Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 2:50:20 to 3:00:58
TEQSA officials discuss regulatory compliance assessments and the procedural handling of the Briggs report regarding university governance.
Topics: Education, Orders for documents
Speakers: Dr Mary Russell, Senator Paul Scarr, Speaker 2, Senator Jess Walsh, Unknown Speaker, Interjection, Senator Matt O'Sullivan
>> Um, and we'll now call uh
always need extra charge.
>> We'll just suspend for a little moment while they come to the table, please. uh welcome to you all and welcome Dr. Russell. Do you have an opening statement tonight?
>> Um thank you chair. We have a brief opening statement in relation to matters which we anticipate will be covered in questions if we may.
>> Please proceed. Yes.
>> Thank you for the opportunity to make a short opening statement. Um, as this committee is aware, um, TEXA commenced its compliance assessment of the Australian National University on 27th of June 2025 after received a range of serious concerns about A&U's governance, culture, and leadership. On the 2nd of September 2026, TEXA concluded its compliance assessment um, when our commissioners made a decision to impose four conditions on the registration of the ANU. A short form of these findings and the full text of the conditions are published on the TEXA website. Um, and we will table a copy of that document which is already public. I note from previous hearings that the commission wishes to understand as fully as possible the findings of Texas compliance assessment and the basis for the conditions imposed. I also acknowledge the committee's cooperation in not seeking document production when it could have undermined the live compliance assessment previously. TEXA recognizes the significant public interest in its decisions and carefully considered its options for publishing further details about its findings and reasons. This included whether the statement of reasons provided to the ANU um could be published either in full or with redactions, whether a longer description of Texas findings and reasons could be published, and whether any other material which was before Texas commissioners and which informed their decision should be published. There's a substantial amount of personal information which was before the Texas commissioners and which is reflected in the reasons. This includes a wide range of information or opinions about current and former council members, executives, employees, contractors and students. Some of this information was explicitly obtained on the basis that it was confidential or that the uh individual's consent would be sought prior to further disclosure. Further, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act of um 2011, the TEXAR Act does not authorize the publication of personal information by TEXA. This led TEXA to the view that it could not publish the reasons in an unredacted form. It was not practical or realistic to seek consent from a the range of individuals whose personal information appears in the reasons. The volume of personal information also meant that it was not practical or realistic to prepare a redacted form of reasons um or a longer description of Texas reasons which fairly reflects those reasons. Disclosure of much um of the information could cause real harm either to individuals or to the ANU's own um live processes um uh which are However, I note and accept that statutory privacy or confidentialities requirements are not of themselves a sufficient basis to refuse to provide information to the committee. In anticipation that the committee would require TEXA to provide a copy of its reasons, TEXA has prepared a redacted form of the reasons which while containing some personal information redacts information that if published would prejudice um the ongoing processes um at the ANU to address the issues in Texas reasons um or would involve unreasonable harm to individual safety, well-being or reputation. TEXA has kept redactions to a minimum and avoided the redaction of information unless this kind of harm would be likely to arise. I also note that it's a matter um for this committee to consider whether it's appropriate to publish material received in evidence and whether to afford a right of reply to those identified in evidence before this committee. I respectfully ask that the committee agrees to receive Texas statements of reasons with minimal redactions on that basis. As I've noted previously, Miss Briggs Briggs provided me with a report on the 7th of April, 2026, as well as further amendments to her report on 20th of April um uh 2026, 21st of April 26, and the 12th of May 2026. I carefully considered the relevance and weight of Miss Briggs report when determining um how to brief commissioners on the compliance assessment. I also carefully considered the nature of procedural fairness TEXA would be required to afford based on the nature of material which was provided or which could be provided to the commissioners. In doing so, I noted that those interviewed by Miss Briggs provided information on the basis that the information they provided was confidential and would not be released without their consent. Having these considered these matters, I determined not to provide the commissioners with Miss Bragg's report and I concluded that the principal value of Miss Bragg's report um uh on to TEXA was her identification of issues requiring further investigation by TEXA records or discussion between Miss Briggs and other individuals including um current and former um AU officials. Further, if Miss Bragg's report is disclosed in whole or part, um could it could um cause unreasonable harm to the safety, well-being or reputation of individuals who are identified or identifiable in the report. As such, I consider it would not be reasonable or appropriate to publicly disclose Miss Bragg's report. Nonetheless, Miss Bragg's report informs significant further lines of inquiry which are reflected in Texas reasons. Subsequent to Miss Briggs inquiries which led her to her report, Texa pursued a range of significant lines of inquiry which are reflected in its statement of reasons. As Texas reasons for decision are being made available to the committee, I trust that the committee um has an appropriate basis to consider Texas decision making and regulatory action. So we are happy to provide those um redacted reasons to the committee today.
>> Um chair, if I could just may make a remark um [clears throat] that my recollection of the rules of estimates are that um if Dr. Russell were to seek to table a document that it would have to be published. Uh the rules of estimates are different from other committee proceedings and I understand that your intention is that it's not published by the committee. If
I may clarify, we're not um offering to produce the Briggs report because we feel that would be problematic if it were published. However, we think that the um the reasons or the statement of reasons um with these minimal redactions can be provided to the committee and could be made public.
>> Interpreted from your opening statement because as the minister says that correct, we're not able to take as part of this process anyformational material in camera or in in private. So um perhaps we have it distributed to us and
>> yeah before we accept it we can have a look at it and then
>> yeah I think we need to have a look before we accept it. I I >> I'll make if I could with indulgence ch if I could make a few comments. First point I'd make is in in my experience uh senators are very much alive to the issues which you raised Dr. Brussel and there are procedures in a non-estimates context where information can be received in a certain way which isn't published and decisions can be made by the committee after it's had a had the benefit of actually reviewing the document as to what should be made public, what should be kept confidential, what's in the public interest. But it's difficult for us to come to that view without having seen the document. And then as the minister said uh as I understand it if you if you table the document now it is going to be public.
>> So so I guess we just need to clarify. So you are happy for the document you're seeking
>> we are
>> to distribute to be public. >> Okay.
>> Okay. But
>> right well why don't you circulate that to us as a as a committee?
>> But the sorry the only other point I'd be making Dr. Russell is the fact that you do that doesn't mean that we're necessarily accepting the redactions for all purposes. understand we still reserve our right uh my view is chair uh that we still reserve our right as a committee to come to a view that we could potentially seek the redacted material though >> your process would be would give you an opportunity to
>> yes
>> provide a view
>> which is why I wanted to explain the basis on which we've made um minimal redactions and have done so in um discussion with au to make sure that um doing so releasing the redacted material would not jeopardize any um ongoing um matters.
>> Okay.
>> So, I think we're it's okay. Yep.
>> Yeah. We we often uh we'll make a later decision on tableabling anyway. So,
>> that's fine, too. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. In which case, I believe we're happy to proceed into questions. Y >> um could I could we have your opening statement as well if we don't already? Thank you. Um Senator Scarr.