Ms O’CONNOR question to MINISTER for EDUCATION, Ms PALMER
[2.36 p.m.]
I’d like to ask questions about the conflict of interest of the vice-chancellor of our only public university who has accepted a paid position on the Deloitte board, a consultancy with which the University of Tasmania has numerous contracts. Are you aware that documents obtained under RTI show the vice-chancellor was allowed to drive the university’s consideration of his Deloitte appointment such that the appointment was presented to the university council as a fait accompli, long after he’d applied for the position and only after he’d been offered the position when acceptance was presumed? Further, are you aware of legislative and internal UTAS governance requirements that the vice-chancellor should not have applied for the Deloitte position before obtaining approval from the university council?
ANSWER
Madam Deputy President, I thank the member for Hobart for the question. The University of Tasmania is a statutory corporation and operates as a self-governing organisation. I want to set the scene before I go into the detail of the question. The Tasmanian government and the Minister for Education have no role in the university’s internal governance or executive appointment decisions. Decisions regarding external appointments undertaken by its vice chancellor, including any board roles, are matters for the university as the employer. Under the Administrative Arrangements Order, I am the responsible minister for the University of Tasmania Act 1992, which is the establishing, foundational and governing act of UTAS. It establishes UTAS, sets out its functions and provides its governance structure and accountability requirements. However, universities are self-governing institutions. Their enabling legislation vests responsibility for governance and management of the university in a governing body which is accountable to the relevant government for university operations. The Minister for Education’s role under the act is limited to appointing two members to the university council and tabling the UTAS annual report in parliament.
I know that there was a lot of discussion around the matter that you raised with regard to the vice-chancellor. To ensure that I had comfort, for me personally, I will refer you to the minutes of the university council, Friday 27 June 2025, where I was pleased to read in detail that following an initial email that was sent by the chancellor to the council on 26 May advising that the vice-chancellor had been approached about a non-executive director appointment with Deloitte. What I read from the minutes is that members discussed the various considerations that were associated with that appointment. They noted both the positive benefits that could come from that for the university and the professional development for the vice chancellor through exposure to organisational and governance, best practice, economic insights and strategic perspectives from relevant sectors. Members also discussed the time commitment that would be required and they agreed it would be manageable, noting the vice chancellor’s other external commitments, which had involved a similar time commitment, had ceased by that point.
There was also a discussion, as noted in the minutes, about any remuneration and the council gave its opinion on that, and then members further noted that Prof Black would take annual leave to attend Deloitte board meetings and endorsed the proposed approach to manage any potential conflicts, including the vice chancellor not being involved in any decisions about commercial arrangements with Deloitte.
That is where I went as Education minister to take comfort that there had been a proper process with regard to the university council. But, as I say, my role is those two areas under that piece of legislation, which is appointing the two members to the university council and tabling the UTAS annual report in parliament.
Supplementary Question
Ms O’CONNOR – I’ll ask a supplementary question based on the minister’s answer. I was glad to hear the minister recognise that she is responsible under the administrative arrangements for the act that governs the University of Tasmania. In your answer just then, minister, you effectively confirmed that the body, which is supposed to be the primary governing body of UTAS, the council, did not actually make a decision on Prof Black’s acceptance of the Deloitte board appointment. It noted it and then it endorsed a conflict of interest arrangement.
Do you, as minister responsible for Education, accept that, having the vice chancellor of our only public university, sitting on one of the big four consultancies, a consultancy which UTAS has numerous contracts with, is a naked conflict of interest which simply and cannot be resolved or mitigated?
Ms PALMER – I’m not going to get drawn into giving my opinion. What I am going to say is that, as recently as 22 January this year, I wrote to the university confirming Tasmania’s endorsement of the Australian Government’s new university governance principles and recommendations, and highlighting the importance of the University of Tasmania being able to demonstrate strong governance supported by robust systems and processes.
I also note that the Chancellor wrote to myself and, I understand, other members as well, on 3 March, providing an update on governance. This included the significant work the university is doing right now to improve its governance practices in response to national reform work and other reviews and inquiries. And, as I say, I was pleased to see that there had been a process with regard to the approach to the vice chancellor about that non-executive director appointment with Deloitte.
