Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³» statement - Crime and Corruption Commission
Published 3 September 2020
Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³» was pleased to be informed by the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) on Friday 28 August 2020 that they had concluded their assessment of corrupt conduct allegations made against the Chancellor, Mr Peter Varghese AO and former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Høj AC.
The CCC advised they would not take further action as there was no evidence to suggest corrupt conduct. The CCC considered the information provided and conducted their own additional research before making the decision to not take further action.
Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³» thanks the CCC for their efficient assessment of the allegations and their confirmation that the Chancellor and former Vice-Chancellor have no case to answer.
Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³» Chancellor, Peter Varghese response to Senator James Paterson’s comments in Parliament on 12 May
Published 13 May 2020
Last night in the Senate, Senator Paterson suggested there was something improper about the performance payment paid to the Vice-Chancellor.
Decisions on the Vice-Chancellor’s performance are made by the Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³» Senate’s Senior Remuneration Committee chaired by me and comprising of other Senate members with extensive experience in the public and private sectors. It is a rigorous process involving the setting and evaluation of 16 KPIs that include research performance, teaching quality, financial stewardship, student experience, diversity and inclusion.
The Committee stands by its decision and its recognition of Professor Høj’s outstanding leadership which, among other things, has taken Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³» from a global ranking of 90 when he commenced in 2012 to 54 in the year for which he was paid his performance payment. In that year he also, against much opposition, led Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»’s successful negotiations with the Ramsay Centre to offer a degree course in the study of western civilisation and reached the target of $500 million raised in philanthropy donations.
Senator Paterson’s comments quoted selectively from the Remuneration Committee’s documents to unfairly attack Professor Høj’s character under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege. He took exception to the fact that one of the 16 KPIs related to Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»’s research relationship with China and the attraction of students from China.
Fees from Chinese students account for approximately 20% of Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»’s revenue and China is one of the university’s largest research partners. It would be surprising if the management of this relationship was not one of the Vice-Chancellor’s KPIs. There is nothing subversive about this.
As a former Secretary of DFAT and Director General of Australia’s peak intelligence agency, I am not unfamiliar with both the risks and the opportunities in our relationship with China. As Chancellor of Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³», I am on the public record about the importance of managing an over reliance on the Chinese student market and the need to take steps, such as establishing a future fund, to deal with unexpected downturns in revenue from international students.
Diversification will best be achieved by growing other markets not radically shrinking the China market. That applies as much to universities as it does to other sectors with a high exposure to China such as resources, tourism and agriculture.
Professor Høj has been criticised for his links to China but it is worth noting that he has been a significant contributor to the design of the Government’s framework on how to manage areas of research with foreign partners that may have national security implications.
Australia has to come to grips with China’s emergence as a leading economy and a research powerhouse. Our political systems and values are very different. But boycotting China is not a sensible option. What we need is clear-eyed engagement with China which serves our interests and is faithful to our values. We would do well to make that the touchstone of our approach, whether as a nation or a university.