Reform Bill – Select Committee left in no doubt

NZVCC Electronic News Bulletin Special Issue 25 July 2007

Reform Bill – Select Committee left in no doubt …

NZVCC submission seeks to protect institutional autonomy

Vice-Chancellors and Chancellors attended this morning’s Education and Science Select Committee hearing on the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill en masse to reinforce that university concerns over the legislation centre on the need to retain institutional autonomy.

The NZVCC submission was presented by the chair, Professor Roy Sharp, backed up by the Canterbury Chancellor Dr Robin Mann and NZVCC deputy chair Professor Roger Field. Further submissions were made by the University of Auckland (Vice-Chancellor Professor Stuart McCutcheon and Chancellor Mr Hugh Fletcher) and Massey University (Vice-Chancellor Professor Judith Kinnear and Chancellor Mr Nigel Gould). Also present for the hearing were Victoria University Vice-Chancellor Professor Pat Walsh, Victoria Chancellor Emeritus Professor Tim Beaglehole and Auckland University of Technology Vice-Chancellor Mr Derek McCormack.

Professor Sharp told the select committee that universities were not government-controlled institutions and it would be detrimental to the university system for the institutions to be too tied to the exigencies of the government of the day. He also noted that the implication behind the way the Bill had been drafted was that the Tertiary Education Commission tended to replace university councils in the governance role. Dr Mann reinforced this concern by pointing out it was shared by council members from all eight universities.

Professor Sharp’s comments were prefaced with the observation that the NZVCC had made suggestions in its submission which would strengthen the legislation, provide some extra safeguards for the tertiary education sector and thus benefit New Zealand generally.

The submission emphasised the threat to the autonomy of universities, a concept protected in section 160 of the Education Act. The Bill should contain a statement that the provisions of the Bill were subject to the preservation and enhancement of academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions provided by sections 160 and 161 of the Act.

“Our submission emphasises the narrowing of the Tertiary Education Strategy with the focus on goals and outcomes rather than the broader social, economic and environmental context, the absence of a requirement for consultation with universities and the removal of provision for parliamentary scrutiny. This has potential to narrow the educational focus of universities and to inhibit research and educational excellence in the broader sense. This will be addressed by the change of wording from goals to context, a requirement for consultation with universities when the strategy is prepared and the reinstatement of the requirement for the strategy to be placed before Parliament for scrutiny,” Professor Sharp told the select committee.

“We also discuss the removal of charters. This alters the governance role of the council, removing the present requirement to focus on the mission and role of the university in the tertiary education system in a medium to long-term time frame. The council is drawn into what is more correctly a management role of preparing and submitting a plan for funding approval for up to three years, changing the focus to the short term. The implication behind the way the Bill has been drafted is that TEC tends to replace council in the governance role. We believe that charters have an important statutory position in that they form the basis of the existing profile. Charters should be retained.”

The NZVCC chair said that universities as public institutions wanted to retain a charter that had the status of a compact between the university and the minister.

“Our submission focuses on the language of the Bill which, contrary to the explanatory note where words like guidance and steering are used, gives TEC powers of direction and control and the potential for ministerial intervention. This represents the major threat to institutional autonomy. TEC is empowered to prescribe the content of and process for submitting plans and to assess plans for funding approval. The submission proposes amendments to require TEC to consult with regard to those processes and to discuss and, if necessary, negotiate, if funding approval is to be refused or only granted in part. It is also proposed that TEC should have reasonable grounds to refuse funding and should have to give its reasons for so doing.”

In questions, some select committee members suggested that the legislation was aimed at exerting control over organisations outside the universities and that there was little benefit in it for the universities. Vice-Chancellors said that a major, positive aspect of the policy change was the recognition of the distinctive contribution of universities. However, universities would prefer separate legislative provision as they had previously enjoyed under the University Grants Committee and the Universities Act. Vice-Chancellors were also critical of the notion of a proprietary interest of the Crown in the institutions which was vague and should be removed. Universities thought the Crown’s risk management framework already covered that aspect adequately.

In presenting their submissions, both University of Auckland and Massey representatives stressed their support for the NZVCC submission. Professor McCutcheon pointed out the need for universities to have freedom to operate in the context of their relationships with commercial partners. Section 159PD of the Bill had the potential to allow TEC to prevent areas of activity outside those which it directly funded. “That may not be the intention but it could be the outcome.” As drafted the section gave TEC power over not only what it funded, but also what universities were doing on the broader front and whether institutions were viable. That situation could be corrected by redrafting the section.

Mr Fletcher touched on the problem increased TEC powers posed for private interests donating money to universities. That support would dry up if philanthropists thought that private money was subject to TEC control.

On the governance issue, Mr Fletcher pointed out that the commission would be unable to micro-manage eight universities yet the Bill proposed to neuter councils, a situation that was entirely unacceptable.

Select committee chair Mr Brian Donnelly asked the Auckland submitters about the role of the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit in relation to both TEC and the Ministry of Education. Professor McCutcheon replied that the relative roles of the commission and ministry were something of a mystery to those in the tertiary education sector but “when one of them asks for something we give it to them”. He added that it now made sense to have TAMU as part of TEC.

For Massey, Professor Kinnear reiterated the concern that the legislation would enable TEC to exercise control over university matters the commission did not fund. The legislation would also cut across an agreement the university had reached with the Ministry of Education which gave the university some delegated authority to renew leases.

Mr Donnelly brought the hearing to a close with an observation that the gist of the submissions heard seemed to be that the Bill required universities to consult and be reasonable without the same requirement being imposed on TEC.

ENDS

© Scoop Media