Heat on Adelaide University chancellor Catherine Branson after Independent Commissioner Against Corruption statement
Adelaide University chancellor Catherine Branson’s judgment has been called into question in an ICAC statement at a febrile time for the institution.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Rathjen investigated over Melbourne misconduct claims
- Adelaide Uni’s former vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen groped staff
Adelaide University chancellor Catherine Branson has had a distinguished legal and judicial career but she is yet to master the art of high-stakes politics.
That is the inescapable conclusion from Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Bruce Lander’s statement, released on Wednesday, in which he outlines key moments in Ms Branson’s ascension from deputy to chancellor in July.
The ICAC investigation focused on former Adelaide vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen, finding he hugged, kissed and touched the bottom of one female employee and hugged another worker in “entirely inappropriate” conduct.
Ms Branson – a former Federal Court judge, South Australian Crown Solicitor and president of the Australian Human Rights Commission – has condemned Professor Rathjen’s actions and stressed the behaviour “shouldn’t be tolerated, whether in a University, another workplace, or any part of our community”.
But there are two striking references to Ms Branson in Mr Lander’s statement which call into question her political judgment, weakening her position at a febrile time for the university. Already, this is emboldening some influential critics of her appointment.
The report shows her ambition to replace former South Australian Governor Kevin Scarce as chancellor. It also is a rare insight into the backroom power plays of one of Australia’s oldest universities.
Mr Lander is critical of some of Ms Branson’s actions and their outcomes, crucially saying that, in one instance, she admitted to him she might have made an error of judgment.
Ms Branson has disputed some aspects of Mr Lander’s statement but, given her judicial background, she must be aware of the optics of challenging an institution such as the ICAC.
The first key reference to Ms Branson is when, as deputy chancellor, she met for lunch with Prof Rathjen at her instigation in March. Mr Lander says she told Prof Rathjen she was interested in becoming chancellor (taking over from Mr Scarce) and “wanted to know if he felt he could work with her”.
“She admitted to me that this might have been an error of judgment,” Mr Lander’s statement says.
In the second key reference in Mr Lander’s report, the Convenors’ Committee, which acted as the University’s executive, formed what Ms Branson said to Mr Lander was “the Rump”. Ms Branson chaired “the Rump”, which consisted of only four members (the university Council now has 13).
“The Rump decided that the chancellor (Mr Scarce) should be advised there would be a risk that if he did not resign a motion would be put to Council for him to be stood down during the investigation,” Mr Lander says.
Ms Branson then requested that Mr Scarce meet with her at her home on April 26. At that meeting, Mr Lander says, Mr Scarce was “advised that for the good of the university and for his own good he ought to consider resigning. Otherwise a recommendation would be made to the Council that he be stood down”.
“The deputy chancellor also advised him that she wished to become chancellor. The chancellor was given a fait accompli. If he did not resign he would be stood down. That would have been extraordinarily embarrassing for him,” Mr Lander says.
Mr Scarce resigned on April 27. Notably, Mr Lander effectively exonerated Mr Scarce and criticised the handling of his situation, effectively again questioning Ms Branson’s judgment.
“I do not think that the Chancellor should have been put in the position in which he was put. I do not think my investigation could have embarrassed him or the University such that he needed to resign. However, he elected to put the University’s interests above his own by resigning,” Mr Lander says.
Importantly, Ms Branson has rejected Mr Lander’s assertion that Mr Scarce was given a fait accompli.
“I did not give the-then chancellor any such ultimatum,” she said at a press conference on Wednesday.
Ms Branson said the university had received ICAC advice that Mr Lander was investigating the vice-chancellor and the handling of those allegations had been conducted by the-then chancellor, Mr Scarce.
In those circumstances, she said, to preserve the integrity of the ICAC investigation and to reduce potential embarrassment to staff and council members who might be required to give evidence about the chancellor’s conduct, it was appropriate for Mr Scarce not to be in office at that time.
“We did not ask him – I did not ask him to resign. I pointed out to him that a recommendation would go to Council that he be stood aside during the course of the inquiry but that he might find it preferable, since he was nearing the end of his term, to bring the end of that term forward. The choice was for him,” Ms Branson said.
She said Mr Scarce had a senior lawyer present at the meeting but no immediate choice was made. She said Mr Scarce had time to consider it with the senior lawyer and he made the decision to bring t he end of his term forward.
There are clear differences between Mr Lander’s version of events and Ms Branson’s. Both have had impressive legal and judicial careers – Mr Lander also was a Federal Court judge. But one is now the umpire and the other a key player.
At a crucial juncture in the university’s 146-year history, the heat is now on the new chancellor.