation to the enterprise bargaining that is currently underway with the Australian Education Union, there have been numerous meetings; I have attended a number of those personally with representatives from the Australian Education Union. As I have said previously, we are negotiating in good faith and we will continue to do that. As the member has indicated, the union has publicly said that they are considering further strike action.

I think it is the government's view that that would be unfortunate, particularly as the proposed strike action falls during year 12 exams, which is often a stressful time for students and parents and a critical time for those educators who teach those students. We will, as we have in the past, continue to negotiate in good faith. If we can meet the deadlines that the union imposes, we certainly will, but we want to make sure we are doing everything we can to meet the needs of students.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:44): Supplementary: if public education is really that critical to the government, why won't they pay teachers what they are worth?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:45): I thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly, that is exactly what we are looking to do during that bargaining process. I just don't have the figures in front of me, but so far what the government has indicated they would be willing to agree to as part of this enterprise bargaining round, if I am remembering correctly but I will check these figures, equates to something like $130 million worth of things that aren't just in terms of pay but that will help public education, like a reduction in face-to-face teaching time. We will continue to work with the Education Union to, as I say, bargain in good faith and resolve the current negotiation period that is occurring with teachers.

19 October 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:54): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Regional Development on the topic of tertiary education.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Last week, the Australia Institute released a report that looked at the lack of transparency in decision-making around the proposed merger of the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide. The Australia Institute has commissioned a poll that found that 88 per cent of South Australians in regional areas believe that the full business case for the merger should be made public.

The report also showed a high level of support for releasing the business case across the voters of all major political parties, with more than 84 per cent of Labor voters agreeing that the business case should be made public. My question to the minister therefore is: does the minister share the concern of people living in the regions that she represents that the community has a right to see this business case?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:56): I think this issue has been ventilated well and truly. The position of the government is on the record.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:56): Supplementary?

The PRESIDENT: If you can get a supplementary question out of that, the Hon. Mr Simms, you are a genius.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Has the minister seen the business case? The people of the regions certainly haven't.

The PRESIDENT: No, sorry, you can't get one out of there.

18 October 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:33): I move:

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.

This motion notes that, 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. It notes that support for releasing the business case is strongest in the regions, supported by 88 per cent of respondents, and it notes that there is a high level of support for releasing the business case among the voters of all political parties that are represented in the parliament. It 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.

I saw this research come out from the Australia Institute last week, and it is really interesting. The motion draws attention to some of the key aspects of the polling. What it finds is that there is an almost universal view across all sectors of the South Australian community that the business case underpinning this university merger should be made public. In particular, I note the high level of agreement across supporters of all political parties: 84 per cent of Labor voters, 86 per cent of Coalition voters, 87 per cent of One Nation voters, 87 per cent of voters of other political parties and 90 per cent of Greens voters. They all want to see the business case.

The support for releasing the business case is actually strongest among people living in regional areas. The Hon. Ms Game from the One Nation political party in this chamber talks a lot about listening to regional voices. The Hon. Clare Scriven talks a lot about listening to the voices of people in the regions. The Hon. Ben Hood and many others do as well. I hope that they heed the call of people in the regions and their desire to actually see this critical information.

When we are talking about investing public money into a proposal, then I think the community has a right to the information. As I said earlier, universities are public institutions. They are not secret societies. They are not these secret organisations that operate behind closed doors and beyond public scrutiny. The community has a right to know what is going on, and this is a simple proposition.

I want to flag with members that I will be bringing this motion to a vote during the next sitting of parliament, and it will be a test for members of parliament in terms of whether or not they are committed to transparency and whether or not they are committed to providing the people of South Australia with the information that they require.

I know that the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game of One Nation have done a deal with the government, but I hope that they will still consider this motion on its merits and recognise the need for transparency with respect to this proposal. While I am at it, I reiterate my calls for the universities to release the names of any consultants who may have worked on this project, because the community has a right to that information as well. Let's get all of the facts out on the table to inform the debate around this important proposal.

18 October 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:14): I rise to speak in relation to the report. In so doing, I want to recognise the work of all members of the committee: the Hon. Reggie Martin, the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, who represented the Greens on the committee for the first half of the process while I was on leave. I really appreciate the work that the Hon. Tammy Franks did on the committee in terms of raising issues on behalf of the Greens.

I think it is worth noting that this committee would not have occurred if not for the work of the Greens and the work of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Liberal opposition. When it became clear that the two universities wanted to merge, the Greens came out—with the support of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Liberal opposition—and said that we wanted there to be a parliamentary inquiry.

At that time, the government said no. They said, 'Any delay is denial of this proposal. We can't possibly have the parliament cast a ruler over this, because that's going to delay the whole process and it has to be done at breakneck speed.' Luckily, they relented and we did manage to get a parliamentary inquiry established. I want to recognise the work of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the work of the opposition in making that happen.

It was disappointing, though, that what we got was a committee process that was less than ideal because it was operating under a very tight time frame. The proposal that the Greens had put forward, which was supported by the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the opposition, had a much longer reporting time frame and I think would have provided more of an opportunity to ventilate the key issues. That said, we welcome the fact that there was some level of parliamentary scrutiny.

I think it would have been optimum for there to be a commission of inquiry into this proposal—an independent commissioner who could have given a recommendation on whether or not this was indeed in the public interest. Instead, what we saw was a politicised process where you had the two vice-chancellors lining up with the government to advocate for this reform. I think that has been regrettable, because it has undermined some of the public confidence in this proposal.

You will note the majority recommendations, and the Hon. Reggie Martin has spoken to those. The Greens dissent from those recommendations. We have submitted our own minority report and I will talk to a few of those elements. In particular, it is worth noting that we reserve our position on any bill that comes before the parliament. Although I note that, as a result of the One Nation/one university/one SA-Best deal that was announced in the media earlier, our position may not be that relevant to the government, because it seems that some of my colleagues have signed along the dotted line before the bill had even been introduced into this place.

Just to talk to some of the elements of the inquiry and the issues that the Greens have thought are pertinent, one of the key elements for us that has been of concern is the business case. I have a motion before this chamber that we are going to deal with subsequently, so I will not speak on that at length other than to say that the Greens have always been of the view that the full business case should be publicly released and that the universities should disclose any of the external consultants that have worked on this project.

We know that there has been, rightly so, controversy in the public realm about the role of consultants. The public has a right to know who has worked on this proposal, and the Greens are calling for that. We are also calling for the government to review its processes around how it works with external parties in the future. If we are going to be talking about putting public money on the table, then surely commercial-in-confidence should not be used as a shield to prevent the public from getting access to key information. That is something that I think needs to be looked at, and it is an important principle for our democracy.

Another key issue for the Greens, and it is one that was raised through a number of the submissions that came before the committee, was that of governance. What we do not want to see in any new university is a continuation of the status quo. There is a real opportunity here to see more staff and more students playing a role in university decision-making.

We would really like to see a majority of elected members on the university council being staff and students and we would really like to see more diversity on the council. Rather than just having fossil fuel barons, former Liberal Party politicians on university councils, it would be great to see more diversity: people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, First Nations people, people who have experience in the university sector and bring real expertise, rather than just corporate appointments. That is an issue for the Greens.

We would also like to see the minutes and agendas of university councils being made publicly available and their meetings happening in public. These are public institutions; they are not secret societies that should be able to close the door and shield themselves from public view. These are institutions that get significant investment in terms of public money and the community has a right to know what goes on within these institutions.

Another issue that we are concerned about is the remuneration of vice-chancellors. The two vice-chancellors in South Australia at the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia receive over a million dollars a year each. It is concerning when one considers the pay that is given to the Prime Minister or the Premier, for instance. Indeed, I refer to the comments of the Hon. Chris Schact, former Labor minister and a big proponent of the merger, who advised the committee:

I think a million dollars for a vice-chancellor of any university, when the Prime Minister of Australia gets half a million, is a bit ridiculous.

We agree, and that is why we have been arguing for a cap. I did note some of the evidence around rankings and I was concerned that there was contradictory evidence provided to the committee around rankings. Some academics were concerned that the rankings for the institution may dip considerably in the short term and the impact of this on the potential to recruit new students—in particular, international students—is unknown.

The Greens are also concerned about the jobs and employment conditions. The long-term impact of any merger on jobs in the university sector is still unknown, but we note the submission of SA Unions where they called on any new university to prohibit short-term casual contracts and to also look at some of these gig economy style arrangements that put workers in the university sector often at a real disadvantage in terms of their rights. We would like to look at that as part of the new university. I also want to make sure that there is actually a student union as part of any new university and that it gets a legislated minimum return from the student services and amenities fee.

One of the big issues for us, too, has been this question about Flinders University. I welcome the fact that Flinders University students are going to have access to a scholarship fund—that is a good outcome—however, it is not really enough, particularly when all of these other issues have not been addressed.

Might I say, I am concerned that Flinders will not have the potential to apply for research funds. We do not want to see a situation where there is a Hunger Games scenario that is developing between this new institution and Flinders, where they are competing for a narrow pool of money among themselves and where one of our universities is placed at a disadvantage.

Whilst it is true to say that there were some benefits identified with a merger, there are some significant risks as well, and there are some opportunities that come with that. It is really important and I would urge members of this chamber to consider all amendments that come forward—and the Greens intend to move a range of amendments—to see if we can address some of the concerns that were expressed at the committee level, but also to ensure that if we do establish a new university that it models best practice governance, that it better protects the rights of students and of workers; otherwise, why on earth would we go down this path?

As I say, I was surprised to hear news in the media this morning about a deal being brokered with two crossbench members given the fact that the bill has not actually been formally introduced into this chamber and given the fact that no members have had an opportunity to file amendments, nor have any members had an opportunity to consider the amendments. It was disappointing to see members of this house of review give the government a blank cheque. That said, the Greens will keep on pushing to improve this bill and we reserve our right on the legislation.

18 October 2023

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:48): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Education, on the topic of the university merger deal.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: This morning, the government announced that they have struck a deal with One Nation and the Hon. Connie Bonaros to support the university merger. One Nation's education 'policy' states:

One Nation will restore critical thinking in the classroom and reinstate the cornerstone of education with reading, writing, arithmetic, and discipline. There should be no room for Western, white, gender, guilt shaming in any classroom and instead children should be taught the benefits of a merit-based, free-thinking society.

In 2020, Pauline Hanson of the One Nation party did a deal with the then Morrison government on the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which included a freedom of speech clause for academics. It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald at the time that the One Nation amendment would make it harder for universities to discipline racist or sexist academics.

A submission from seven institutions, including La Trobe University, Western Sydney University and James Cook University, opposed the changes and stated that it would seem that a university academic would be within her or his rights to publicly declare they hold a racist, sexual or gendered prejudice against one or more of the students they are teaching. My question to the Attorney-General therefore is:

1. Can the government clarify whether the One Nation education policy was considered as part of its negotiations with One Nation with regard to the university merger?

2. Will the government rule out inclusion of a One Nation freedom of speech clause similar to that that the party proposed at a federal level in any state university act?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for his question. He certainly has been a well-known advocate on his views for what he sees as best for the education sector in South Australia. I think most of us have a similar aim in looking at what is best for education and higher education in South Australia.

Obviously, I haven't been involved in discussions in relation to this area. I did see media reports this morning to the effect that people who have been reported as supporting the proposal to create one university out of what are now the universities of Adelaide and South Australia have considered the proposals on their merits and what is best for South Australia, particularly those like the honourable member, who have had the benefit of a great deal of information and evidence through what I understand has been a pretty thorough committee process looking at this.

However, I am happy to refer the question on to, I think, the minister for higher education in the other place and see if there is anything that she wishes to add to that.