UNIVERSITY FINANCE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25089, 22 January 1947, Page 10

UNIVERSITY FINANCE

SENATE TO APPOINT COMMITTEE

ASSESSING RELATIVE NEEDS

The alternative proposals of the Chancellor of the .University of New Zealand (Mr Justice Smith) that the Government should be asked to appoint a committee of leading academic, business, and Government representatives to advise the University and the Government on the funds required for proper and harmonious development of University education or that the Senate should set up such a body, were considered by the Senate yesterday morning. The second suggestion was adopted after a long discussion, it being agreed to call a conference of representatives of the Senate, its colleges, and the School of Agriculture to advance the proposals. There had been considerable agitation for separation into four autonomous universities, said Mr Justice Smith. If this was carried there would still be a need for some overriding financial control and a coordinating agency. In his address to the Senate he had mentioned such a body, on the lines of the British University Grants Committee, which should be more or less independent, take time to visit the colleges, and assess their relative needs. Alternatively, the Senate should appoint such a committee.

The Vice-Chancellor (Sir Thomas Hunter) said members must be careful not to consider side issues too closely, but must give attention to policy. If the Government was asked to appoint a committee, there would be a tendency to divorce policy from finance. Since the Senate represented administrative experience in the .University, the teachers of its institutions, the Government, and the general public through graduates, and because of its very purpose, surely it was the proper body to appoint such a committee. He moved that for the immediate future, the Senate, working through a committee, be approved the most suitable body to approach the Government about finance for the maintenance and development of University education and research. He thought that when the new vice-chan-cellor of the University and the academic heads of colleges were appointed, they might well comprise the advisory committee. Autonomous Universities The Very Rev. D. C. Herron said this proposal shelved the question of autonomous universities. The great distances in New Zealand and increasing numbers .of students required separate universities for more efficient activity, he said. Further, local interest would increase. He favoured an independent committee to investigat :. Dr. T. D. M. Stout said it was the Senate’s responsibility to deal with the question. Where outside it would such, intimate knowledge of its affairs be found? Mr L. J. Wild said precaution must be taken r.gainst committee members considering their district interests and not those of the country as a whole. It was important that such a committee should have ample time for its work. , „ Agreeing that policy and finance were interwoven, Dr. G. E. Archey supported the motion. While favouring autonomous universities, he felt the University should be as free as possible from State influence, said Mr F. A. de la Mare. Professor F. G. Soper said the status of the alternative bodies proposed should be considered. The Government was more likely to heed a committee appointed by it to assess needs than a committee coming as suppliants for the University. . . Mrs G. H. Benson said it was important that relative needs should be carefully weighed. Accommodation Needs The need for a realistic view of immediate needs was emphasised by Professor A. H. Tocker and Mr W. H. < Cocker. They explained how the roll numbers at Canterbury and Auckland University Colleges had more than doubled since before the war, and now staffs were labouring with insufficient help, inadequate equipment, and, above all, a great shortage of accommodation. The conferences of colleges had prepared representations to the Government on this position and might continue its work. Mr W. Machin said he was alarmed that such an important discussion .had been relegated to the last day of the meeting, while the full Senate spent several days on amendments to details of statutes, and correcting punctuation, which could easily have been done by a committee. The Senate was a responsible body, and should speak with a certain voice on its urgent n< Sir S ’Thomas Hunter, replying, said that by seeking measures for immediate action, he did not wish to postpone wider considerations. Present needs were urgent. He was inclined to agree with Mr Machin and felt that 50 to 75 per cent, of the time of the , Senate was wasted on details. He feared that a Government-appointed university grants committee might gradually assume power to direct what subjects were to be taught, how much was to be spent, and how many students were to be taken. The machinery he suggested was flexible enough to get the work done at once and to allow the Senate to retain its statutory authority. The motion was carried, and it was decided to invite two representatives each from the Senate, colleges, and School of Agriculture to consider means of implementing the resolution, suggesting personnel for a committee, and then report to the executive committee of the Senate.