Charles Darwin University asked inquiry not to publish staff submissions critical of its support for harbour project | Environment

Charles Darwin University asked a federal inquiry not to publish submissions by three of its staff after the academics criticised the university’s support for a gas and industrial development on Darwin Harbour.

It comes as the Northern Territory government is due to give evidence in Darwin on Thursday to the Middle Arm inquiry, which is examining the proposed precinct and a $1.5bn investment promised by the Albanese government.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Larrakia traditional owners called on senators to “take decisive action” to protect Middle Arm from the development, saying it would “poison and destroy” mangrove ecosystems, songlines and culturally significant sites.

The inquiry was launched last year after a Guardian Australia investigation revealed the government knew Middle Arm was seen as a “key enabler” for new gas projects, despite being publicly branded a sustainable development precinct.

In a letter published by the inquiry, CDU’s vice-chancellor, Scott Bowman, asked the committee not to publish a joint submission by two academics and to redact parts of a second submission by a professor of nursing and outgoing chair of the university’s human research ethics committee that was “unfairly” critical of CDU.

The academics had written to the committee in response to an official CDU submission that expressed support for the development – subject to environmental monitoring and community consultation – because of the “need to drive economic growth in the NT”.

In one letter, professor of nursing Marilynne Kirshbaum wrote she “was dismayed by Charles Darwin University’s submission” and had been asked by many staff and students to register their “opposition to the official perspective of Charles Darwin University”.

She wrote the majority of academics, staff and students had not been consulted for their views on the project and the submission was “the view of the VC who is entrusted with the financial viability and growth of our university”.

In the joint letter, research and teaching associate in the faculty of arts Stephen Enciso and faculty of health research assistant Janina Murta wrote CDU’s position was “not representative of the views of staff and students” and did not reflect the “expert scientific consensus in relation to the health and climate impacts of petrochemical and fossil fuel projects”.

The letter also claimed there had been no internal consultation with staff before the submission was created and expressed concern about “the possible existence of conflicts of interest between the university and the fossil fuel industry”.

CDU’s chancellor is the lobbyist and former NT chief minister Paul Henderson. Bowman told Guardian Australia Henderson had “no input or visibility over CDU’s submission”.

In a right of reply to the inquiry, Bowman asked the committee “to not publish the supplementary joint submission” by Enciso and Murta and “redact the sections of Prof Kirshbaum’s submission where it criticises, I believe unfairly, CDU”.

While he was supportive of “the participation and counterviews” by academia at CDU and “would not seek to limit any academic’s participation in the inquiry”, he said the university had not purported to present a unanimous view in its submission.

“I do not believe the criticism of CDU is justified or should be published,” the letter states.

Bowman, in response to questions on Wednesday, reiterated that he strongly supported the participation by academics at CDU in the inquiry and the presentation of counterviews.

“Regarding the two submissions in question, I felt the criticisms of the process were unfair and could not see the value in these matters of process being published,” he said.

“In retrospect, this was unnecessary, and I am pleased these academics are participating in the inquiry.”

Enciso, who along with Murta is a member of Darwin-based community climate groups including the No New Gas Coalition, expressed disappointment at the request to withhold their submission from publication.

“Transparency is important and this kind of request from the leader of an academic institution ostensibly committed to free speech amounts to a request for censorship,” he said.

He said many staff and students, if given the opportunity, would have given “clear reasons why it would be unacceptable for CDU to give conditional support for the Middle Arm development in its current form”.

“If the university can send all-staff emails asking for suggestions on the staff Christmas party, then it can do the same for what its position should be on the Middle Arm industrial precinct,” he said.

Don Driscoll is a professor of ecology at Deakin university and the chair of the academic freedom working group at the Ecological Society of Australia. His research has examined academic freedom and scientific suppression in Australia.

He said he was heartened the federal inquiry had chosen to publish the submissions in full.

The NT chief minister, Eva Lawler, and senior officials will appear before the inquiry on Thursday.