Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1231, standing in my name:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 24), at the end of paragraph (c), add "or in relation to the Commonwealth Government".

The purpose of this amendment is to add a very simple term, 'or in relation to the Commonwealth government'. At schedule 1, item 4, there is a definition of academic freedom. The bill seeks to put in context what academic staff can look to in terms of academic freedom. It lists the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, research, disseminate and publish; the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in intellectual inquiry; and 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. I wish to add the words 'or in relation to the Commonwealth government' so that staff or students can make their views known in relation to not just the education provider but also the Commonwealth government.

The definition goes on to refer to the freedom of academic staff to participate in professional or representative academic bodies; the freedom of students to participate in student societies and associations; and 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 actually seeks to broaden the definition of academic freedom. Given that this is a bill that purports to be about freedom of speech, it should be of course no difficulty whatsoever for the government to support this amendment. The great Liberal defenders of free speech surely will support the notion that students and staff can comment not just on their academic provider—that is, their university—but on the government of Australia. I would have thought that was a pretty fundamental concept when we're talking about freedom of speech.

The problem with the bill is that it confuses academic freedom and freedom of speech, despite it being called a freedom-of-speech bill. Nonetheless, I don't think the government will have any difficulty, if it's serious about freedom of speech, in supporting the rigorous protection of free speech in universities. After all, universities are places which are supposed to harbour the opportunity for people to express their views—not just about the university but about the policies being pursued by the government of Australia.

Former Chief Justice Robert French, in his inquiry—I think it's important to draw attention to this—said the claims of a freedom-of-speech crisis in Australian universities were not substantiated, that there was no evidence of a free-speech crisis on campus. Nonetheless, the government has persisted with this particular bill, so I think it's appropriate to put in place protections for academics and students, to give them the opportunity to comment on government policy. By accepting this amendment, the government will remove the taint that they're being paranoid in their pursuit of their agenda as cultural warriors and—as I heard so often in the second reading debate—in their fears of the Left in this country. It's a truly remarkable proposition that the Left is so powerful and has such an enormous influence that it's necessary to bring forward bills such as this. If it is such a serious question then the rights and protections of academics and students to express their opinions in our great public institutions should be enshrined in the legislation itself.

The academic bodies have not been particularly concerned about these matters. I think it was at a National Press Club address last year that Professor Deborah Terry made the point that our institutions 'are places of knowledge, critique and dialogue'. She said they are 'communities of diversity and inclusion, courtesy and respect'. She went on to say:

We honour our calling as we impart our founding ethos and these skills to each new generation.

…   …   …

Australia's universities are places where people debate issues rigorously and vigorously.

And they are places where uncomfortable debates—challenging debates—are held.

That does not mean that we suspend courtesy, compassion or kindness along the way.

Indeed, the art of a great university education is acquiring skills in how to dismantle and refute the ideas of those with whom we disagree.

Expertly. Methodically. Cogently.

And—perhaps even—charmingly.

And always doing so with integrity and respect for others.

Academic freedom is at the heart of what universities do.

She made the point that American professors Matthew Finkan and Robert Post observed that it is 'the freedom to pursue the scholarly profession according to the standards of that profession'. She said:

All freedoms are, of course, not without limits under the broader law.

In Australia, freedom of speech is not exempt from laws that ban hate speech, incitement to violence, discrimination or defamation.

And within that broader framework, freedom is flourishing.

So it's appropriate, given that context and the way in which Universities Australia has argued the case, that we should ensure that the legislation covers a guarantee that staff and students can comment on government policy, a fundamental freedom-of-speech issue which I note is excluded from the government's list—how remarkable. I look forward to the government's support for this amendment. It's a very straightforward matter. It should have no trouble whatsoever in endorsing such a fundamental principle of academic freedom and such a fundamental principle of freedom of speech.