Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. This bill provides stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia and, in doing so, it strengthens a core pillar of our liberal democracy. In my view, it should shore up public confidence in the freedoms that exist on our university campuses today to hold robust intellectual inquiry and to host lively debates, as they should.

The history here, of course, is that in November 2018, following a number of troubling incidents across university campuses where the right to free speech was called into some question, an independent review into freedom of speech on university campuses was commissioned by the member for Wannon, the then Minister for Education, and undertaken by the former High Court Chief Justice Robert French. At the time, the member for Wannon said:

Universities are important institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure our universities are places that protect all free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging.

I think that is very much the sentiment that is sought to be expressed in this legislation. It brings to mind the well-known quote which I think is usually attributed to Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' This is the debate about the appropriate limits on free speech that has taken on a new life in the modern era, with the boundaries and limitations on free speech on digital platforms and in the virtual, as opposed to the physical, world—a topic of lively current debate. It's my view and, I expect, the view of many others here that, in the least case, the presumption of such instances should always be in favour of free speech and that the best antidote to speech that is disagreeable is usually more, rather than less, free speech.

That said, I accept that limits can and should be placed on free speech in societies where there is a compelling public policy justification, but such limits as societies choose to impose must be formulated, agreed and understood by those societies through a transparent and a democratic process. I think this is behind what has characterised some of the debate over the role of digital platforms in seeking to curate content on their sites or control the speech of people. No-one is necessarily disagreeing with the principle that some speech needs to be limited, but I think the standards and the methods by which you do that must have a measure of democratic accountability and legitimacy that comes from that. The French report, which was released in April 2019, found:

Reported incidents in Australia in recent times do not establish a systemic pattern of action by higher education providers or student representative bodies, adverse to freedom of speech or intellectual inquiry in the higher education sector.

I accept the finding that there is not evidence of a systemic pattern of action to suppress or otherwise interfere with freedom of speech, but the report goes on, and Justice French finds:

Nevertheless, even a limited number of incidents seen as affecting freedom of speech may have an adverse impact on public perception of the higher education sector which can feed into the political sphere,

And I think that's really the point of this legislation. Even if there have been only a small number of incidents and even if there is no evidence of a systemic attack or erosion of rights of free speech, the multiplying effect that that can have on discussions and conversation in other forums is particularly pronounced, given the privileged position that universities play in our society as the hosts of, usually, the most free speech and the most rigorous of debates.

The French report recommended the adoption of a model code embedded in higher education providers' institutional regulations or policies on a voluntary basis, and it also recommended amendments to the Higher Education Support Act—which is what we're discussing and debating here today—to align the language currently used around the concepts of free intellectual inquiry with the proposed model code's identification of free speech and with the language around academic freedom, to bring greater clarity and greater consistency. All Australian universities agreed to implement and adopt the model code, and, in August 2020, the Minister for Education announced the appointment of Professor Sally Walker AM to support the efforts of universities and to help ensure alignment of university policies with the model code. The bill before us today is addressing one element of the recommendations in the French report and that is to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide a new definition of 'academic freedom'. It's worth quoting that new definition in the bill before us, which stipulates:

academic freedom means the following:

(a) the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research;

(b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and beliefs, and to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research;

(c) the freedom of academic staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider in which they work or are enrolled;

(d) the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies;

(e) the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations;

(f) the autonomy of the higher education provider in relation to the choice of academic courses and offerings, the ways in which they are taught and the choices of research activities and the ways in which they are conducted.

This definition in the bill before us aligns very closely with the definition recommended by the French review, with a minor technical modification recommended by the University Chancellors Council which was developed in consultation with former Chief Justice French. This modification excludes one element originally proposed by Mr French, which was the freedom of academic staff without constraint imposed by reason of their employment by the university to make lawful comment on any issue in their personal capacities, as this is more about broader freedom of speech than about academic freedom of such. This broader freedom of speech element for academics acting and speaking in a private capacity has been retained in the model code, which universities are now adopting.

I recently had a communication from the University of Sydney, which has enrolled many students who reside in my own electorate of Wentworth. In that letter from the vice-chancellor, Professor Stephen Garton AM, he confirmed the University of Sydney's support for the passage of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill, and he also described to me Sydney university's own steps in this regard. In December 2019 the university senate adopted a new charter of freedom of speech and academic freedom, which took effect on 1 January 2020. That charter drew upon Mr French's recommendations to clarify the university's expectations as a place where all people are free to express themselves and, also, free to protest and disagree, so long as they do so respectfully and in accordance with the law.

In their response to the French review and the model code, the University of Sydney's own charter emphasises that as an institutional community they greatly value courage, civility and respect and strive to promote a culture where people disagree well. I think this is really at the heart of this. There are elements we can legislate and seek to codify, but at the heart of any debate about free speech should be an expectation that people can disagree well—that is, they can disagree on the merits of issues but do so respectfully, and they can have heated arguments and debate but not descend into the personal or use other tactics in a debate that are considered beyond the pale. At its heart, the free contest of ideas and the free debate that accompanies that is to the betterment of our society, our country and our people. The University of Sydney charter also explicitly recognises the right to protest and the rights of all their staff, not just academic staff, to criticise the university within the limits imposed by their enterprise bargaining agreement and employment contracts.

In December 2020 the review undertaken by Professor Sally Walker, commissioned by the government to evaluate the universities' adoption of the model code, praised the University of Sydney, La Trobe University and RMIT as three exemplar institutions for their responses to the model code. I know the University of New South Wales is also undertaking work in this area, and I commend it for doing so. I want to mention in passing the vice-chancellor of the University of New South Wales, Professor Ian Jacobs, who is returning to the United Kingdom shortly. I commend him for his stewardship of that institution over the last several years. I know running a university, being the vice-chancellor of a university, is not an easy role. It's a difficult business enterprise to run, and one that attracts a high degree of public scrutiny—as it should. I'm conscious that the business model of universities, particularly the universities of New South Wales and Sydney, that have historically attracted a large number of foreign students is under pressure this year. I want to acknowledge Ian Jacobs's service to the University of New South Wales and to Australia more broadly and wish him well for his future and his return to the United Kingdom.

Returning to the bill, and to conclude, the amendments that we are discussing here today to the Higher Education Support Act proposed in the bill will help align the legislation and definitions with those contained in the model code developed by former Chief Justice French, along with adoption and implementation of the model code by universities, such as the University of Sydney, and supporting the work of institutions and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to monitor compliance with the relevant quality standards. These amendments form one of the three key elements of the government's commitment to strengthen protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian higher education.

Academic freedom and freedom of speech are not only foundation stones for Australian universities, they are also foundation stones for Australia itself and our way of life. This bill will take a small but important step towards ensuring that our universities remain robust places of intellectual debate and inquiry. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context