Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to reflect on recent developments in the case of James Cook University and Professor Peter Ridd. It gives me no pleasure to do so, especially because James Cook University is an extremely important institution in my home state of Queensland. As my friend Senator James McGrath will be well aware, over many years JCU has educated thousands of students and has been a focal point for research connected with the tropics, including tropical diseases in the Great Barrier Reef. Professor Peter Ridd was employed by JCU for 27 years. From 2009 to 2016 Professor Ridd was head of physics. He also managed JCU's marine geophysical laboratory for 15 years. Professor Ridd has an interest in claims relating to the health of the Great Barrier Reef and, more generally, the quality of scientific research. These are matters of great concern to many Australians.

Professor Ridd's employment with JCU was terminated on 2 May 2018 for alleged serious misconduct. The university found that Professor Ridd had expressed a professional opinion in a manner inconsistent with the obligations contained in JCU's code of conduct. This included failing to act in a 'collegial and academic spirit'. JCU also claimed that Professor Ridd had denigrated the university in a manner inconsistent with his obligations under the code of conduct.

These findings arose out of an email Professor Ridd sent to a journalist in relation to reports produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Professor Ridd suggested a line of questioning for the journalist to use with the authors of the reports. Unfortunately for Professor Ridd, the journalist simply forwarded Professor Ridd's email to the relevant authors of the reports. This was extremely unfortunate. Subsequently, Professor Ridd did an interview on Sky with Mr Alan Jones and Ms Peta Credlin in relation to an article he wrote on the Great Barrier Reef.

Professor Ridd brought a claim that actions taken by JCU were unlawful because they were in breach of a clause in the enterprise agreement which provided that JCU is committed to act in a manner consistent with the protection and promotion of intellectual freedom. Professor Ridd was successful at trial. JCU appealed, and then on 22 July 2020, barely a month ago, the Federal Court, by a majority of two to one, upheld the appeal and found in favour of James Cook University. It appears that there may now be an appeal by Professor Ridd to the High Court.

Prior to making my comments, I would like to make a number of preliminary notes. First, I respect the judgements of both levels of the Federal Court. The judgements are limited to the interpretation of the enterprise agreement and the code of conduct. They should not be interpreted more widely. My concern does not lie with the legal interpretation but with the culture of our universities. Second, I do not wish my comments to be a general reflection on JCU, its staff, its history, its heritage or much of the great work it does. The great irony of this case, in my view, is that JCU accused Professor Peter Ridd of denigrating the university but JCU's management of this specific case has caused great damage to the university's own reputation.

Not to understate the matter, I was quite shocked when I read sections of the appeal judgement. Let me give you three examples. What are we to make of a university which prohibits an employee from telling his wife that he is the subject of disciplinary proceedings? It prohibits him from telling his wife that the university has brought disciplinary proceedings against him. Can you believe such a thing occurred? That is what JCU did in an email to Peter Ridd on 27 August 2017. Subsequently, he was given permission to do so on 19 September 2017. How gracious of JCU that their employee of 27 years standing should have the right to tell his own wife that disciplinary proceedings had been brought against him!

What are we to make of a university which trawls through an employee's emails looking for material to bring further claims against the employee and uses against the employee private emails where the employee is communicating with those sympathetic to his cause? Let me give you an example. A student, a fan of Professor Peter Ridd, said: 'Hi Peter, hope this isn't too personal, but there are more than a few of us seriously upset about this.' The email goes on: 'Are they really going to fire you for this? It's absolutely outrageous.' Dr Peter Ridd responds to the student: 'I greatly appreciate your concern. Needless to say, I have certainly offended some sensitive but powerful and ruthless egos.' The student responds: 'We are angered because (1) we are always told to always think critically, but when a professor does it, all hell breaks loose.' And so the email goes on. This email was actually used by JCU in its disciplinary proceedings against Professor Ridd. This was a private email between the professor and one of his students, who was seeking to give him comfort with respect to the disciplinary proceedings. It is an absolute outrage.

Perhaps the best example of all is the direction which the university gave with respect to how Professor Ridd should characterise the proceedings. What are we to make of a university that issues a direction to an employee subject to disciplinary proceedings that the employee is not to do anything that parodies the university taking action against him? This is referred to by the judges as the no-satire direction. When Professor Ridd forwarded to a student an article in The Australian newspaper simply titled 'For amusement'—again, a private email—the university raised this against him as a breach of the so-called no-satire direction. You could not make this stuff up. It is the perfect satire. Not even my great hero, the great French satirist Voltaire, could come up with a better parody, and JCU brought this claim to avoid its reputation being damaged? The irony! It is little wonder that, in their judgement on appeal, the majority said:

Its—

JCU's—

maintenance of disciplinary action in several instances of what can only be regarded as trivial breaches of the Code of Conduct did not reflect the highest standards of ethical conduct. Nor did JCU's conduct in searching Professor Ridd's email account … The unethical approach to the matter was compounded by the direction to Professor Ridd that he was not to speak to his wife about the disciplinary matter, albeit that the direction was revoked … JCU did not exhibit contrition. … its attitude, and that of senior management, was quite to the contrary.

I say to the leadership of JCU involved in these matters: is your code of conduct so draconian that a distinguished academic of the university cannot express his views when he sees something that he honestly believes is wrong? Are your disciplinary standards so weak that they cannot withstand public scrutiny or satire? Do you not recognise how outrageous it is to prohibit an employee from speaking to their spouse about disciplinary proceedings being brought against them? Was there no way you could have dealt with this situation, other than terminating the employment of an employee of 27 years standing at a cost of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees? Do you not realise it was wrong to trawl through an employee's private emails on a fishing expedition to find ways to buttress your case and then to use the content of private emails between the employee and his supporters against him? Do you, the senior leadership of JCU, not see how, through your own actions in relation to this case involving Professor Ridd, you have denigrated the reputation of JCU to a far greater extent than Professor Ridd ever could have? And that is the great irony of this case.