.
Academic Freedom on Trial: Peter Ridd v James Cook University (2021)
Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University in May 2018 for findings of serious misconduct stemming from criticism of powerful scientific institutions and the quality of scientific research relating to the Great Barrier Reef. He won his case for dismissal which was later overturned at federal level.
The Enterprise Agreement
Ridd’s employment with JCU was governed by the Enterprise Agreement, which included the following clauses:
Clause 13.3: “the Code of Conduct is not intended to detract from Clause 14, Intellectual Freedom.”
Clause 14.1-14.2: Imposes an obligation on JCU to act in a manner consistent with the protection and promotion of intellectual freedom within the university, including the right of staff to
“Pursue critical and open inquiry”
“Participate in public debate and express opinions about issues and ideas related to their respective fields of competence”; and
“Express opinions about the operations of JCU and higher education policy more generally.”
Clause 14.3: “All staff have the right to express unpopular or controversial views. However, this comes with a responsibility to respect the rights of others and they do not have the right to harass, vilify, bully or intimidate those who disagree with their views. These rights are linked to the responsibilities of staff to support JCU as a place of independent learning and thought where ideas may be put forward and opinion expressed freely.”
At no time has it been asserted that Ridd engaged in vilification, harassing, bullying, or intimidation with anyone he disagrees with.
Confidentiality
On numerous occasions JCU directed Ridd to maintain confidentiality about the potentially unlawful disciplinary proceedings that he was subject to. It is likely that there was no basis under the Code of Conduct or the JCU Enterprise Agreement for making such strident confidentiality directions.
Clause 54.1 of the Enterprise Agreement provides that “the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice will be applied to all Misconduct and Serious Misconduct processes”.
Clause 54.1.5 provides that the “confidentiality of all parties involved in the management of Misconduct and Serious Misconduct processes will be respected and all information gathered and recorded will remain confidential” subject to any obligations there may be to disclose information under legislation or other rules.
The argument that the confidentiality obligations would be designed to protect the university are an extraordinary claim. Not allowing a person subject to the process to talk about the process publicly—which amounts to a secret trial—is the opposite of natural justice and procedural fairness. It is almost certain the provision is intended to protect the party subject to the process – that the university is under an obligation to protect confidentiality (for instance, under Cl 54.1.5(c) a person can give consent to JCU to release any information it collects or records, suggesting that since the university collecting or recording information, it has a responsibility to maintain confidentiality).
https://ipa.org.au/academic-freedom-on-trial
