I had no choice: why sacked JCU professor Peter Ridd went public

Sacked university professor Peter Ridd went public about his employer’s attempt to gag him to try to fund his legal battle.

Peter Ridd told court he had “completely lost faith” in James Cook University’s disciplinary process and thought going public was has “only chance of survival as an academic”. Picture: Cameron Laird

Sacked James Cook University professor Peter Ridd, who was dismissed after he publicly criticised the institution over its science regarding global warming and the Great Barrier Reef, says he felt he had “no choice” when he broke a confidentiality agreement regarding the university’s disciplinary process.

Under cross-examination today in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane, where he is challenging his 2018 dismissal, Professor Ridd said he published information about the disciplinary process on a GoFundMe page because he felt he was being gagged and needed to share his story to get public donations to fund a legal battle against the university.

At the time, Professor Ridd also shared information with a journalist at The Australian to make the public aware of his plight.

Lawyers acting for JCU say Professor Ridd knowingly broke the university’s code of conduct, which was “specifically embraced by the enterprise agreement”.

They say Professor Ridd went beyond exercising of his right to intellectual freedom when he made disparaging remarks in the media about the university and his colleagues.

Professor Ridd, who worked at JCU for 30 years, has challenged the dismissal in the Federal Court, saying the Townsville-based university breached its own enterprise agreement which allowed all staff to express controversial or unpopular views.

He was cross-examined this morning by the university’s barrister, Christopher Murdoch, who grilled him about claims Professor Ridd made in a personal website that the university had not given him permission to discuss the case with his wife.

Professor Ridd said he was given conflicting advice on the issue but eventually told he was free to discuss the disciplinary proceedings with his wife and legal representatives.

“At one stage, I was not given permission to speak to my wife when I specifically asked for it,” he told the court.

Professor Ridd’s lawyers have argued their client had every right to criticise his colleagues and the university’s perceived lack of quality assurance processes.

The first alleged breach of the university’s code of conduct occurred in April 2016, when Professor Ridd emailed a journalist to allege that images supplied to the media by his university colleagues were misleading.

After receiving a warning from the university, Professor Ridd was censured again in November 2017 after appearing on Sky News and making similar claims about the lack of quality assurance processes on coral reef science.

Mr Murdoch said Mr Ridd was specifically censured for saying the university and Australian Institute of Marine Science could no longer be trusted on global warming science because they were “emotionally attached to their subject” and their studies were “not properly checked”.

Professor Ridd acknowledged the accusation was “extremely serious”.

“One of the reasons it is very serious is that the work coming out of these organisations is being used to inform policy,” he said.

“I said it in what I thought was a respectful manner.

“I was disciplined for saying these institutions were untrustworthy and that was referring to quality assurance in science.”

He argued the studies affected “a lot of people” because it informed public policy on legislation to cut fertiliser use in Great Barrier Reef catchments, shut down dredging and mining operations and was affecting tourism because visitors thought the reef was dying.

“The science needs to be rigorous because it affects a lot of people,” he said.

The university found Professor Ridd had engaged in misconduct for sharing information on a GoFundMe website and with a journalist from The Australian.

“I had no choice,” he told the court.

“I knew that I couldn’t accept the final censure because it would silence me.

“The only way I could do legal action was to get donations.

“You can’t get donations that ended up being in the amount of $260,000 without being upfront.

“I had completely lost faith in the disciplinary process and I thought it was my only chance of survival as an academic.”