While the French Review of university free speech has been with Education Minister Dan Tehan for weeks there is no sign of the draft model code it includes being released. So, good on the National Tertiary Education Union for putting the issue back on the agenda by releasing its response.

“The NTEU shares your views that there is no evidence of a crisis of free speech at Australian universities and that the institutional autonomy of our universities must be at the centre of any discussion around academic freedom or free speech,” national president Alison Barnes writes Justice Robert French.

The union suggests wording in the existing Higher Education Support Act, “unnecessarily conflates” academic freedom and freedom of speech which creates confusion in university rules and policies. However, the NTEU rejects any idea that “free speech” should be addressed in either the act or by individual institutions, suggesting to Mr French;

“As you highlight in your draft code, university students and staff are entitled to enjoy the same free speech rights as other Australians. Therefore, we believe that any attempts to codify free speech in university policy is not only unnecessary, but will in all likelihood only act to further constrain such rights on university campuses. The issue of free speech should remain within the realm of civic society.”

However, the union argues that the words “academic freedom” should be included in HESA, to protect staff from university employers, which want the issue covered in policies, that are not part of enforceable employment conditions.

And the NTEU warns the reach of a model code will inevitably extend, even if not intended to have statutory force. “If and when such a code is published, the temptation will be to mandate it either in legislation or in Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency standards.”

“Codifying, even by way of principle, an enigmatic concept like academic freedom by definition constrains its application. The unintended consequence of any such codification, especially in its current form, we fear will be to limit rather than liberate academic freedom and free speech.”

The union also proposes organisers of any campus event involving visitors be responsible for security costs and that staff should not be precluded from including course content, “on the grounds that it may offend or shock any student(s).”