Page 1024 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
University of Tasmania who apparently had the temerity to openly discuss their unease about higher education funding. The Greens strongly believe that elected representatives and responsible governments should never feel that they have the ability to threaten the freedom of speech of groups they fund or support because they do not like what they say. That is, frankly, Orwellian. Our universities should be places of debate and public discourse regardless of who is in government.
Section 6(2) of the current act, which will be retained, is key to understanding the motivations of the ACT government in bringing these amendments to the Assembly today. This line states clearly that in the exercise of its functions the university must pay special attention to the needs of the ACT and the surrounding regions. This must be our foundation going forward and will be at the forefront of my thinking during the term of this Assembly.
Clause 5 raises some questions for me and will need careful thought and consultation as its practical applications begin to take shape. The university’s land is still within the ACT borders and therefore must still be accountable to ACT laws. Exploitation is perhaps an unfortunate, although legally correct, term to allow the UC to really embrace its strategic vision, provide incentives for ongoing research to consider commercial application and the like, but it is a term that can raise an eyebrow when it is used in this context. I would like to identify early on that this is another area that the ACT Greens will continue to monitor, as land is a precious commodity in the ACT and we must be strategic and community-minded in its use.
Clause 6 is a positive and concrete commitment to what I know is already solid practice at the university and relates to ongoing reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I trust that this commitment will continue to grow and deepen.
Clause 7 means that the university will have the power to enter into contracts with third parties in order to commercially exploit and develop its property for the university’s benefit. While this is of obvious benefit to the university as it seeks to undertake ambitious co-investment models and provides greater certainty to those anticipated investors, I believe there is still a public benefit consideration that may need further articulation. The ACT government operates its business under an ethical investment framework, and while the UC will be acting as a “natural person” in many regards from here on in, it is still a body that has legislative ties with the ACT government. I will be looking to future pieces of legislation to see how we can define requirements for the university to screen some of its investment opportunities and consider who it co-invests with so that they are consistent with the values of the residents of the ACT.
Clauses 10 through 15 support a more flexible approach to the university council and its functions and remuneration. This has clear parallels with recently debated CIT amendments, aside from specific mentions of the vice-chancellor and deputy vice-chancellor. I would agree with the explanatory statement that this amendment is intended to enhance the council’s ability to attract and retain qualified and experienced individuals for council positions who would be helping to steer the course of the UC in the years ahead and thus ultimately strengthen the governance of the university.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video