James Cook University should have paid a higher penalty for Peter Ridd’s dismissal

Scientist Peter Ridd questioned the science behind the Great Barrier Reef legislation. Picture: News Regional Media

There is one aspect of Peter Ridd’s financial victory over James Cook University that looks questionable: the university should have been ordered to pay much more.

Most of Ridd’s payout is for lost wages, superannuation and future earnings that will no longer be possible because of the unlawful conduct of the university.

The university was always going to be required to put Ridd back in the position that would have existed before he fell victim of the university’s misconduct.

So while that component comes to just over $1 million, it is intended to repair the damage that the university inflicted without lawful cause. It has itself to blame.

The real problem is the relatively paltry penalty of just $125,000 - which is barely enough to cause a blip in the university’s accounts.

Those at the university who were responsible for this episode will be able to shrug off this penalty and continue on their misguided way, oblivious to the damage they have inflicted on the reputation of their own institution.

This university has conducted itself as if workplace decency and the law of the land simply did not apply. It attempted to stifle debate in an area where freedom to pursue inconvenient ideas - the cornerstone of the scientific method - demanded a different course.

Imposing a penalty of just $125,000 might not be enough to persuade James Cook University to abandon such conduct and embrace the need for forthright debate - particularly when that debate points to problems inside the university.

The abuse of Ridd’s workplace rights and the decision to ignore the true basis of the scientific method should have attracted a much larger penalty. The law-breakers at James Cook University got off lightly.