Division Description Changes — Bills — Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020; Second Reading — 24th Feb 2021

Change	Division
representatives vote 2021-02-24#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-04-22 13:25:10	Title Bills — Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020; Second Reading Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Criticise Government Description ~~<p class="speaker">Anne Aly</p>~~ <p>I am in continuation. I was reflecting on what academic freedom means and, indeed, what freedom of speech means in the context of academic research, based on my years of experience working at universities in various capacities and in various research areas. Academic freedom means the freedom to pursue knowledge, and all knowledge is worthy of pursuit, whether in the sciences or the humanities. And, as I was reflecting the last time I spoke on this bill, the greatest threat to academic freedom comes from this government and this government's campaign against certain pursuits of knowledge—different types of pursuits of knowledge. There can be no greater example of that than when the previous minister for education vetoed more than $4 million worth of ARC grants, all in the humanities.</p> The majority voted in favour of keeping the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion unchanged. The usual second reading motion is "that the bill be read a second time" and to read a bill for a second time is to agree with its main idea. This vote occurred in response to an amendment (see below). Because this vote was successful, the amendment failed. ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > *> "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government has damage*d the quality of Australia's world-class post-secondary education system by: > > (1) cutting billions from universities and slashing research funding; > *> (2) making it harder and more expensive for Australian students to get a university** education; and* > > (3) failing to develop a long-term policy for the Australian post-secondary education system". <p>Here's what it takes to get an ARC grant. You have to have done a pilot project. You have to have a substantial body of research on which to build. You then have to write an application, and that application can run to 100 pages or so. You then have to have it assessed by a panel of experts. But the former minister for education put himself above that panel of experts in vetoing a number of ARC-approved research projects, all in the humanities.</p> <p>Out there, being an expert is something you earn, and it's not based on having a staffer write you an op-ed or a staffer write your speeches for you or do your research for you. You actually have to be the one who's conducted the research. You actually have to be the one who's pursued that knowledge and accumulated that knowledge. To have a minister veto and go over and above decisions that were already made by an appointed panel of experts, people who are recognised in their field, is not just hubris; it is actually the very definition of an attack on academic freedom and indeed an attack on freedom of speech in higher education.</p> <p>Researchers should be able to utilise their expertise to pursue pathways of knowledge that will add to the body of knowledge of expertise in this country. That is what academic freedom is all about. That is what we mean when we talk about the integrity of academic freedom. But that is not the only example of this government's attack on universities and on academic freedom.</p> ~~<p class="italic">Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—</p>~~ <p>The member opposite, the member for Goldstein, likes to interject. Unfortunately, Member for Goldstein, I have to speak out on this—10 years working in the university sector, and when I speak to my colleagues who are still in the university sector they are aghast at the level of interference in academic freedom and academic integrity that this government feels free to undertake. They are absolutely shocked by the decisions taken by the former minister for education in vetoing ARC grants and the current move around fee changes that is supposed to lead to more STEM places but has actually been completely counterproductive.</p> <p>When we talk about academic freedom and freedom of speech, I think about a gentleman in my electorate of Cowan who called me the other day. He's a mature-age student wanting to go back to university to finish his first degree; he hasn't done a degree before. He's got three kids. He enrolled in a degree in history, because he's interested in history—interested in biblical history, interested in that body of knowledge that has a lot of relevance to how we conduct ourselves today. So he enrolled in a degree and studied his first semester. This semester he's been told that the cost of his degree has doubled, and he can no longer afford to continue studying in that degree. Who deemed that this man's pursuit of knowledge is not worthy? Who is it that deemed that there should be no academic freedom for this man to pursue a degree in history? Who is it that decides what young people get to choose to study? Who is it that decides what people who wish to return to university, or get a degree for the first time, in their 40s or 50s get to study?</p> <p>The biggest threat to academic freedom is the actions of this government. They need to stop their protracted campaign against the universities, they need to stop the cuts to universities, they need to stop this ideological war against the humanities, and they need to demonstrate that they really are about freedom of speech and academic freedom. On this side of the House, we are about academic freedom. That's why we support this bill—because it makes sense. But I call on the government to do more than just this bill and to actually stand behind what they say about freedom of speech, academic freedom and the integrity of academic freedom.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tim Wilson</p>~~ <p>I always like to follow the member for Cowan, because, if nothing else, her substance and sass always contribute to the debate, in both her physical manifestation and her words. I note she's laughing and enjoying everything I'm saying. I do have a strong affection for her, because, if nothing else, she contributes and makes a contribution with passion and commitment.</p> <p>That the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom Of Speech) Bill 2020 needs to be introduced is, frankly, embarrassing. It's embarrassing because it has got to a situation where universities are not the home of free and intellectual inquiry to pursue the advancement of our nation and our collective knowledge, scientific inquiry and humanity. In fact, when I served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, before being elected to this place, I wrote an article specifically looking at higher education and some of the issues that were faced, particularly where universities refused to accept centres focused on free and intellectual inquiry, and it finished with a joke: 'What is the opposite of diversity? Sadly, it has become university.'</p> <p>That's why I say it's embarrassing. Universities should be the pillars on which we build the intellectual foundations of our country. They should be the pillars on which young minds, thirsty and enthusiastic, are challenged and confront difficult realities, where we hold a window up to our society—economically, socially, politically, environmentally and scientifically—and where matters are debated on the basis of their merit, not on the basis of their conformity to rigid ideology. That we are now faced with a number of examples where universities have been bullied, silenced or intimidated into silence should embarrass them. Where are the university councils and university senates standing up for their core purpose? Why is it that legislation needs to be introduced to tell them to do their core job—because this is their core job?</p> <p>Take the kerfuffle that surrounded the establishment of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation to study the great works of our own culture and history. It is not the sole source or the font of all knowledge of our community and civilisation, and nobody is arguing that it is, but that some people seem to think that it's acceptable to exclude these works from academic inquiry because of the authors or the times, considering the incredible contribution they have made to the foundation of some of the most free and prosperous societies on earth, should embarrass universities. That universities in Western Australia rejected funding to support a centre that focused on how we can achieve consensus around issues like the science and policy of climate change should embarrass those universities. That we have activists that want to stand up against the bullying and intimidatory behaviour of Communist parties around the world and they find themselves in a position of sanction or censure should embarrass universities. Because that is not the basis in which free intellectual inquiry, research, activism and debate should be conducted in a free liberal democracy such as ours.</p> <p>The legislation we have before us today should not be needed. But here we are. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will strengthen protections for freedom of speech and academic freedom on university campuses, and, by default, Australia. The legislation will bring the Higher Education Support Act 2003 into line with the French model code which all universities have agreed to adopt this year. The legislation is a culmination of a careful process, identifying what needs to be done to support free and open debate.</p> <p>On 14 November 2018, the Minister for Education announced that the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert French, would review existing material regarding free speech on university campuses, which led to this process. The report concluded on 6 April 2019 that the protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom could be strengthened by the adoption of model codes embedded in higher education providers' institutional regulations or policies on a voluntary basis. There were minor amendments that were suggested and adopted. The amendments would align the language currently used around free intellectual inquiry with the proposed model code's identification of free speech and academic freedom, bringing greater clarity and consistency.</p> <p>Since then, we've had universities considering and looking at different models that can be adopted. Of course, it's culminated in the situation where we have legislation which enables free intellectual inquiry in university campuses. But we should never lose sight of this moment and why it matters to pass this legislation—as reluctant, and frankly, as embarrassing as it may be—because, in the end, free and intellectual inquiry is critical to the foundations of our society. It's actually the wellspring where so much of our society succeeds, and we should never lose sight of that.</p> <p>There are so many reasons for this—we can go through them and, if you wish to, you can read my speeches when I was Human Rights Commissioner—and we've got plenty of other great works, from John Stuart Mill's <i>On Liberty</i> through to discussions of the present day. But the principles remain consistent. The point of free speech is not just because it's the manifestation of people's freedom of conscience and the freedom to impart ideas—though it is that—it's also the opportunity to test, particularly in a university environment, bad ideas and have them exposed by the light of day. It's so that bigotry and prejudice within communities can be challenged and confronted, and we can see our common humanity. It's so bad ideas are tested against evidence so that our community and our society can progress.</p> <p>As soon as you create a linear model of thinking, an ideological framework which constrains that debate, you set humanity and our country on a course against progress. You deny people the capacity to understand what is right and what is wrong on a path towards a made-perfect humanity. We want to ensure that future generations do not just carry the learned knowledge and history of our community and our civilisation and all of the bits that feed into it but can continue their journey in contributing to it to compound the success of future generations. When that's denied in an environment specifically to promote education, research and challenging people's thinking, as universities are, you don't just undermine education, although you do; you undermine the potential of future generations to succeed and to give their children the inheritance that we received and wish to give to them. There are plenty of societies in human history that have constrained free and open discussion because they thought they had the perfect solution, anchored on an ideological hubris that they somehow had reached a form of perfection for themselves. All that history showed, like democracy itself, is that it meant there were no safety valves to test that madness which undermined and corroded the very foundations of their society.</p> <p>That's why freedom of speech goes to the core of liberalism itself. It's because it's necessary to progress society itself, the economy itself—community, culture, history and tradition themselves. It's about the decentralisation of power from the select few to the empowerment of millions of people and for truth to be spoken to power, including in this place. And it doesn't matter what the context or the setting is; we must always stand up for it and by it—not the selective representations that so many people make when people stand up for ideas that they agree with. It was misattributed to him, but the Voltairian principle, nonetheless, stays the same.</p> <p>Sadly, too many people in this place, and outside this place—particularly those in the modern, progressive Left—make bold claims and commitments to free speech so long as it confirms to their world view. We have seen this before and we will see it again: they bastardise language with concepts like fair speech, which means that people's thought and expression should be anchored to their identity or that the limits in which they can express themselves are simply based on the recipient of the expression.</p> <p>We know the history of free speech and that when you empower censorship you empower a censor—centralised power to dictate what people can say, what they can express and the circumstances in which they can do that. That suppresses the advancement of our species. That's what free speech is about: it's not just about the expression of ideas; it is about power. Censorship is about the centralisation of power at the expense of the individual and in favour of the privileged few. Free speech is about the empowerment of the many—for diversity, for debate and for the individual. No society has ever succeeded where it has sought to empower the few to dictate over the many. The only sustainable societies that exist today which continue to compound, grow and contribute, not just for themselves but to those beyond their borders, are those which empower individuals, families and communities as the foundation of the success of their country and their civilisation.</p> <p>This legislation may be targeted specifically at issues related to higher education, but the reverberation and ripples which it sets extend far wider for the advancement of our society. We should never lose sight of that. Today is one of those moments when we have legislation before us which cannot have just an immediate effect but which can continue to contribute to the advancement of us as a people through the empowerment of individuals in their contributions to the progress of humanity.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Anne Aly~~
I am in continuation. I was reflecting on what academic freedom means and, indeed, what freedom of speech means in the context of academic research, based on my years of experience working at universities in various capacities and in various research areas. Academic freedom means the freedom to pursue knowledge, and all knowledge is worthy of pursuit, whether in the sciences or the humanities. And, as I was reflecting the last time I spoke on this bill, the greatest threat to academic freedom comes from this government and this government's campaign against certain pursuits of knowledge—different types of pursuits of knowledge. There can be no greater example of that than when the previous minister for education vetoed more than $4 million worth of ARC grants, all in the humanities.
The majority voted in favour of keeping the usual [second reading](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion unchanged. The usual second reading motion is "*that the bill be read a second time*" and to read a bill for a second time is to agree with its main idea. This vote occurred in response to an amendment (see below). Because this vote was successful, the amendment failed.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government has damaged the quality of Australia's world-class post-secondary education system by:*
>
> *(1) cutting billions from universities and slashing research funding;*
>
> *(2) making it harder and more expensive for Australian students to get a university education; and*
>
> *(3) failing to develop a long-term policy for the Australian post-secondary education system".*
Here's what it takes to get an ARC grant. You have to have done a pilot project. You have to have a substantial body of research on which to build. You then have to write an application, and that application can run to 100 pages or so. You then have to have it assessed by a panel of experts. But the former minister for education put himself above that panel of experts in vetoing a number of ARC-approved research projects, all in the humanities.
Out there, being an expert is something you earn, and it's not based on having a staffer write you an op-ed or a staffer write your speeches for you or do your research for you. You actually have to be the one who's conducted the research. You actually have to be the one who's pursued that knowledge and accumulated that knowledge. To have a minister veto and go over and above decisions that were already made by an appointed panel of experts, people who are recognised in their field, is not just hubris; it is actually the very definition of an attack on academic freedom and indeed an attack on freedom of speech in higher education.
Researchers should be able to utilise their expertise to pursue pathways of knowledge that will add to the body of knowledge of expertise in this country. That is what academic freedom is all about. That is what we mean when we talk about the integrity of academic freedom. But that is not the only example of this government's attack on universities and on academic freedom.
~~Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—~~
The member opposite, the member for Goldstein, likes to interject. Unfortunately, Member for Goldstein, I have to speak out on this—10 years working in the university sector, and when I speak to my colleagues who are still in the university sector they are aghast at the level of interference in academic freedom and academic integrity that this government feels free to undertake. They are absolutely shocked by the decisions taken by the former minister for education in vetoing ARC grants and the current move around fee changes that is supposed to lead to more STEM places but has actually been completely counterproductive.
When we talk about academic freedom and freedom of speech, I think about a gentleman in my electorate of Cowan who called me the other day. He's a mature-age student wanting to go back to university to finish his first degree; he hasn't done a degree before. He's got three kids. He enrolled in a degree in history, because he's interested in history—interested in biblical history, interested in that body of knowledge that has a lot of relevance to how we conduct ourselves today. So he enrolled in a degree and studied his first semester. This semester he's been told that the cost of his degree has doubled, and he can no longer afford to continue studying in that degree. Who deemed that this man's pursuit of knowledge is not worthy? Who is it that deemed that there should be no academic freedom for this man to pursue a degree in history? Who is it that decides what young people get to choose to study? Who is it that decides what people who wish to return to university, or get a degree for the first time, in their 40s or 50s get to study?
The biggest threat to academic freedom is the actions of this government. They need to stop their protracted campaign against the universities, they need to stop the cuts to universities, they need to stop this ideological war against the humanities, and they need to demonstrate that they really are about freedom of speech and academic freedom. On this side of the House, we are about academic freedom. That's why we support this bill—because it makes sense. But I call on the government to do more than just this bill and to actually stand behind what they say about freedom of speech, academic freedom and the integrity of academic freedom.
~~Tim Wilson~~
I always like to follow the member for Cowan, because, if nothing else, her substance and sass always contribute to the debate, in both her physical manifestation and her words. I note she's laughing and enjoying everything I'm saying. I do have a strong affection for her, because, if nothing else, she contributes and makes a contribution with passion and commitment.
That the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom Of Speech) Bill 2020 needs to be introduced is, frankly, embarrassing. It's embarrassing because it has got to a situation where universities are not the home of free and intellectual inquiry to pursue the advancement of our nation and our collective knowledge, scientific inquiry and humanity. In fact, when I served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, before being elected to this place, I wrote an article specifically looking at higher education and some of the issues that were faced, particularly where universities refused to accept centres focused on free and intellectual inquiry, and it finished with a joke: 'What is the opposite of diversity? Sadly, it has become university.'
That's why I say it's embarrassing. Universities should be the pillars on which we build the intellectual foundations of our country. They should be the pillars on which young minds, thirsty and enthusiastic, are challenged and confront difficult realities, where we hold a window up to our society—economically, socially, politically, environmentally and scientifically—and where matters are debated on the basis of their merit, not on the basis of their conformity to rigid ideology. That we are now faced with a number of examples where universities have been bullied, silenced or intimidated into silence should embarrass them. Where are the university councils and university senates standing up for their core purpose? Why is it that legislation needs to be introduced to tell them to do their core job—because this is their core job?
Take the kerfuffle that surrounded the establishment of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation to study the great works of our own culture and history. It is not the sole source or the font of all knowledge of our community and civilisation, and nobody is arguing that it is, but that some people seem to think that it's acceptable to exclude these works from academic inquiry because of the authors or the times, considering the incredible contribution they have made to the foundation of some of the most free and prosperous societies on earth, should embarrass universities. That universities in Western Australia rejected funding to support a centre that focused on how we can achieve consensus around issues like the science and policy of climate change should embarrass those universities. That we have activists that want to stand up against the bullying and intimidatory behaviour of Communist parties around the world and they find themselves in a position of sanction or censure should embarrass universities. Because that is not the basis in which free intellectual inquiry, research, activism and debate should be conducted in a free liberal democracy such as ours.
The legislation we have before us today should not be needed. But here we are. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will strengthen protections for freedom of speech and academic freedom on university campuses, and, by default, Australia. The legislation will bring the Higher Education Support Act 2003 into line with the French model code which all universities have agreed to adopt this year. The legislation is a culmination of a careful process, identifying what needs to be done to support free and open debate.
On 14 November 2018, the Minister for Education announced that the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert French, would review existing material regarding free speech on university campuses, which led to this process. The report concluded on 6 April 2019 that the protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom could be strengthened by the adoption of model codes embedded in higher education providers' institutional regulations or policies on a voluntary basis. There were minor amendments that were suggested and adopted. The amendments would align the language currently used around free intellectual inquiry with the proposed model code's identification of free speech and academic freedom, bringing greater clarity and consistency.
Since then, we've had universities considering and looking at different models that can be adopted. Of course, it's culminated in the situation where we have legislation which enables free intellectual inquiry in university campuses. But we should never lose sight of this moment and why it matters to pass this legislation—as reluctant, and frankly, as embarrassing as it may be—because, in the end, free and intellectual inquiry is critical to the foundations of our society. It's actually the wellspring where so much of our society succeeds, and we should never lose sight of that.
There are so many reasons for this—we can go through them and, if you wish to, you can read my speeches when I was Human Rights Commissioner—and we've got plenty of other great works, from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty through to discussions of the present day. But the principles remain consistent. The point of free speech is not just because it's the manifestation of people's freedom of conscience and the freedom to impart ideas—though it is that—it's also the opportunity to test, particularly in a university environment, bad ideas and have them exposed by the light of day. It's so that bigotry and prejudice within communities can be challenged and confronted, and we can see our common humanity. It's so bad ideas are tested against evidence so that our community and our society can progress.
As soon as you create a linear model of thinking, an ideological framework which constrains that debate, you set humanity and our country on a course against progress. You deny people the capacity to understand what is right and what is wrong on a path towards a made-perfect humanity. We want to ensure that future generations do not just carry the learned knowledge and history of our community and our civilisation and all of the bits that feed into it but can continue their journey in contributing to it to compound the success of future generations. When that's denied in an environment specifically to promote education, research and challenging people's thinking, as universities are, you don't just undermine education, although you do; you undermine the potential of future generations to succeed and to give their children the inheritance that we received and wish to give to them. There are plenty of societies in human history that have constrained free and open discussion because they thought they had the perfect solution, anchored on an ideological hubris that they somehow had reached a form of perfection for themselves. All that history showed, like democracy itself, is that it meant there were no safety valves to test that madness which undermined and corroded the very foundations of their society.
That's why freedom of speech goes to the core of liberalism itself. It's because it's necessary to progress society itself, the economy itself—community, culture, history and tradition themselves. It's about the decentralisation of power from the select few to the empowerment of millions of people and for truth to be spoken to power, including in this place. And it doesn't matter what the context or the setting is; we must always stand up for it and by it—not the selective representations that so many people make when people stand up for ideas that they agree with. It was misattributed to him, but the Voltairian principle, nonetheless, stays the same.
Sadly, too many people in this place, and outside this place—particularly those in the modern, progressive Left—make bold claims and commitments to free speech so long as it confirms to their world view. We have seen this before and we will see it again: they bastardise language with concepts like fair speech, which means that people's thought and expression should be anchored to their identity or that the limits in which they can express themselves are simply based on the recipient of the expression.
We know the history of free speech and that when you empower censorship you empower a censor—centralised power to dictate what people can say, what they can express and the circumstances in which they can do that. That suppresses the advancement of our species. That's what free speech is about: it's not just about the expression of ideas; it is about power. Censorship is about the centralisation of power at the expense of the individual and in favour of the privileged few. Free speech is about the empowerment of the many—for diversity, for debate and for the individual. No society has ever succeeded where it has sought to empower the few to dictate over the many. The only sustainable societies that exist today which continue to compound, grow and contribute, not just for themselves but to those beyond their borders, are those which empower individuals, families and communities as the foundation of the success of their country and their civilisation.
This legislation may be targeted specifically at issues related to higher education, but the reverberation and ripples which it sets extend far wider for the advancement of our society. We should never lose sight of that. Today is one of those moments when we have legislation before us which cannot have just an immediate effect but which can continue to contribute to the advancement of us as a people through the empowerment of individuals in their contributions to the progress of humanity.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~