by Dr Don Fuller

Charles Darwin University policy and governance officer Matthew Giakoumatos wrote an interesting and thought-provoking opinion piece published in the NT News last weekend, which correctly pointed to underlying problems for a democratic system if certain conventions are not respected.

Some of the most important conventions that underpin the Westminster system of government are unwritten.

Firstly, he pointed to the tendency for recently elected governments to rest on what they term a mandate to undertake certain actions. However, the question of what is meant by a mandate claimed by governments has been subject to considerable debate and differences of opinion over many years.

An important reason for this is that different voters tend to elect a government based on a range of issues and for many voters the main reason they vote for a particular person or party, may be very different from someone else.

In addition, a mandate may refer to one important policy proposal, rather than a range of policies, to be adopted by a new government.

As Giakoumatos suggests, claims of mandates become disturbing when they are invoked to support a claim that the government has a right to govern across all decision areas, without hindrance.

More often it can be expected that mandates are more akin to ‘mirages’; the wishful thinking of those claiming to have received them, and a common rhetorical device that can be used in attempts to convince themselves and others that they are acting in the name and in the interests of the voting public.

He also correctly pointed out that in the first sitting, the government gave the opposition and members of the public virtually no time to consider important bills, some of which were advocating major social and community changes, not only likely to affect the Territory but to attract considerable national and international comment and debate.

What quicker way would there be to make the Territory into a national and international pariah?

In a properly functioning democracy there are several stages that a proposed law must go through in order to become a law. These stages give members of Parliament the chance to research, make speeches about, consider changes to and vote on potential laws.

Each stage is important to ensure that all areas of importance in the bill have been addressed. Such consideration is fundamental to a soundly operating democratic system.

The usual path of a bill will be a first reading speech. This is followed by what is termed the second reading, where members are given the opportunity to debate and vote on the bill. Where the legislation is deemed to be important it can also be referred to a committee stage where there can be public input into the bill before reporting back to the Parliament.

The fact that none of this has occurred is a matter for serious comment and concern from thoughtful and caring Territorians.

In addition, reports suggest a secretive, non-consultative approach around the appointment of a Territory Co-ordinator, who will be a person whose powers are likely to undermine ministerial responsibility and the purview of the Legislative Assembly.

These are both important requirements in a properly functioning democratic government.

As politicians and senior members of the community such as heads of universities undermine the functioning of government, is it any wonder that the community is losing faith in our democratic system?

Recent research in a number of democratic countries indicate a structural collapse in the community’s faith in public institutions. People are losing faith in the way democracy is functioning.

However, it is likely that people are not losing faith in the concept of democracy, but rather the ability of current institutions to deliver at the ethical and governance standards required for a properly functioning democracy.

This strongly supports the need for continual discussion and debate on these important matters, particularly by a person working within the position of policy and governance officer at one of the Territory’s largest government-funded institutions.

This should be a matter for public debate, not squashed and rebuked by the senior manager of the university.

In response to the valuable and constructive comments by Giakoumatos, CDU vice-chancellor Scott Bowman’s opinion piece in the NT News may be regarded as crass, basic and an obvious attempt at self-serving.

Bowman avoided any attempt at engaging in more complex, intellectual comment, as is his want. He is happy to be known as a ‘knock about sort of bloke’.

However, it is most unfortunate for the people of the NT that they have not had an academic leader who could lead or stimulate important social, economic or political debate over many recent vice-chancellors, even though this is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy.

It appears that Bowman’s opinion piece is little more than an attempt to ingratiate himself with the new government.

This is despite the fact that he loudly exclaimed on a number of occasions that he was a proud supporter of the Voice, a signature Labor party policy.

When Labor were in power in the Territory, this was a vice-chancellor that saw his, and the university’s key role, as being an agent of social change.

Now, it appears, he has completely changed his tune.

He stated that he wanted to make it very clear that the views expressed by Giakoumatos were not that of CDU.

However, one is left wondering why does CDU as a higher education organisation expect to have one particular view on important social and political issues?

It is not supposed to act like a corporation or a large, government department, despite the desires of Bowman.

If so, it would be one of the few universities in the western world that would claim this. But then very few, if any, would be led by a person without an under-graduate degree.

Bowman has form for attempting to stifle academic freedom of views and expression, but appears to not be a quick learner.

As reported in the NT Independent, Bowman was exposed at the federal Senate inquiry into the proposed Middle Arm industrial precinct recently for attempting to stifle academic freedom and failing to disclose glaring conflicts of interest with major Middle Arm gas proponents in the university’s submission to the inquiry, which appears to have breached academic policies and marred the university’s reputation.

Bowman faced the inquiry in Darwin where the public at times laughed at his responses, and later applauded after independent ACT Senator David Pocock told the vice-chancellor he expected a university leader paid more than $600,000 a year to better understand basic concepts of academic freedom and the need to declare conflicts of interest.

The vice-chancellor was forced to publicly admit his failure to disclose conflicts of interest – including that CDU chancellor Paul Henderson is a gas lobbyist and one of the architects of Middle Arm – as well as his failure to disclose the cash and gifts supplied to the university by the gas industry and Middle Arm proponents.

This is an ironic example of the decline in respect that can occur for such an important position.

Bowman wades further into the morass by claiming in his response to the article by Giakoumatos that ‘he respects that all Territorians are entitled to their views.’

Well, I can hear people saying: “Thanks very much Professor! Aren’t we just so lucky to have a free-thinking vice-chancellor that lets other Territorians express their views?”

However, what he should be more concerned about is his responsibility for preserving academic freedom within the university rather than congratulating himself for not wanting to control the views of all Territorians.

He then proceeds to state how impressed he is with the government’s ‘laser-like focus’ on achieving their aims and objectives.

But really, do most Territorians respect or care what he thinks?

He stated that he saw, “the government, led by the Chief Minister the Hon Lia Finocchiaro MLA methodically setting about the establishment of a new government – working closely with the bureaucracy; business and industry; and the broader community – to address that which it said it would do”.

However, unlike Giakoumatos, he offers no evidence of this.

If it is not purely a ‘President Trump gut feeling’, perhaps it is an exercise in sophistry? Even worse, the lack of evidence or well argued and logical facts, suggests it may be an exercise in obsequiousness.

If the latter, it further demeans the position of CDU.

He further states that, “sweeping to government with 17 seats the CLP has earned the right to be decisive”.

This shows no understanding of the importance of the factors that Giakoumatos discusses for a successful democracy and a harmonious, unified community, essential to the successful growth and development of the Territory.

Rather the graceless, boorish approach proposed by Bowman is likely to lead to division and negativity.

Bowman also states that economic growth and development has to be delivered and the government is providing a transparent plan. Well, if Bowman knows what this, he is the only one in the Territory who does – including members of the government.

So, it would be very valuable if he could explain what this is to the people of the Territory, rather than his continual dependence on untested and meaningless generalisations.

It is instructive to understand his concern and interest in detailed information given he dispatched “his representative” to the meeting involving the new Chief Minister and the Treasurer where the economic position of the government was outlined, including “areas of focus”.

If he was overseas at the time chasing more international students, then it speaks to his confused priorities, given his political statements and apparent concerns.

Bowman states that CDU will support better health outcomes for Territorians by training more health workers, including doctors.

However, he omits to explain why it is necessary to have two medical schools in a city the size of Darwin and why this is not considered as purely empire building and a complete waste of resources.

He further states that “the more of these professionals that are ‘home grown’ the better for all of us”.

This completely contradicts the wide benefit that the Territory and Australia more generally, derives from both interstate and overseas migration.

Interestingly, if the Territory and Australia were to rely just on the ‘home grown’, the economy that he purports to know about would slide into rapid terminal decline.

Rather fascinatingly, this would include the vice-chancellor excluding himself from his position, as he is very far from home grown.

He points to CDU TAFE and higher education being responsible for undertaking the training of Territorians without alluding to the fact that vocational education and training, and TAFE training, have been in substantial turmoil over the last five vice-chancellors at CDU.

The Institution has gone around in complete circles a number of times, as it attempts to decide whether to combine VET and TAFE programs with higher education as a combined dual sector university, or whether the two training arms should remain as separate entities.

In the process, trades and technical training has undergone significant budget cuts and reorganisation arrangements. This has had a major impact on the effectiveness of CDU as a training organisation.

As a result, a number of private providers have expanded rapidly, given the continuing CDU difficulties.

Finally Bowman in full political stance, states that CDU is “ready, willing and able to support the CLP government…”

This is an amazing statement from a vice-chancellor of a university that should remain above the political fray.

This is a vice-chancellor who needs to be far more concerned with strengthening democracy in the Territory community rather than appearing to wish to ingratiate himself with whoever happens to be in power.

The vice-chancellor needs to understand rapidly, before causing more damage, that in our system of democracy, the rules that govern the pursuit and exercise of power and influence are underpinned by two principles.

Firstly, the accountability of government to the people and, secondly, the obligation of governments and independent institutions to act according to law and in the public interest.

For the second principle, there is an important need for a set of agencies, most notably Parliament, the courts and a range of accountability agencies with sufficient independence to safeguard the public interest. This importantly includes universities.

In other words, democracy as we know it, isn’t just a numbers game for finding out and serving who governs but also a set of disciplines about how our institutions, such as universities, should go about their business as servants of the people.

Currently the vice-chancellor exhibits behaviours that are contrary to these principles.

It is far from clear therefore, how CDU is fulfilling this important responsibility to the Territory people and community.

The neutrality of the university as an institution arises not from indifference and insensitivity to important political and social issues.

Rather, it arises out of respect for free inquiry, and the obligation to encourage, and allow a diversity of viewpoints for what is known as academic freedom of inquiry; a cornerstone of university intellectual thought and debate since the early nineteenth century.

This is something that senior managers of CDU need to appreciate and that managing an important entity such as a university is not only about maximising international student intakes and management for money-making.

Currently CDU is running at an $18.3 million deficit, despite receiving large grants recognised at certain stages as revenue. Presumably without such relatively large grants for the Darwin city campus, the loss would have been far worse.

As previously predicted, if student numbers remain low, the new city campus is likely to be a large white elephant hanging around the university and the Territory’s neck.

This will have major implications for an already very badly stretched Territory budget.

Such university money-making has often been diverted to excessive salaries to senior management and large, unnecessary building programs, further alienating members of the wider community.

Is it any wonder that CDU is running at a loss – and not only in financial terms?