Report Details
Executive Summary
Summary of Findings
1.1 The following is a summary of the Standing Committee on Public Administration’s report findings, by chapter.
Chapter 3: Role of the Visitor
3.24 The Visitor is an inefficient means of redress given that there are neither formal nor well known procedures in place which can assist petitioners in raising their complaints.
3.25 The person appointed by the empowering legislation, the Governor, is not in a position to carry out the task at hand.
3.26 Particularly for the individual, the cost of taking a complaint to the Visitor is prohibitive in that universities invariably brief counsel. All costs of investigation by the Solicitor-General or others must be borne by the State when an investigation is conducted making it an enormously expensive exercise for both sides. The lack of procedural guidance within the Visitor jurisdiction leads to increased costs and bewilderment.
3.27 Courts in an administrative law setting are reluctant to interfere where institutions have their own internal governance, such as a Visitor procedure at a university.
3.28 The Visitor’s current review role is no longer necessary in light of the other avenues of redress available:
3.28.1 The Ombudsman;
3.28.2 The Anti-Corruption Commission;
3.28.3 The Ministry of Fair Trading (it is Ministry policy to refer such matters to the Ombudsman);
3.28.4 The Auditor General;
3.28.5 The Director of the Equal Opportunity in Public Employment; and
3.28.6 The Equal Opportunity Commission.
Chapter 4: Alternatives to the Visitor
4.45 The Visitor’s jurisdiction as it stands restricts access to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in respect of certain “domestic” issues of a public university in Western Australian, namely the examining of privileges, rights and duties of an employer (the relevant university) and employees.
4.46 The WA Ombudsman is a more efficient and cost effective method for reviewing internal university administrative decisions than the Visitor but can only afford limited redress to the complainant in the form of recommendations.
4.47 More consideration should be given to the feasibility of establishing a panel of experts to assist the WA Ombudsman in investigating disputes that arise from academic matters at the Western Australian public universities.
Chapter 5: Internal Dispute Resolution Processes
5.22 The Western Australian public universities have a tradition of academic freedom and institutional autonomy and the right to adopt appropriate internal dispute resolution structures.
5.23 The Western Australian public universities examined should give further consideration to the adoption of Student Ombudsmen.
5.24 In the event that the role of the Visitor is reduced to being purely ceremonial, each institution should be given the flexibility to adopt an independent internal process of review of individual matters and dispute resolution processes as a whole. These must comply with the rules of procedural fairness.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends the amendment of the Acts empowering all the publicly funded universities in Western Australia to abolish the position of the Visitor within these institutions, as it is inappropriate, outdated and unnecessary.
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the WA Ombudsman should use his discretionary power to consult relevant experts to expedite dispute resolution.
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that Western Australian public universities assess and review the effectiveness of internal dispute and appeals mechanisms within their institutions on a periodic basis ensuring that the principles of procedural fairness are expressed within those mechanisms.
|