UNIVERSITY “RIGHTS”

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28753, 26 November 1958, Page 22

UNIVERSITY “RIGHTS”

Reply By Mr

D. W. Bain

The Council of the University of Canterbury felt that its rights had been overlooked in the choice of an architect for the new science block, said the Chancellor

<Mi’ D. W. Bain). commenting on remarks made by the Commissioner of Works iMr F. M. Han-, ison) yesterday. “It has never been maintained by the University that the public funds provided for University purposes, through Government, should not be subject to scrutiny and mutual agreement, as between the authority which supplies them and the authority which spends them,” said Mr Bain. “Each of these authorities fulfils its functions according to the Statutes, and in the best interests of the country. When the Government provides funds for any university purpose, whether recurrent or non-recurrent, there have always been negotiations which have resulted in a solution; mutually acceptable to both parties. “Every plan for every building, for example, is examined in detail by officers of the Education Department, and no building or expenditure is undertaken in other than a spirit of fullest cooperation and trust. Consultation “The Government has never been asked to, or been expected to, provide funds without sharing in the fullest consultation about the spending of them,” said Mr Bain. “The question of unilateral con-1 trol does not enter into the dis-j cussion. Statutory authority gives the council the right to utilise the funds in the best interest of university education, but it is something entirely new to hear a suggestion that a local authority such as the council wants complete control of public spending in its own hands. “The council has ignored no rights, either of the Education Department, the Ministry of Works, or the Government. It has felt, however, that its own rights have been overlooked in this matter. “Mr Hanson will be aware that the Minister’s latest telegram confirms that authority for the preparation of the plans is made conditional upon the acceptance of the Government Architect. “The fullest co-operation and consultation has been and will be offered by the University of Canterbury in all programmes such as this, as it has been offered in all previous negotiations and contracts. “Not Advocated” “It is quite absurd to suggest| that any authority, such as the! University Council, should expect i the Government to provide money without having any control over spending. Such an attitude is! certainly unrealistic so that it has] ! never been advocated by our counicil.” he said. “It is equally wrong that the | (council should be advised directly j or indirectly to divorce entirely j from Government control such I funds that are provided for the administration of higher education. It so happens in New Zealand that the university system is financed almost wholly by the public through the Government. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is beyond the point, but no-one has the right to condemn a university authority for fighting for a decision which it has taken in the belief that it isj | the best policy under the circum- | stances.” Mr Bain said. 1 “Neither the Ministry of Works 'nor the Government, nor the University Council can claim uni-' , lateral authority,” he said. “Io the practice of policy of higher: education—each has a function to' fulfil. The council has endeavoured and will endeavour to fulfil that function granted to it under! the act. i “In any case. I had understood that the discussion was between the council and the Minister of j Education,” said Mr Bain.