“Public Bodies” ?

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29859, 27 June 1962, Page 12

“Public Bodies” ?

Whether the Canterbury University Council would have found the Public Bodies Meetings Bill so completely obnoxious if its own academic committee did not consist of the entire council is perhaps the most interesting speculation provoked by the council’s discussion on Monday. Inevitably, legislation such as this bill raises formidable problems of definition for the law draftsmen. What, for instance, constitutes a “ public body ”? The Canterbury University Council and at least one other New Zealand university council consider they should be exempt from the requirements of the Public Bodies Meetings Bill because they are not public bodies “ in the ordinary “ sense". But once an organisation or authority qualifies as a public “body—as, for example, by representing the public, or receiving public financial support—the “ sense ” in which it does so is surely irrelevant Within New Zealand’s system of Statefinanced education, the university councils, dependent on public funds, are liable to be regarded by the average taxpayer as public bodies in much the same way as education boards, post-primary school councils. technical school boards, and the like. The important principle to be recognised is that whenever public money is being spent or functions performed on the public's behalf, the public should have adequate opportunities of oversight. To commend the objectives of the Public Bodies Mfcet-

ings Bill is not to suggest that the Canterbury University Council (or any other similar body, for that matter) has failed in its duty of acquainting the public as fully as possible with its affairs, nor that the council’s relations with the press are anything but harmonious and satisfactory.) Unfortunately, however, the Canterbury council’s discussion of the bill tended to damage rather than to advance the worthy cause of integrating university and community. The Canterbury council has made much of procedural difficulties that it foresees as a result of the legislation, if it is passed unamended; but the remedies appear to lie already within the bill, provided the council chooses to use them. For instance, the bill does not specify—nor could it fairly do so—the precise content of any resolution to exclude the public because a meeting wishes to debate a confidential or embarrassing topic. Why. then, should the bill necessarily increase the likelihood of gossip, rumour, or public malice? The bill does not dictate exactly what course a public body shall follow, regardless of all circumstances. Its intention is to provide an outline of procedure whereby public access to the meetings and records of public bodies will be guaranteed within perfectly reasonable limits. But it is merely an outline: and as such it should leave sufficient freedom of action in accordance with circumstances to satisfy even a university council. ,