Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share 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.