Motion to Establish a Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the University of Tasmania Act 1992

**Check against video for final delivery**

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, thank you for the debate just now on the amendment.  It was enlightening and did draw out some extra elements relating to what we are discussing.  Thank you to the member for Hobart for bringing this motion to establish a select committee of inquiry.  As mentioned in his contribution, the proposed committee of inquiry is something I have worked closely on with the member for Hobart as we found ourselves in a similar position in recent months. 

People have made contact with us on a range of matters, many constituents from our electorates but also from around the state and beyond.  Those contacting us have touched on a broad range of matters relating to UTAS and I have done some thinking about that broad range of matters and given them a bit of a taxonomy in my mind to help progress my thinking on what, if any, response might be appropriate.

I would group the range of matters that have been brought forward to us so far into three areas of focus.  Firstly, a significant number have been in relation to the proposed move to the CBD and the intended property development of the current Sandy Bay campus.  On this, it is easy to see why the member for Hobart and I have been the recipients of many representations and much correspondence.  The proposed move in our patch or probably more precisely it is a move from my patch into the member for Hobart’s patch.

Mr Valentine – Some parts of it exist in my patch already.

Ms WEBB – True.  Both our communities have a clear interest in the proposed move but in particular, given it is in the electorate of Nelson, the proposed development of the Sandy Bay campus site is particularly significant for many of my constituents.  The second area of focus that I would identify in the matters raised with me relating to the university covers the changes to and the new directions for courses offered and teaching arrangements within UTAS, the operations of some of its core teaching functions. 

A third further grouping of matters raised with me in recent months I would describe as relating to the internal workplace culture and management style within the organisation.  I would probably add a fourth focus that has come up alongside or in conjunction with those other three.  That covers more overarching questions about scrutiny of UTAS governance and decision-making, accountability and transparency, those sorts of things.

As the member for Hobart mentioned, we have also had contact from representative groups in the tertiary education space nationally, such as PUA, Public Universities Australia, that the member referred to, who have highlighted broader conversations about sector-wide changes and challenges in that tertiary sector. 

For me, these various areas of focus in the matters raised point to some clear underlying questions that are present in terms of the role, the functions, the governance of UTAS and its place in the educational, the cultural, the economic and social fabric of our state.  I feel that the confluence of current events is prompting us to contemplate these underlying questions in a structured and constructive way, rather than perhaps pick at and try to adjudicate any of the more specific things being raised or questions being asked.  Those fundamental underlying questions are the ones that sit well with matters covered by the act and point to an opportunity to contemplate those questions through a lens of the act.

I thank the member for Hobart for sharing some examples of the correspondence that we have been receiving from people in our communities and various groups.  A thread throughout the varied matters raised has been a call for some form of public inquiry or some opportunity for public examination and discussion that is accountable and appropriately structured. 

This has been a clear call for action made to us as elected representatives for our communities.  It was a call that I believed could not be dismissed but required careful consideration.  Careful consideration of what appropriate avenue was available to us as members of the Legislative Council, and what value could be provided in pursuing some form of parliamentary action, and in doing so, perhaps provide an avenue to discuss some of those underlying questions I mentioned earlier, rather than just pick at or try to knock‑off random questions that have been raised or concerns being thrown out.

Interestingly, when I began looking into our options and considering what may be an appropriate way forward on behalf of my electorate and the broader state, I discovered that there was a previous historical instance which has some striking resonances with the situation of today.  In the early 1950s there public discussion and some discontent expressed with matters relating to the university, which resulted a Tasmanian House of Assembly committee of inquiry into the university, which subsequently became a Royal Commission.

The main reason for the 1955 Royal Commission was that there had been a breakdown in relationship between the university council and academic staff over poor conditions of university buildings and the low levels of salaries.  The university at that time was initially located on the Domain, in very cramped and dilapidated buildings.  The University of Tasmania Act 1951 gave the university the land in Sandy Bay for a new campus, but progress with the new buildings in Sandy Bay was slow.  So, an open letter to the premier was put in the Mercury in October 1954, published and written by the philosophy professor Sydney Sparks Orr, and signed by 35 fellow academics.  That letter deplored the condition of the University of Tasmania and called for an inquiry into university administration. Following the publication of the letter, the House of Assembly established a committee of inquiry into the university which became the Royal Commission.  This Royal Commission reported to parliament in May 1955 and in November that year, parliament passed an amendment to the University Act to give effect to its recommendations.

Now that is just a potted history.  But I found it is an interesting historical event to familiarise myself with.  As you can see, there are a number of parallels and resonances with some of the matters playing out today.  Things like where the university should be located, the conditions of facilities and properties of the university, the relationship between the university management and academic staff, consternation between expressed in the public domain, and including open letters published in the newspaper.  There are a lot of things resonating there across the decades.

While the circumstances are significantly different today, nearly 70 years later, that examples stands as a model where the Tasmanian parliament formally responded to matters and concerns relating to this important institution for our state, the University of Tasmania, and took action to progress discussion on those.  We find ourselves here in 2022 contemplating a possible course of action as a parliament.  Just as it featured centrally in the Royal Commission in the 1950s, the legislative basis on which the university and its governance is established remains the most tangible and appropriate connection between this parliament and UTAS.  At that time, it was the University of Tasmania Act 1951. Now, we have the University of Tasmania Act 1992 as that direct point of connection.

I believe that the act is the appropriate basis on which to establish a term of reference for an inquiry in this instance.  The act has had some amendments over the 30 years since it was enacted in 1992, and the member for Murchison helpfully spelled out some of those.  But it has never had a substantial examination through a parliamentary process.  Certainly the context in which the sole university for our state operates has changed substantially in the 30 years that it has been governed by this act.  While this proposed inquiry process is not intended to function as a full review of the act, which would be correctly required to be undertaken by the government of the day, and it is my understanding that the government of the day has not expressed an intention to undertake such a review, a term of reference focussed on elements of the act provides an appropriate way for matters to be raised by the community and by other stakeholders for information to put into the public domain, including by the university, and for ideas to be shared and transparent scrutiny to occur.

I agree with the member for Murchison, and it has been a point of conversation, frequently and consistently over these last months between the member for Hobart and me, that it is at every turn highly important to manage the expectations of community members and other stakeholders who may be looking for specific outcomes from a proposed inquiry process that are simply not within its remit.  This committee of inquiry, if supported today and established, will not have the power to direct the university to do or not do anything.  It will not have any direct authority over the university. 

Ultimately, the inquiry would make its report to parliament and recommendations would likely be directed to the government of the day as it the case with other inquiries that we undertake here.  There is no suggestion that this inquiry – certainly not in its term of reference and certainly not in the way the member for Hobart and I have been contemplating it or communicating about its potential to any others – there has never been a suggestion that it is being established to adjudicate anything.  I do not believe it would ever be appropriate that a committee of inquiry would be established in this place to adjudicate something.  It is normally established to inquire into and look at something, to provide an avenue for information to be put on the public record for interrogation of that and questions to be asked and for that to be a process that results in considerations, some findings and then recommendations to government.

My fundamental understanding of an inquiry process is that it is not an adjudication process, at its heart.  We certainly have been communicating that and will need to continue to communicate that quite clearly.  I say and emphasise that the value of an inquiry, in my view, is not solely in its end point – where it lands in terms of a report and recommendations.  There is value in all parts of the process of an inquiry.  Regarding its opportunity to create change ‑  which was another element that the member for Murchison referred to and asked questions about in her contribution, how could this create change – I think just simply the process of bringing forth information and providing an avenue for it to be put in the public domain in a structured, appropriate and accountable way, even that very initial part of the inquiry process has the opportunity to begin to create change.  That change may be something as simple as damping down conversation in the broader community that is heating up and inflaming because it has provided a way for that to be done calmly and dispassionately. 

Ms Rattray – Better communication. 

Ms WEBB – Indeed.  I think change can be created at almost every stage of an inquiry process in a positive way and it is not just about where it lands and the report and recommendations that come out the other end.  Although, I would always anticipate from this Chamber that they would always be very valuable.  Indeed.  We have got 14 folders of valuable evidence from another inquiry before us today. 

It is my view that an inquiry process becomes an important public record for the whole community and all stakeholders.  I see this an important and constructive opportunity for the University of Tasmania to participate in sharing information publicly and transparently and in having the chance to listen to and more deeply understand the matters that may be brought forward by members of the community and other stakeholders. 

Yes, we have had instances like the public meeting two weeks ago that the member for Hobart and I both attended, in which members of the public were able to voice various concerns that they had.  That is a process which had its own value.  It is not a matter of public record, they were very short contributions, each person had three minutes they were allowed to speak.  Very short and pointed.  Some of them had more substance than others, some of them from my view were more factually-based than others.  There was quite an array.  While that was valuable and there was some element of venting that I would describe in that process, I do not know that it comes out with a constructive way forward.  In and of itself well and good but I would say this sort of inquiry process provides a much more structured, accountable, calm way for things to be brought forward.  The university to their credit, were there at that public meeting a couple of weeks ago and stated they were there to listen.  That is excellent.  I would think that this inquiry process, if it goes ahead, provides another excellent opportunity for the university to hear, listen and to engage beyond the measures and processes they are already undertaking themselves.  Again, not just on matters to do with a move from the Sandy Bay campus.  According to this term of reference there are a range of matters, relating to those underlying questions that could be brought forward for discussion.

I am pleased a number of the members of this place have made themselves available to serve on this inquiry if it progresses and I thank them.  The inquiry will be strengthened by membership covering the various regions of the state.  As the member for Hobart has said, it is a statewide focus, particularly those areas from other parts of the state where UTAS does have a presence.  And with members who may have a particular interest in providing the opportunity for the inquiry in response to calls from the community and other motivations.

I am pleased to support this motion from the member for Hobart and I hope it receives the support of the Chamber and if it does, I look forward to serving on the committee of inquiry.

Motion text:

6. Mr Valentine to move ⎯ That a Select Committee be appointed, with power to send for persons and papers, with leave to sit during any adjournment of the Council, and with leave to adjourn from place to place, to inquire into and report upon the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 with particular reference to —
(1) The constitution, functions and powers of the University;
(2) The constitution, role, powers and obligations of the Council and Academic Senate;
(3) The appropriateness of the Act to ensure accountable executive, fiscal and academic decisionmaking;
(4) The appropriateness of the Act to protect and promote academic freedom, independence and autonomy; and
(5) Any other matters incidental thereto.

And that —
Mr Duigan;
Mr Gaffney;
Ms Siejka
Ms Webb; and
The Mover be of the Committee