University of Tasmania ‘gagged’ its former employees

Isabel Bird | The Examiner | 3 March 2023

Former employees of the University of Tasmania were prevented from speaking out about the institution or the circumstances of their employment under “gag-orders”, a parliamentary inquiry has heard.

The Legislative Council Select Commitee Inquiry looking at legislation that governs the University of Tamania discussed the use of non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses by the university, in the context of academic freedoms.

Issues were raised with academic professionals being made to sign such agreements as a condition to receiving an employment payout from the university prior to their exiting the institution.

Nelson independent MLC Meg Webb said the use of non-disparagement clauses were being reported by former university employees as “essentially a gag”.

She said their use could shine a light on the culture of an institution in which these instruments are used.

“If there is an automatic non-disparagement clause, and that sounds like it is a regular occurrence, and if it happens as a matter of course when people are leaving after strained circumstances, it is a good way to gag people who might well have valid things to comment on about the institution in the public domain,” Ms Webb said.

University of Tasmania Chancellor Alison Watkins AM said non-disclosure agreements are not frequently used by the university and do not “impinge on any of our policy values around academic freedom”.

Non-disparagement clauses prevent employees and the institution from making derogatory comments about the other after an employee’s working contract has ended.

University of Tasmania chief people officer Kirsten Derbyshire said non-disparagement clauses were standard clauses, widely used by employers across Australia.

“They exist to provide protections to all parties involved in those agreements and are entered into through mutual agreement. It is very important to note that these scenarious are designed to ensure appropriate outcomes in the circumstances,” she said.

“Every circumstance is complex…If an employee has reached a point in their tenure with the instition that they no longer want to work for the employer, and have entered into some sort if dispute resolution process with us, it is a choice scenario.”

University Vice Chancellor Professor Rufus Black said he did not want such clauses to limit academic freedom, and was open to having a conversation about how they can be used.

“I’d be quite comfortable with not having any such clauses in those situations [when we are exiting an employee because of their conduct]. Quite a number of these do relate to situations where there has been a serious thing occur, and we have investigated action with an employee and they are not happy with it.

“There is a mutuality in these things.”

Other questions in the inquiry on Thursday centred around university employee access to robust and independent whistleblower mechanisms.

The inquiry heard that the university has “strong” internal measures that allow people “to raise any number of vehicles of concern”.

Where those internal measures were judged to be ineffective, the Integrity Commission was deemed to be an appropriate mechanism for whisteblowing.

See more of Meg in the media.