Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to an extraordinarily disturbing article that appeared in the Australian this morning, which has brought to my attention a case where the University of Adelaide has acted in a shameful way with respect to the academic freedom of one of its professors, Professor of Law Joanna Howe. I'll read from the introduction of this article first, to provide the context. This is what Professor Howe writes:

There is no such thing as academic freedom and free speech on campus if activists can weaponise a university's complaints-handling process to harass scholars and students they disagree with.

I have experienced this first-hand as a professor of law at the University of Adelaide where I have been subject to five investigations in two years.

Before I move on to the details of Professor Howe's case, I'd like to state that, as Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I've been aware of Professor Howe's very important work in the migration space, particularly with respect to the protection of migrant workers subject to egregious practices by unscrupulous employers. Professor Howe has made a significant contribution in relation to reforms in this area, and that is where I first came across Professor Joanna Howe.

Professor Joanna Howe holds a Doctor of Philosophy in law from the University of Oxford. She studied as a Rhodes Scholar, so she's one of Australia's best and brightest. In 2022, Joanna was appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs as part of an expert three-member panel to review the Australian migration program, and in 2021 she was appointed by the minister for immigration to the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration. She has, in fact, been someone who has assisted governments of both persuasions with respect to her expertise. She's authored three books, is well published, is very successful in terms of research grants and is making a very, very positive contribution in relation to scholarship in this country. So what we read today in the Australian newspaper is very, very disturbing in relation to academic freedom at the University of Adelaide.

Professor Howe also conducts research with respect to laws relating to termination of pregnancy, and this is where she has been subjected to allegations, complaints and harassment from those on the other side of the debate. This is what we continually see, especially from the radical Left. If you do not share the version of the world that the radical Left has, then it is open season on you, and everyone from the radical Left will do everything they can to delegitimise you, attack you, and attack your freedom of speech, freedom of association and academic freedom. That's what we've seen in the case of Professor Howe.

In this article, she goes through the five complaints she's been subjected to. The first complaint is:

One was from a pro-abortion colleague complaining that my research critiquing abortion was religiously motivated and thus bringing down the reputation of the Adelaide Law School. Never mind the fact that I'd never once used religion as the basis for my argument …

That was the first complaint knocked out. Here's the second complaint:

Another complaint was from an activist member of the public alleging that my video on the tragic death of Jessica Jane was misleading. Jessica was a baby girl, unexpectedly born alive—

during a termination procedure—

and left to die on a metal kidney dish for 80 minutes in an empty room. Although my boss acknowledged my video was uncomfortable to watch, she confirmed the accuracy of its contents and its consistency with the coronial report.

The second complaint was knocked out.

Here's the third one:

Yet another complaint came in via an email from Western Australian Labor MP Peter Foster to the vice-chancellor. Foster's problem? Apparently I'd been traversing the halls of WA parliament spruiking a research report that purported to be the views of the university.

It's a pity Foster didn't bother to read the report's first footnote—

The first footnote—

which made it patently clear the views therein were the author's alone.

That's the third complaint to the vice-chancellor knocked out. Seriously, this Labor MP, Peter Foster, should have a good look at himself. That is just ridiculous. It's wilful disregard of what was plainly stated on the face of the research.

The fourth complaint was:

Just before Christmas another investigation was initiated: this one prompted by an avalanche of complaints by TikTok activists claiming I had misrepresented facts on abortion—

et cetera—

I had done no such thing …

Finally on January 24, less than two hours after I'd received an email clearing me of the fourth investigation …

So that fourth investigation was knocked out. This is a professor at one of our universities who's having to deal with this torrent of complaints and investigations. It's outrageous.

That investigation was knocked out on 24 January, and then she received another one. She says:

… I received another email, from a different department of the university, opening a new investigation into research misconduct. This one alleged plagiarism and misrepresentation of facts, and was prompted by a complaint from a pro-abortion activist with a TikTok account dedicated to attacking me.

This professor has TikTok accounts dedicated to attacking her—for goodness sake!

I would expect from any university in terms of any academic pursuing scholarship in relation to any issue and exercising academic freedom for that university to stand behind their academics. And what happened in this case? The professor says:

This investigation was by far the most serious of those I had endured. It was formal, dragged out over months, and an independent investigator was appointed. When the investigator's report cleared me of any potential breach … I breathed a sigh of relief, assuming it was over.

For the fifth investigation, the professor's cleared again. There were five investigations—five out of five knocked out. But listen to this:

But the university had other ideas, imposing "corrective actions":

What an orwellian term that is! I despise bureaucratic language of this nature—a 'corrective action'.

… a mandatory requirement that I complete an anti-bias course within 30 days and ordering me to have a formal discussion with my line manager about my research.

The professor's cleared, and then the University of Adelaide formulates, under the guise of this orwellian language, a 'corrective action' that must be taken for this professor—she's a Rhodes scholar, no less—to actually go through a formal course on anti-bias training.

Not only that, the university, when they wrote to the initial complainant about the results of the investigation, said this:

Making things 100 times worse, the university then wrote a letter to the TikTok troll, failing to mention that I had been cleared of any breach of the Australian Code for Responsible Research. Instead, the university threw me under the bus; writing to the troll that corrective actions had been imposed.

How dare you, University of Adelaide! That is shameful, to write to a troll in terms that omit the material fact that this professor was cleared of any misconduct. How dare you! It's shameful. Hang your heads in collective shame, University of Adelaide. The professor goes on to say:

Predictably, the TikTok troll released the letter online and a torrent of online abuse ensued. I was accused by all and sundry of being guilty of plagiarism and misrepresentation of facts, and that the university had ordered me to unpublish my research. Of course none of this was true but the university's own letter had made it seem like it might be.

So the university enabled and empowered the trolls who were out there attacking the freedom of one their most senior academics and then enabled the continuation of those attacks. Shame on you, University of Adelaide. Shame on you! Not only that but the professor then had to fight three times to try and get the university to lift this requirement that she undergo anti-bias training. The university refused three times without giving any reasons, and the professor had to go to the Fair Work Commission, and it was only then the university relented. Shame on you, University of Adelaide. We're watching what is happening in this case very carefully, and it is a matter I will be pursuing here and outside of here.