Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in continuation on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. In the few moments left, I turn to the issue of how this bill intersects with faith based higher education institutions. As my colleague Mr Leeser advised the other place, former Victorian Crown counsel Mark Sneddon made this observation: 'The current Western secular notion of academic freedom used in the French report implicitly values knowledge derived through empirical, scientific and closed-universe knowledge rather than knowledge which is in part derived through faith traditions and revelation. That sets the scene for an academic staff member or a student to claim an academic freedom to deny the faith tradition and revelation on the basis of the empirical data and secular logic.' The French and Walker reviews didn't ask about or consider this issue in their reports. There are real, albeit, thankfully, few, examples of academics at faith based institutions who have recanted on the core beliefs underpinning their particular institution. When eight institutions with an enrolment of about 10,000 students express a concern, it's appropriate to take note.

Our schooling system rightly acknowledges Islamic teachers for Islamic schools as being an essential requirement for maintaining the schools' ethos—so too Christian teachers for Christian schools. Similarly, with broadcasting in our community, we expect a particular standard from our publicly funded broadcaster which may rightfully differ from that of our private or community radio stations, be they JOYFM in Melbourne or 106.5FM in Hobart, southern Tasmania.

Protecting the integrity and reason for being of our faith based institutions is vital. At this late stage I would respectfully suggest for consideration by the government the inclusion of the following statement in the explanatory memorandum: 'Higher education institutions which have a religious ethos may require their staff and students to exercise their freedom of speech and academic freedom in a manner that does not denigrate and is respectful of the beliefs and practices of the religion and its adherence and the religious ethos of the institution.' I acknowledge the procedural issues with this request, in the current state we are with this bill. At a minimum, could I invite the minister with carriage of the bill to include in the summing-up the statement made in the other place confirming that this bill does not intend to impact on the right of faith based institutions to hire and continue to employ staff in accordance with their religious ethos. That said, I commend the bill to the Senate, but, with the comments I've made, invite the government to consider the protection of faith based institutions.

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

I rise to speak in favour of the bill before the Senate, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. In doing so I'd like to open with what I consider to be the best articulation of the essential purpose of a university—by the founding member of my party, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, who said that university must:

… be a custodian of mental liberty, and the unfettered search for truth.

I think that concept, that idea, that articulation of what goes to the very essence of a university goes to the heart of all that I'm going to contribute in relation to this debate. Sir Robert Gordon Menzies spoke about the 'unfettered search for truth' as being core to the university's mission. Our universities need to be unfettered by codes of conduct which overstep the mark and go too far into the realm of freedom of speech and academic freedom. They need to be unfettered by a sense of managerialism which does not give appropriate recognition to the essential essence of the university. They need to be unfettered by any submission to the wishes of donors or powerful stakeholders with respect to free intellectual inquiry which occurs on our campuses. This principle, in my view, needs to be absolutely embedded into the culture of all of our universities, because if it isn't then I would say that those institutions which do not recognise those principles going to the heart of their essence, their very being, should not be referred to as universities.

A number of important concepts came out of the French review in relation to the issues relating to free speech and academic freedom on our campuses. There are two concepts coming out of that review which, from my perspective, go to the heart of the recommendations. The first is that freedom of lawful speech on our campuses is a paramount value. It's not another value to be recognised, it's not something to be considered in the course of 51 clauses in a code of conduct; it is a paramount value. There's no better articulation, in my view, with respect to the importance of freedom of speech than in John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty, where he talked about the importance of freedom of speech from two perspectives. The first perspective is from the point of view of human rights, of the individual, of the individual's right to speak their mind in a lawful manner and to give voice to their ideas and their concepts. The second perspective is just as important: the right of others to listen and hear that point of view, so that they can consider that point of view, reflect on what they believe and out of that exchange of ideas come out with a better understanding of the reasons that they believe what they believe. That paramountcy needs to be reflected by our universities.

The second concept coming out of the French review is that academic freedom is a defining value. Again, it is not another value to be considered in the 51 clauses of a code of conduct but a defining value going to the essence of what it means to be a university. Ultimately, the French review made a number of recommendations, and these recommendations were made with a view to strengthening freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses. It was recommended that protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom be strengthened within the sector by the adoption of umbrella principles embedded in a code of practice for each institution. We've seen over the course of the last 12 months that recommendation being put into effect. I'd like to refer to the findings coming out of the review of the adoption of the model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom, which was prepared by Professor (Emeritus) Sally Walker and released in December 2020. There were a number of findings which I think go to the importance of, firstly, the fact that the French review occurred and, secondly, that that process of strengthening freedom of speech and academic freedom on our campuses needs to be done.

The first reflection I'd like to make in terms of the finding of that recent review in relation to implementation is that a number of the universities, when their codes were reviewed, seemed to value freedom of speech and academic freedom but not go that extra step of actually being committed to those freedoms. It is not enough simply to value academic freedom; academic freedom must be a defining value of our universities. It is not enough simply to value freedom of speech; it must be a paramount value. I do call upon all of those universities who did not in my view go that extra step—or in the view of the professor who undertook the review of the implementation of the codes at the relevant universities—to reflect on and consider the primacy which they give academic freedom and freedom of speech in their university policies.

The second observation coming out of the review by Professor Walker was that a number of the universities added provisos or qualifiers to academic freedom or freedom of speech as values. Let me give the Senate some examples. Some universities wanted to qualify freedom of speech and academic freedom with provisos such as 'standards of scholarship' and 'professional standards', or they said academic freedom and freedom of speech must be conducted 'reasonably, professionally and in good faith'. Unfortunately, in a number of these articulations of their codes there was a lack of definition given to what standard of scholarship means, what the relevant professional standards are and what it means for an academic to engage in good faith. The issue with all of these qualifications and provisos is that they water down freedom of speech and academic freedom. Freedom of speech is a paramount value, and academic freedom is a defining value of our universities.

The third point I'd like to make in relation to Professor Walker's review is to give my heartfelt congratulations to the institutions that Professor Walker identified as exemplars in terms of their introduction of the code. There were three: La Trobe University's Protection of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom Policy, the University of Sydney's Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom and RMIT's Intellectual Freedom Policy. Each and every one of those institutions could be congratulated with regard to how they have implemented the French review recommendations.

A senator on the other side of the House who I always listen very carefully to—

Senator Ciccone interjecting—

No, Senator Ciccone, I'm not referring to you in this case. I do listen to you very carefully, but not in this case. This is amongst others, including Senator Ciccone and Senator Watt—I won't leave him out. It is Senator Carr. Senator Carr did tend to focus somewhat on the fact that French in his review did not find that there was a crisis of freedom of speech or academic freedom in our campuses. I think Senator Carr did make a reasonable point that that was certainly the finding that was contained in the recommendations from the French review. However, that is not to say that there aren't issues which need to be addressed, because there are issues which need to be addressed and addressed very carefully.

On 13 February 2021 I was listening to Saturday Extra with Geraldine Doogue on the ABC, as I sometimes do. Senator Ciccone, you obviously are also a frequent listener of Ms Doogue. She was interviewing Mr Greg Craven. Mr Greg Craven is a very esteemed academic in this country. He was Vice-Chancellor and President of Australian Catholic University from January 2008 to January 2021, and he had a long, esteemed career prior to that. Whenever Mr Craven writes an article or gives a view, I listen extraordinarily carefully. I want to read you a quote from that interview which caused me great concern:

… people in conservative parties who think about this sort of stuff—intellectual—conservatism are now looking at universities and saying: 'Well, this is odd. You're meant to play both sides of the intellectual street. We don't think you could be a conservative at your university. We don't think you could get tenure. We don't think you could publish.' So it's moved on from, I think, what was sort of a club-type thing to a very serious question. I mean, if we have universities which are, by definition, meant to be universal but really are only prepared to tolerate one side of debate then it's not surprising that the political expression of the other side of the debate is suspicious.

Mr Craven continued, and this is perhaps the most damning indictment I've read for some time about the state of academic diversity in some of our universities:

… as someone who's been an academic for 39 years, I have seen universities in multiple contexts pretty well crush conservative academic careers. If I had a young, conservative-thinking, brilliant academic come to me and say, 'Gee, would it be a good idea to pursue an academic career in Australia in history or law or political science or literature?' I'd say, 'No.'

That's what Mr Greg Craven, who was vice-chancellor and president of ACU from January 2008 to January 2021, said, and that would be his advice to a young, conservative-thinking, brilliant academic embarking on their career.

That troubles me greatly. I think it should trouble chancellors and vice-chancellors of our universities that Mr Greg Craven, someone who has been a vice-chancellor and an esteemed academic, has come to that view. These are his words, not mine: 'If I had a young, conservative-thinking, brilliant academic come to me and say, "Would it be a good idea to pursue an academic career in Australia in history, law, political science or literature?" I would say, "No."' That is not good enough, and our universities need to do better to make sure that we have diversity of academic thought.

In conclusion, in that respect, in terms of academic thought, I reflected on a great professor I had. I know Senator Watt went to the University of Queensland, so, hopefully, he would fondly remember—I'm sure he would, being the fair, magnanimous person that he is—a great university academic by the name of Dr Suri Ratnapala, who was a professor of jurisprudence when I went to university. Professor Ratnapala was one of the world's leading experts in relation to the writings of Friedrich Hayek, one of my heroes in terms of academic thinking, who, in his text The Road to Serfdom, wrote what is I think the most powerful rebuttal of socialism that has ever been written.

The story I want to tell about Suri Ratnapala is of how he assessed the exam that was written by one of my friends at university who was of a totally different political persuasion to mine. This was someone who would declare himself to be a Marxist—unashamedly Marxist. He did Dr Ratnapala's course with me and in his exam he wrote as his main essay a Marxist critique on Hayek's theories. My exam contribution was somewhat different from my Marxist friend's, but my Marxist friend got a high distinction—a 7 as we used to call it—from Dr Ratnapala in terms of his Marxist critique. I got a distinction. I was pretty happy with that, but my Marxist friend got a high distinction. Why? It was because the professor was impressed with the critical thinking, the contribution and the intellectual thought that was put into that exam. There was no favouritism given to one political perspective or the other. There was recognition of a student who had put a lot of thought into the material, had read the material and had made an extremely well thought out, prepared critique of Hayek.

That's what our universities should aspire to. They should aspire to the whole breadth and width of intellectual thought. Our students should be taught how to think, not what to think.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaking at the University of New South Wales, Sir Robert Menzies described the right and duty of universities and academics to pursue new knowledge as one of the most vital for human progress in all fields of knowledge. He noted that a university that treated an academic as no more than a person hired to study as directed and to teach in accordance with rules laid down by other people would be an extremely strange university. It would have failed to understand the immense importance of academic freedom.

As you know, Acting Deputy President McLachlan, intellectual freedom and freedom of speech are two things I feel very strongly about, not for ideological or dogmatic reasons but for really practical reasons: if we can't speak with one another about things on which we disagree—respectfully, with care, listening, with engagement—then we don't sharpen our ideas, we don't make them better. There's a biblical expression 'as iron sharpens iron'—as conflicting ideas meet, they are refined, they are improved. That is how we prepare the minds of the people who come through our universities to engage with difficult problems and to solve them. It's how we equip our society with the tools it needs in order to solve the challenges it will face going into the future. Take away that, on any basis—whether it's the desire not to offend, whether it's the desire to make people feel safe or whether it's the desire to make people feel cocooned—well, we can indulge feelings too much in an environment that is supposed to be about the big ideas.

When I think back to Sir Robert Menzies's statement, which was 56 years ago—56 years on, our universities have failed to live up to this important standard of academic freedom. Over the course of the last decade we've seen a number of disturbing incidents and anti-free-speech policies permeating our university campuses. The list is long. We've seen policies restricting the use of unwelcome, 'mildly unpleasant' or sarcastic language. There was once a time when satire, sarcasm and humour were indicators of a great mind and a source of good and helpful social commentary. We've seen restrictions on the personal use of social media and definitions of bullying that are so broad as to include terms such as 'unintentional offence' and 'emotional injury'. We've seen the introduction of trigger warnings and safe spaces to protect people from exposure, to mainstream ideas that they simply don't agree with.

We've seen the termination of academics, including, at James Cook, Peter Ridd, for having a view that challenged the professional research of his colleagues, based on his own professional research. Fancy having an employment contract that limits your ability to engage intellectually! We've seen the withdrawal of a textbook because a quiz question offended international students from China. And this is just the start of a very long list. It is of serious concern that universities—the institutions designed to facilitate a flourishing debate—have instead become hotbeds of censorship and entirely lack viewpoint diversity.

I'm proud to say that I played an important role in making the case for the establishment of the French review into intellectual freedom in our universities. It was in Senate estimates, following some really egregious cases of deplatforming, that I took the public servants from TEQSA through the legislation, through the funding agreement between the universities and the federal government by which the taxpayers give their financial support to our universities. I asked, in the context of these egregious breaches of free speech and intellectual freedom, how I could be assured that universities were doing their job in enforcing the funding agreement where it provided, by incorporation of different terms of the act, a requirement that academic and intellectual freedom be respected. The answer was that they were doing nothing—nothing. I'm pleased that led to the establishment of the French review. And while those opposite have made an awful lot of hay out of one line in the French review that said that there wasn't a crisis, I can tell you that it didn't give a good bill of health, either. The French review identified a lot of room for improvement—and I think that might be the world's biggest understatement.

Following that, former Justice French recommended that our universities adopt a model code to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech. Following that point, after a little time had elapsed, I took to estimates again to check universities' performance by the measures that had been set up in the model code. You will be shocked to find that, for the most part, they failed dismally. I'm pleased to say, following that examination, though I may not have made many friends at TEQSA, I did succeed in encouraging our minister, doing an outstanding job in the portfolio, to commission Professor Sally Walker to review the progress that our universities are making towards implementing the model code.

I'm a senator for Queensland and so I am reassured to see that all Queensland universities have made some commencing steps to put into effect those principles. But I've got to tell you, Professor Walker's review was not all good news either. As at the release of her report, only nine of Australia's 42 universities had academic freedom and freedom of speech policies that were fully aligned with the model code. Alarmingly, nearly half of Australia's universities have been rated by Professor Walker as 'not aligned' or having 'significant areas of policy not aligned' with the model code. They continue to fight against the idea that a university should have, as a foundational principle at its very core, the idea that there is a contest of ideas. Crazy stuff! It's further concerning that no Queensland universities have been held out by Professor Walker as exemplars for free speech and academic freedom. Indeed, there is only one in the country that has done a full replication of the French model code, and that's Victoria's La Trobe University. I salute them. It is good to see a university prepared to show that the sky won't fall in if they're prepared to act in accordance with their founding principles.

Professor Walker identified further deficiencies in current academic freedom policies. Thirteen universities were found to be diluting their policies with quite imprecise restrictions on academic freedom: limits of one's right to speak strictly to their areas of expertise, substituting terms like 'standards of scholarship' for the more fundamental freedom, or trying to sub in alternate but more restrictive concepts like 'professional standards' and restrictions so that speech is only allowed 'when done in good faith'—greying the edges to be able to keep people in fear about what they can and can't do and say and speak about and learn about without facing the ire of university disciplinarians. They're also diluted when they're spread over multiple documents or undercut by other policies that leave room for the exercise of administrative discretions that could limit freedom of speech or academic freedom. The result is academic freedom in name only.

As we work to implement the model code, amendments to the legislation are necessary to ensure consistency between legislation and university statutes, to support regulators and universities alike in promoting academic freedom. This bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020, does just that. The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to repeal and replace the use of the phrase 'free intellectual inquiry' with the more precise reference to 'freedom of speech and academic freedom', adopting the language of the moral code. It defines 'academic freedom' in the Higher Education Support Act, and the amendments appropriately distinguish freedom of speech as a common freedom from elements of freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry that are central and distinctive aspects of academic freedom.

The consistency of language to be achieved by the measures in the bill will facilitate compliance with and adoption of the code, provide for more consistency and more transparency in the policies that are adopted by universities, and result in stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia. But an on-paper commitment is not enough. We need all of our universities to have a clear cultural commitment to academic freedom and free speech. The French review makes this very, very clear. Culture here is key. Policy is not the end of the story; it's only the beginning. Universities have to actively create and engender a culture of free speech and academic freedom so that the words they must live by match the words they now say they so strongly support.

Vice-chancellors have an important role to play in this, and they need to lead from the front. That's how we send a strong message that this matters and it matters at every level of the institution. The academic board should have a prominent and direct role in this too. Professor Walker also suggests more novel measures, like induction programs on academic freedom for new students. I'd suggest that there should be consequences for those who are intolerant of free thought and expression, and that those should be made very clear to academics and students alike. When we wrap our universities in cottonwool, when we protect people, like snowflakes, from ideas that challenge them, we deny them the opportunity to argue their case strongly. We deny them the opportunity to become the iron that is sharpening the ideas in this country that will solve the problems we face going into the future, and we deny ourselves the resilience that it takes to confront our most challenging problems.

But it's important that we make it very clear this isn't designed to have unintended consequences. There are some parts of the sphere that have different needs. One example I give you is higher education institutions that are established, funded and structured around their religious ethos. In that circumstance, a theology college, say, needs to be treated in a slightly different category, because for it to require its staff and students to exercise freedom of speech and academic freedom in a manner that deviates from the beliefs the establishment was set up to teach, uphold and defend would be very strange. It would be very strange to see a departure from the core ethos of an institution like that. It's very important that we don't, in establishing this important principle for public universities, have the inadvertent effect of undercutting the foundation of institutions that are established for specific purposes. It's very important that in such an institution the beliefs and practices of the faith for which it was established and the adherence of the staff who work there to those beliefs and practices can be maintained in a way that ensures the institution is meeting its purpose. While a public university is established to pursue intellectual freedom no matter what, as its core and defining belief, a religious educational institution actually might have a different purpose. It might be balancing trade knowledge or professional knowledge with a faith based rigour that puts it in a slightly different category. So I'd make that distinction as we put in place this very important regime.

This government is steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that education is effective, and that means making sure that intellectual freedom is meaningfully operating in our university campuses. This bill is just another example of the steps the coalition is taking to restore universities to their traditional role as bulwarks of free speech, as crucibles of original thought and as places that meaningfully and genuinely prepare students and academics alike not only to confront ideas with which they may not initially agree with tolerance, respect and dignity but to use those ideas to solve the problems we face as a nation.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to start my contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 with the statement that central to scientific endeavour is an environment that gives permission for the work of talented people to challenge the status quo, to develop ideas and to deepen our knowledge and understanding. This work demands a creative and innovative spirit, courage and objectivity, and a deep respect for the scientific method. Universities had, and should once again have, a central role to play in advancing thought and finding better ways of doing things. Therefore, their scientific staff must work in an environment that supports academic freedom. The Dalai Lama said:

In order to exercise creativity, freedom of thought is essential.

One Nation introduced these concepts and requested action from the then education minister, Dan Tehan, and I commend Senator Stoker for commenting that the government supports this initiative. Mr Tehan took these concepts from One Nation, particularly from Senator Hanson. He made sure that the now education minister, his replacement, Minister Tudge, continues to champion true freedom of speech in academia.

Therefore, One Nation wholeheartedly supports the new and expanded definition of academic freedom and hopes that no-one will ever need to endure what Professor Peter Ridd is still going through to fight for these fundamental academic freedoms. Professor Ridd was an employee of James Cook University for nearly 30 years. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling 'hunted'. Peter's so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist's first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.

Quality assurance is a concept that many corporate organisations are familiar with. They do not invest money, time, energy and effort without that quality assurance. Yet it seems that some of our universities have strayed away from the discipline of the scientific method so much that they don't feel the need to justify research outcomes or to deal with challenges to quality and assurance. Considering that billions of dollars of taxpayers' money is funnelled into policy development based on so-called research, it is not negotiable that these research outcomes must be above reproach. When we consider that the opportunity costs and the consequent costs for some policy based on so-called science are in the trillions of dollars for our whole nation, it is essential that science is challenged.

I have listened firsthand to many canefarmers and industry bodies from North Queensland and Central Queensland who attended the hearings into water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. These farmers and community members are exasperated, with one saying:

They trusted reef scientists to get the science right, … that trust has been destroyed. Instead cane farmers are being publicly demonised …

They also said that the reef regulations reflect a systematic abuse of science, based on assumptions and not evidence.

Communities are being gutted. Apart from the destruction of so many livelihoods, think of the cost to our society, to Queensland, to communities and to our nation when policies are knowingly based on poor science—which, by definition, is not science. Energy policies, climate policies and renewable energy policies based on so-called science are costing $13 billion in addition to the normal costs of electricity. That's an average of $1,300 per household across Australia in addition to the cost of electricity. For every so-called green job created, 2.2 jobs in the real economy are destroyed. The Murray-Darling Basin act—the Water Act 2007—is now destroying communities across the Murray-Darling Basin, our No. 1 food bowl, and it's based on rubbish that contradicts the empirical evidence.

Any scientist worth their professional reputation should have the freedom to stand against poor scientific outcomes and the lack of appropriate peer reviewing. I'll go beyond that: it is the duty of every scientist to do so. The professional integrity of scientists should compel them to defend spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on policies that do not have a robust scientific basis and which are destroying people's livelihoods.

Professor Peter Ridd has over 100 scientific publications and he has co-invented a worthy list of instrumentation, including an instrument for monitoring the effect of sediment on the reef, which is technology now used around the world; a water current meter, which is marketed by James Cook University worldwide; an optical system for measuring pipeware, which is used in mines Australia wide; and a system for managing agricultural weeds, which is marketed through AutoWeed. This is an impressive list of achievements. After three decades of work, such a scientist ought to be held in high esteem. If a scientist of this academic calibre and such commercial achievements and practical nous can still feel hunted down by a university for challenging the quality of research results in other departments—and hunted to his emotional and financial detriment—how the hell can we ever expect our upcoming brilliant minds, with far fewer runs on the board, to ever have the courage to do the same? We can't. The simple answer is that these newcomers will not challenge, because they do not have the safety of freedom of speech and can't risk their careers crashing and burning before they've started. Instead, these upcoming brilliant minds will fall into line and continue to expand the increasing pool of homogenous groupthink. And there is the death of creativity and the narrowing of truly great solutions to tomorrow's problems.

In recent decades we've seen our society, our country, being decimated by policy driven science—and that is not science. It's costing us trillions. We need to return to science driven policy—policy that is driven by science, true science that passes quality assurance tests and questions from sceptics. Professor Ridd has become the modern-day Galileo, for daring to challenge the common myth that farming methods in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas are damaging the reef. Professor Ridd's research shows that commonly held myth to be incorrect, to be a lie. James Cook University didn't like it, maybe because there is no doubt, in their view, that there would be a gaping hole in James Cook University's funding for Great Barrier Reef research if water quality was indeed just fine, as Professor Peter Ridd's work and the work of others confirms and suggests.

I acknowledge that universities are required to enshrine in their policy statement clear messages around freedom of speech and academic freedom. While we cannot intrude upon the enterprise agreements between universities and their employees, the amendment I will put forward today in the committee stage requests that higher education providers must take reasonable steps to ensure that enterprise agreements include provisions to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom. This commitment to academic freedom needs, wherever possible, to move beyond a policy statement that sits on the shelf and to enter the enterprise agreements, since that is where the cultural change will be brought about.

We cannot afford to be timid and ordinary when it comes to scientific endeavours. One Nation supports this bill, because we must give our scientific staff the academic freedoms they need to be at their creative best. Universities, businesses and governments all need to be prepared to update their outdated views when our brilliant minds in academia show us a better way. I'll finish with the words of the late Steve Jobs, talking about his company Apple, one of the leaders in the world in new technology:

It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 and the proposed definition of academic freedom. This bill is incredibly important. It will provide stronger safeguards for academic freedom and freedom of speech within our universities and higher education institutions. As many of my colleagues know, I have children, as many here do, and they are growing all too quickly—more quickly than I'd like to admit. Soon enough, they'll be leaving school and will be pursuing their post-school education and weighing up their post-school options. They may choose to pursue the path of tertiary education and settle themselves into university life for several years. I note at this point that I am one of the possibly few people here in the Senate who chose not to go down the higher education path. I undertook a trade as an electronic technician when I finished school.

This bill provides a new definition of academic freedom that protects, through law, the very important principles of freedom of expression which are essential to seeing these institutions kept accountable. This bill will ensure that current university faculty staff, students and the generation to come will have the opportunity to engage in opinion-rich educational settings. Staff will be free to speak in the fields of their academic research and study with unrestricted comment and no fear of academic bias or suppression from the dominant university culture which may unjustifiably limit the range of perspectives that are welcome on campus and in classrooms. In some ways it's a shame that we actually have to legislate these freedoms for our students and professors of today, but there have been significant examples of threat that have warranted this bill. Universities should be bastions of free speech, not fomenting a culture in which censorship and intolerance of opposing viewpoints abound. This is certainly something worth fighting for.

Higher education in Australia has a very, very rich history. In 1852, the University of Sydney opened its doors to students as Australia's first university and was among the first public non-denominational universities in the British Empire. When William Charles Wentworth proposed the idea of Australia's first university in 1850, he imagined the opportunity for the children of every class to become great and useful in the destiny of this country. Today I believe that the way that we can stay true to Wentworth's original values and purpose is not by enticing our universities with funding which twists their arms to become more like megabusinesses, scuffling to meet their KPIs for the next funding injection. Institutions for higher education must foster the growth of informed, autonomous students who bring rich skills and thinking to their prospective vocations. This is what will truly make such institutions and their product useful in the destiny of our country. Equally, the rights of our academics and teachers must be protected as they remain free to speak and share their research and professional views openly.

In 2015 over 1.3 million people were enrolled as students throughout Australia's higher education institutions. These students were all taught by academic faculty who answer to the powers that be in terms of their research, teaching and how openly they might share their beliefs. As outlined in the recommendations from the 2019 independent review into freedom of speech in higher education undertaken by the Hon. Robert French AC, a former chief justice, no less, of the High Court of Australia, a change in wording from 'free intellectual inquiry' to 'freedom of speech and academic freedom' will align the language of those requirements with the French model code. This will further protect staff and students in sharing honestly about their research, findings and conclusions.

There has been a growing view among the general public that universities are becoming more and more 'woke', advocating for their version of free speech and making space for the voice of minority groups. However, this advocated free speech and support for minority groups seems to be very, very selective. While it stifles unpopular conservative views, religious groups, professors of science, history academics, medical experts and many more who through their fields of proficiency have traditional views to share seem to be the targets of the growing radical Left culture of the university campus. In some cases these academics have had their research papers refused for publication because the findings support conservative world views. There have even been instances where tutors and lecturers have gradually had their teaching hours reduced to nil, because their work was considered a little too right of centre.

With the Morrison government's record funding to the higher education sector we have to get this right going forward. We must ensure that our universities are encouraged to remain places of free thinking—environments that promote curiosity and celebrate the sharing of diverse and informed ideas. The main element of this bill is the introduction of the following definition of 'academic freedom' in legislation:

(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—

regardless of what they might be—

(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.

Before I close I would like to just touch on what I heard Senator Abetz say earlier in his contribution. He suggested adding the following paragraph to the minister's summation. I want to put my support behind that. He said that he'd like to see included:

Higher education institutions which have a religious ethos may require their staff and students to exercise their freedom of speech and academic freedom in a manner that does not denigrate and is respectful of the beliefs and practices of the religion and its adherence and the religious ethos of the institution.

I support the inclusion of this paragraph, whether it be in the minister's summing up or in the explanatory memorandum for the bill. Freedom of religion is another one of the great freedoms on which Western civilisation is based. If we were to see anything undermine that then that would be a great loss to the free, democratic and liberal society in which we live.

This bill seeks to strengthen protections for freedom of speech on campus. This is a good thing. There are many different views, and those views should be able to be freely spoken. Of course, there's a responsibility when it comes to sharing those views, and people must be mindful and careful about how and what they say, but it's important that students and faculties are not in any way held back because they may have a view that is different to the prevailing view of that particular institution, because it might be seen as more conservative or possibly even more to the Left. Frankly, we need freedom and we need to ensure that that continues. This is an increasingly important arena for free speech, not only due to cancel culture and political correctness running amok but also due to foreign influence and the potential for influence on students with families and assets overseas. Through this lens, freedom of speech on campus becomes not only important but incredibly necessary. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only concur wholeheartedly with the comments that previous senators have raised. Without freedom of speech, no good idea ever becomes a great idea and no ridiculous idea ever founders under the weight of reason. So, where former Chief Justice French found that even a limited number of incidents were seen to affect or impinge upon freedom of speech, the adverse impact on the public perception of the higher education sector and indeed the future of our nation remains very real.

The amendment bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020, is a necessary and functionally sound amendment that improves the alignment of academic freedom and freedom of speech more broadly. The amendment bill improves that existing language where it relates to free intellectual inquiry, which I would have thought was self-evident. If a university cannot be a place of truly free intellectual inquiry we don't have much hope as a nation.

It is important to note that the intention of the bill is to protect freedom of speech, and it is not to be used to impinge upon the beliefs and religious ethos of the higher education institutions around Australia. So, while staff and students will remain free to exercise their right to free speech in the respective academic inquiries they undertake, the institutions themselves will not be forced to undermine or contravene the fundamental religious precepts that underpin their existence. This is an important delineation between the freedom of academics and students to engage in that free speech through the academic environment and the freedom of speech that they rightly enjoy as Australians in their personal capacity. Speech made in an academic capacity is more correctly and descriptively categorised as an academic freedom of speech, while speech made in any personal capacity is more appropriately considered under the broader definitions enshrined in Australia.

For the benefit of both students and staff, this amendment bill is essential in improving the definition of 'academic freedom' and highlighting the importance of that freedom to the future of study and research in Australia. It is also essential in underpinning the important role of freedom of speech in Australian statute. Freedom of speech is a basic and fundamental component of our society, and I think it is the duty of all senators in this place to clarify and protect this freedom when it is under attack from the woke, from the cancel culture and from the Left, who ultimately would rather control that thought and expression in Australia such that those views which run counter to what they hold to believe are dismissed rather than debated rigorously.

I think that discussions around freedom of speech are often overcomplicated and overthought. It is simply a personal liberty that must not be impinged upon by government. It isn't given to us by government. It is an inalienable right that we are born with in a free democracy. It is our primary duty as representatives of the Australian people to guard this right from governmental interference or, in fact, interference from any other source.

Freedom of speech must be protected in our society but most especially on university campuses, where the very purpose of the work and study undertaken on that campus is to challenge and further intellectual pursuits and broad understanding of the issues we confront as a nation, no matter where the results and research or even the context of that debate may lead. In fact, it is often speech we most fundamentally disagree with that is that most important to protect. As Noam Chomsky said, even Goebbels was in favour of free speech for the views that he liked. So was Stalin. If you do not support the free speech of ideas that you disagree with, or even rightly despise, you are not in favour of free speech at all. So why not support this cautious and incremental reform to maximise freedom in all areas of society, particularly one as important as academic study in the universities? I would contend that it is better to have a 'dangerous', if I can use the term, level of free speech rather than have a limitation on freedom of speech that is controlled by anyone at any point in time.

In the context of an Australian university, that even limited number of incidents that Justice French found does have a negative impact on the public perception of the higher education sector. So it is important to set a solid and clear standard, not only to protect freedom of speech but to more appropriately delineate the freedom of academic inquiry that is undertaken, or ought to be undertaken, on a university campus. I emphasise that freedom of speech, as a fundamental right here in Australia, should be as simple and as clear a concept as possible, and this amendment improves the definition for that academic freedom of inquiry whilst preserving the tenets of freedom of speech in Australia. That delineation is essential to preventing students and academics who engage in free intellectual inquiry from being cancelled or otherwise affected by the woke revolution that we seem to be in the grips of. This is critical to the success of our nation and, indeed, the universities that operate here. By aligning the act with the model code as proposed by Justice French, this will strengthen the principles of basic freedom of expression and unequivocally support a culture of freedom that must be enshrined in all of our university campuses.

The freedom to express a countervailing opinion is essential because the progress of our society is reliant on this natural and very basic freedom. This shouldn't be controversial. The antithesis to full freedom of speech is controlled speech, and that control resting in any individual's hands at any time should be of grave concern to all in this place. Universities that receive public funds shouldn't want, much less be permitted, to restrict the outcomes of academic research or in any way punish those who undertake research in those institutions, even where the conclusions aren't controversial. Why? It is because if the conclusions were wrong or not supported by a rigorous interrogated debate then they would naturally go by the wayside. That is the point of freedom of academic inquiry. Ignoring the outcomes of research is simply sticking one's head in the sand, and that is where the matter should rest.

In my view this is an essential reform to protect a fundamental freedom in Australia and help ensure our prosperity as a nation into the future. The academic environment and the culture of freedom on our campuses will be all the better for it, as will our success as a nation overall. Having any top-down pressure on research outcomes in a higher education institution might be expected in an authoritarian regime, but it absolutely cannot be permitted in Australia. The unique characteristics of and influences on those higher education institutions in Australia require this government to ensure that academics and students, when functioning in that academic capacity, have the freedom of their academic inquiry protected. The existing phraseology of free intellectual inquiry is too broad, and we've seen that through the cases that my colleagues have cited here today—most notably the dismissal of Professor Ridd. It is imperative to this government's continued support for the culture of free thought and inquiry that this bill be accepted.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. I must say the word 'freedom' gets thrown around a lot. I sometimes think it's thrown around without any thought for the true meaning of the significance of the word and its impact because of how hard it has been for us to get the freedoms that we have today and the sacrifices that have been made to obtain those freedoms.

When I hear the word 'freedom', I often go back to that movie of recent times, Braveheart, about William Wallace, who was so elegantly played by Mel Gibson. There's a great scene at the end where William Wallace is being executed, and he yells out, 'Freedom!' There is a lot of criticism about whether the film is all correct or not, but what is true is that William Wallace was, indeed, executed in the name of what he thought was freedom. I'm going to read out to you the exact details of his death because I think it is worth remembering how hard fought for our freedoms have been and how hard we need to fight to make sure we keep them.

After he was captured, Wallace was transported to London where he was tried for treason and atrocities against civilians in war. He was then crowned with a garland of oak to suggest he was the king of outlaws. He responded to the treason charge: 'I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject.' Following the trial, Wallace was taken from Westminster Hall east to the Tower of London. He was then stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse. He was then hung, drawn and quartered. He was strangled by hanging but released while he was still alive. He was then emasculated. For those of you who don't know what that is, it's where you have your entire crown jewels removed. He was then eviscerated; he had his bowels removed. His bowels were then burned in front of him. He was then beheaded. His head was then dipped in tar and placed on a pike atop London Bridge where it was later joined by the heads of brothers John and Simon Fraser, fellow Scottish patriots. Wallace's limbs were displayed separately in Newcastle, Berwick, Sterling and Perth.

A plaque was unveiled in 1956 and stands in a wall of St Bartholomew's Hospital near the site of Wallace's execution at Smithfield. It includes, in Latin, the words: 'Dico tibi verum libertas optima rerum nunquam servili sub nexu vivito fili.' In English that translates as: 'I tell you the truth. Freedom is what is best. Sons, never live life like slaves.' I think that is an incredibly inspiring story of the sacrifices that people have made throughout history in order to fight for freedom.

Nine years later, in the year of our Lord 1314, as was put so eloquently in the movie, a bloke by the name of Robert the Bruce went out and won that freedom. Whether it's true or not, he's quoted as saying, before he ran out to battle: 'You have bled with Wallace, now bleed with me.' Today, as we put this bill forward, I ask the people on this side of the chamber to bleed like Wallace and fight like Robert the Bruce to make sure that we stand up for academic freedom because without freedom of speech, without freedom of thought, we are nothing more than slaves.

I'm pleased to promote this bill because it will provide stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech at our nation's universities, something that seems to be lacking on today's campuses around the nation and, indeed, the Western world. While this bill only applies to freedom of speech at universities, I think it's something that we should look at in other spheres as well. I know out there in the world of social media today, there are a lot of digital lynch mobs that are more than happy to come along and abuse people, to the point where they're actually afraid to say what they really think. There's a lot of bullying going on there. In my view that's just as big a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of thought as the suppression of free thought at universities.

Of course, we should also give a big shout out to Peter Ridd, who has fearlessly stood up for what he believes in, as well as Drew Pavlou who was kicked out of the University of Queensland for standing up for what he believed in, and, indeed, our own Craig Kelly, who was kicked off Facebook for standing up for what he believed in. We're always up against the command and control tendencies of those who wield power. We must always make sure that those who don't wield the power—

Senator McAllister interjecting—

I'll take that interjection, thanks, Senator McAllister. At the end of the day, having been in this chamber for almost two years, I actually think the bureaucrats wield a lot more power than the elected members of parliament do. You've only got to look at the RBA, which has autonomous control over the monetary policy, our currency. We have the Australian Research Council, which the law says is responsible for and has ultimate control over $3 billion and how that money is granted. We have the ABC, which has no independent review body for how it behaves. There are plenty of examples where the bureaucrats are basically unaccountable for their actions—and I forgot to include the universities in that. So I'm more than happy to stand by my assertion that where taxpayer dollars are being spent the bureaucrats are held to account.

In many cases that means we're going to have to take back the idea of an independent statutory authority. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the bulwark of democracy is accountability and transparency. Whether we like it or not, bureaucrats aren't elected. People may not like politicians, but we are elected and we are held to account for what we do. We are very transparent; we have to stand here in the chamber and stand up in front of the media and our constituents. It's very important that we are held to account as well.

The purpose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill is to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, to repeal and replace the two references to free intellectual inquiry with references to freedom of speech and academic freedom, and to insert a definition of 'academic freedom'. This bill gives effect to the recommendations from the 2019 independent review into freedom of speech in higher education which was undertaken by the Hon. Robert French, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. This bill will provide a new definition of academic freedom that enshrines in law principles of freedom of expression. These are an essential part of life at our universities for both academic staff and students—as they were when we went to university.

This definition closely aligns with the definition recommended by the French review, with a minor technical modification recommended by the University Chancellors Council and developed in consultation with Mr French. This modification excludes one element: the freedom of academic staff, without constraint imposed by reason of their employment by the university, to make a lawful public comment on any issue in their personal capacities. That was part of the definition originally recommended by Mr French and included in his proposed model code. As part of the consultations on the proposed definition, it has been suggested that this element is more about freedom of speech than academic freedom and shouldn't be conflated with a definition of academic freedom.

I recall when universities were once the bastion of freedom of thought and speech, and once drove political and social discourse. Now, courtesy of cancel culture, the far left, disguised as neo-Puritans, are busy trying to shut down debate under the guise of safe spaces and for fear of offending. A survey commissioned in 2019 asked students how they saw the current state of freedom of speech in universities. The survey included students of all political persuasions—39 per cent of respondents supported the ALP, 28 per cent supported the Greens, 14 per cent supported the coalition and 20 per cent were other or undecided. The results were concerning, to say the least: 41 per cent of students felt that they were sometimes unable to express their opinion at university; 31 per cent of students had been made to feel uncomfortable by a university teacher for expressing their opinion; 47 per cent of students felt more comfortable expressing their views on social media than at university; 59 per cent of students believed they were sometimes prevented from voicing their opinions on controversial issues by other students; and 82 per cent of students agreed that university students should be exposed to different views, even if those views were challenging or offensive—and 86 per cent of Greens-supporting students, 82 per cent of Labor-supporting students and 82 per cent of coalition-supporting students agreed with this statement.

In my home state of Queensland we have had the highly publicised drama involving Drew Pavlou at The University of Queensland. And in August last year the University of New South Wales media team deleted Twitter posts from one of its academics, now adjunct law professor and Human Rights Watch Australia director, Elaine Pearson, which drew an online backlash from foreign students. The University of New South Wales, after receiving a barrage of angry responses from Chinese students and state owned media responded with:

The opinions expressed by our academics do not always represent the views of UNSW.

We have a long & valued relationship with Greater China going back 60 years.

UNSW provides a welcome & inclusive environment & is proud to welcome students from over 100 countries.

Do we know what the offending tweet said?

Now is a pivotal moment to bring attention to the rapidly deteriorating situation in Hong Kong.

Fair dinkum. The central and allegedly most controversial element of the proposed amendments is the introduction of the following definition of 'academic freedom' in the legislation:

(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.

The explanatory memorandum includes the following explanation:

The statutory definition in Item 4 closely aligns with the definition in the French Model Code but includes a minor technical modification recommended by the University Chancellors Council …

Professor Sally Walker, who is currently undertaking a review of the university sector's implementation of the French Code, has advised that this approach is preferable. The freedom of academics and students to engage in intellectual inquiry, to express their opinions and to contribute to public debate are deeply connected with the role of an academic and the role of a university are key elements of academic freedom. However, this is quite different from an academic making a comment in their personal capacity. Any such comment is not connected with their role as an academic and is more appropriately considered to fit within the ambit of a broader social freedom of speech.

To quote from Brendan O'Neill, a UK columnist who himself has felt the wrath of universities:

It is undeniable that we live in a society where freedom of expression is in crisis. Whether we are being censored by the state, by self-styled guardians of correct-thinking, by mobs or by ourselves, we are being censored. And this matters. It matters because, at both the individual level and the social level, freedom of speech is essential to human flourishing.

Freedom of speech gives real power to the individual. It liberates us not only to express our own views – which is of course incredibly important – but also to listen to the views of everyone else and to use our mental and moral muscles to decide for ourselves if what they are saying is right or wrong. Freedom of speech is the foundation stone of moral autonomy. It demands that we take ourselves seriously, weigh things up, make moral judgements, and correct error as we find it. Censorship, by contrast, infantilises us, weakening our mental and moral muscles by inviting us to rely instead on the judgements of our superiors; on those who will decide on our behalf what we may see, what we may read, and what we should think.

To reflect for one more moment on those words of Wallace, he said: They can always take our lives but they can never take our freedom. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Academic freedom is and should always be one of the cornerstones of our learning institutions as part of the bedrock upon which our universities and our society as a whole are built. Without academic freedom, we lose the magnificent contest of ideas. That contest is the catalyst that generates the research and ensures the success of future directions, and it's gone. Without academic freedom, the ability to think, to develop ideas and to expand our view of the world is lost. Without academic freedom our learning institutions across every age group, from earliest childhood to universities and beyond, become places where students are taught what to think, not how to think, and, as we see, to the detriment of us all, the cancel culture takes over: you're either right or wrong; in or out. Step outside the party line, upset the online trolls or say anything beyond what social media demands and you're out. History is obliterated because it's offensive to the fringe. It doesn't fit the agenda of the thought police. Gone is the premise that history is there to be learned from. Gone is any criticism around lack of rigour or falling standards in academia. Criticise and your career is over.

Our halls of learning are becoming dungeons of dogma. Our schools are becoming indoctrination centres. Our children aren't learning how to think, how to inquire, how to question. They're not learning how important their intellectual curiosity really is and how critical it will be for them in years to come. They're being dumbed down and taught what to think. They're being taught there's right and wrong; that's it—nothing more. And they're learning the terrible consequences of being wrong—the loss of friends, the expulsion from groups, even the loss of jobs, all because they questioned the accepted dogma—as are their teachers. Just ask the highly respected Dr Peter Ridd after his outrageous sacking by James Cook University, or read about the treatment dished out, again by James Cook University, to the late Professor Bob Carter or about Dr Howard Brady, a victim of the appalling cancel culture at the increasingly intolerant ANU right here in Canberra.

Exercising academic freedom takes more than curiosity. To push the boundaries of often long-established, well-accepted beliefs takes courage, often in bucketloads. I can speak with the benefit of personal experience when I say that speaking truths that don't fit the current, long-accepted dogma will inevitably result in criticism, personal attacks, vile abuse, ridicule and, sometimes, much worse. I'm also aware of an incident that occurred more than 20 years ago when a university lecturer was told to remove a segment of a course he was teaching that included a number of the views and policy that I'd expressed both in parliament and publicly. He was told that, even though the issue in question referred to my belief that all Australians should be treated equally, he should stop teaching his students that topic and remove my name from the course. Today young children are being indoctrinated with issues around their gender or around what and how their parents should speak to them. Express your religious views and you're guaranteed ridicule and isolation—even expulsion from many places.

It's classic socialism designed to create another generation of Alinsky's useful idiots and it's going on around us every day in every state of Australia, and I say: enough is enough. The Left set themselves up as the gatekeepers of knowledge and they proceed to shame, vilify and excommunicate anyone who dares to disagree. That's not my Australia and I know it's not the kind of Australia most of us want. To expect our academics to work in an environment that shackles their freedom and restricts where opinions, professional critiques and research can go is wrong. It dumbs us down as a nation. It guarantees we'll be non-competitive internationally. It sends our future generations into lives of guaranteed mediocrity and disadvantage.

The other requirement to be able to exercise academic freedom is, of course, freedom of speech. Contrary to popular belief, Australia doesn't have a legislated right to freedom of speech. Unlike the United States, we have no bill of rights. We have no specific mention of freedom of speech in our Constitution that even remotely resembles what is enshrined and defined so vigorously as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Why successive governments have avoided legislating freedom of speech protections remains a mystery. Of course, with freedom of speech comes the paradox of being forced to hear things you may strongly disagree with and the reality of saying things others may disagree with. The right to free expression carries with it the risk the cancel culture mob will rage against you for anything contradictory to their agenda. Conveniently, those in the woke world believe in free speech, but only so far as it fits their world view.

I can speak from experience with regard to that. Over the years, even going back to when I was first elected to parliament, I had meetings around Australia, and the halls were packed out, because people saw me and thought: 'Who is this woman? Who is this elected member of parliament? We don't hear people who speak with this truth, with this honesty.' Most people have said to me, 'You're only saying what we're thinking, but you've got the guts to get up there and say it.' The people of Australia are screaming out for that honesty, for that truth, instead of beating around the bush and not being upfront and honest with people. They saw in me something that was different.

It happens here in this chamber as well—that I get up and say something and I get ridiculed for it because I dare speak beyond the boundaries of what is accepted. By whom? Who sets the debate? We're allowing people out in the academic world to set the agenda of what we should say and how we should say it. That's why our kids are so confused, and the people of Australia are becoming like sheep: 'You can't say that. You've got to live in your own little world, in your own little box. You can't go beyond that.' Yet other countries, other people around the world, would dearly love to have the freedom we have, and we are so quick to give it away, and we're going to let others control what we say and think. I don't need someone to tell me what to or to control how I think. As a member of parliament, I will be judged by the people at the ballot box, and if they don't like what I say they will throw me out. But I won't have any other Australian, with their own opinion or their own culture, turn around and tell me what I should be saying or what I should be thinking, because I have too much respect for the people who have fought for our freedoms. And with those freedoms came freedom of speech.

I rue the day when I had lecturers come into my office, 25 years ago, saying: 'We have been told how we should teach in the university. If we don't teach that way, we are going to lose our jobs.' I had a friend who was learning to become a teacher—and I hear it all the time—saying, 'We actually have to agree with their way of teaching and we have to agree with this thought process, otherwise we will have our grades put down.' This has been happening for decades, yet no-one intervenes or does anything about it. That is why we have these generations coming through who are being conditioned, and it's a real shame because that's not the Australia that I want and it's not the Australia I want to hand on to my grandchildren and to future generations.

For academic freedom to be genuine, we must recognise that it carries with it the need for a hand-in-glove relationship with freedom of speech. Academics who are speaking about their research or the research of others must not be limited in their comments by the notion that freedom of speech as a right is not available to them. A reference to textbooks or the views of others' research or opinions must be allowed the freedom of open and unfettered discussion. We cannot ever have another case like that of Peter Ridd or a cancellation like that suffered by Professor Bob Carter. Academic freedom is something to be celebrated by every Australian, especially when it carries with it the right of free speech.

I'm pleased that our discussions with the minister have resulted in positive outcomes in relation to this sector. I particularly welcome the minister's commitment to work with us on constructive amendments designed to reduce the ever-increasing overall HECS-HELP debt, which currently stands at over $50 billion. Simultaneously, any reduction in the overall debt must be done in a way that does not unnecessarily disadvantage users of the scheme. We are very fortunate in this country to have universities and colleges for our youth to go to. A lot of other countries don't have that. That's where it's very important that I do support this bill. And, working with the government, it was very important to One Nation—to me and to Senator Roberts—that changes be made to this, and Mark Latham talks about it constantly in the upper house in New South Wales. He's very much about education, about freedom of speech. It is the cornerstone of who we are as a nation.

As I've said, many lives have been lost and sacrifices made for our freedom, and with that is freedom of speech. If we do not want to live in a society that is socialist, communist, then we are going to have to stand up for what we believe in, and it starts in this chamber with each and every one of us, who have been given the opportunity that very few Australians have. There are only 76 senators here, out of the whole population of 25 million Australians. The importance of that in itself is that we must be true to ourselves and have freedom of speech here to express what we truly believe in, because that's how the people judge us. We are supposed to be leaders of this nation. Never let anyone shut you down for your true thoughts on what you want to achieve for the Australian people, because they rely on us to make those right decisions. That's why I will continue to speak, whether it's in this chamber or outside this chamber, my true thoughts, what I want to see. I won't be shut down with the call that I'm a racist. My racism, as it appears, is because I dare call for equality for all Australians. And I will continue to do that. It's about standing up for our rights. That's why I support Peter Ridd and Bob Carter for what they've done, and even Craig Kelly. Craig Kelly has the right as a member of parliament to stand up and have his say. He has the right to question it. Let the people judge him. And that's why it's so important that we do that in a fair and just manner. That's where One Nation supports this bill.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020. John F Kennedy said that conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. In recent years we have seen an increasing number of instances of conformity worming its way into the halls of our universities and research institutions. In August 2020, Elaine Pearson, Director of Human Rights Watch and an adjunct lecturer at the University of New South Wales faculty of law, tweeted that she was very concerned about the human rights implications of Hong Kong's new national security law. Incredibly, the tweet was deleted by UNSW in response to criticism by pro-China students. The tweet was later reinstated by the university, but it should never have been deleted in the first place. This was an unacceptable betrayal of academic freedom. Earlier, in 2018, Dr Peter Ridd, a distinguished marine physicist at James Cook University, was sacked after publicly questioning his colleague's research on the effects of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. As a result, he had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of donated money, as well as his own savings, to make his case in the High Court.

The purpose of a university is to be a place where academics can seek the truth and disseminate it to students, but this is not possible if academics cannot engage in free intellectual inquiry. The principle of academic freedom is the source of a university's capacity to produce meaningful, rigorous and independent research which benefits all. In this sense, academic freedom is a paradigm feature of any vibrant university culture and is essential if universities are not to become mere mouthpieces for ideology, of course as they were in the Soviet Union and continue to be in many other countries around the world.

This bill ensures that academics have that freedom. It does so by introducing a definition of 'academic freedom' which allows academics to teach, discuss and conduct research at will. It enshrines the freedom of academics to engage in intellectual inquiry free from government or corporate influence. It ensures that academics can freely contribute to public debate on issues related to their research without fear of sanction. It also affirms the autonomy of universities in relation to their choice of academic courses and offerings and ways in which they are taught. This is a full and robust conception of academic freedom and shows that our government is committed to maintaining it. All of this is in keeping with the fundamental liberal principles on which the Liberal Party was founded: the priority of individual freedom over collective inertia; the value of practical and intellectual enterprise; and the idea that the proper role of government is to protect natural rights and freedoms, not impose an ideology.

Some might argue the bill does not go far enough because it does not give academics the right to free speech that would allow them to express their personal opinions on any matter whatsoever in public under the shield of academic freedom. However, academics can already express their personal opinions in public, just like any other Australian. They, like other Australians, do not require a stronger definition of 'academic freedom' to do that. A nuclear chemist expressing a personal opinion on the price of milk is not an exercise of academic freedom. The definition of 'academic freedom' in this bill helpfully preserves this important distinction. None of this undermines the government's commitment to maintaining a free and open society in Australia in which freedom of speech is respected and upheld. None of this undermines the government's commitment to liberal principles. None of this undermines this government's commitment to supporting free, intellectual inquiry at universities.

Our government understands that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. It understands that the health of our society can be measured by the extent to which it upholds and defends freedom of speech. It understands, as John Stuart Mill said:

When one's ideas are not challenged, one's ability to defend them weakens.

Our government understands that legislation is sometimes necessary to ensure that, when our ideas are challenged, we have the freedom to defend them. In this increasingly polarised age, it's easy to be taken up in the swell of ideological fervour on any given topic, whether it be climate change, gender and identity politics, social justice or even free speech itself. This can only do us harm, because ideology is the sworn enemy of free inquiry. Ideology is a ruinous fire which burns everything in its path. As Edmund Burke said:

Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years.

It would be folly to think that our universities are immune from ideological pressure. It would be folly to think that political neutrality is always defended by university management. This is why we must remain vigilant and protect the principle of academic freedom, a bequeathment of an intellectual tradition going back almost a thousand years to the world's first university at Bologna in 1088. Today's academics are inheritors of that tradition, and it is one we must guard jealously if we are to maintain our universities as places of genuine learning, places where we can learn to seek the truth for its own sake and not for the sake of ideological purity or political advantage.

This bill ensures that academics, whatever their political persuasion, will not have that held against them in the course of their intellectual work. The bill strengthens free speech in this country by ensuring that academics like Elaine Pearson and Peter Ridd can pursue their research freely without illegitimate and undue restriction, whether from universities, students or governments. It ensures that conformity—that insidious, implacable enemy of freedom—is kept at bay at our universities. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators for their contribution to this debate. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to give effect to recommendations of the independent review of freedom of speech in Australian higher education providers conducted in 2019 by the Hon. Robert French AC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

The amendments will provide a new legislative definition of 'academic freedom' that encompasses aspects of freedom of expression that are characteristic of the relationship of higher education institutions, academic staff and students. They will also enshrine the need for public universities to have a policy that upholds freedom of speech and academic freedom. These are fundamental tenets of Australian higher education, and this bill will provide stronger protections for both academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ruston, it being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted.