FINANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Hokitika Guardian, 26 January 1929, Page 6

FINANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT’S ACTION. OFFICIAL REPLY TO THE CHANCELLOR. WELLINGTON, January 24. The Department of Education makes the Hollowing official reply to the Chancellor of the New Zealand University, who. m his address at the opening of the council’s annual meeting, made an attack on the late Government foi what he describes as “ removing the fixed annual subsidy instead of increasing,” and for “ socialising the slowly increasing sholarship fund at the very moment when funds were needed most.” The Chancellor,” says the Department in a lengthy statement, “ goes on to speak, of the mutilation of the finances and State interference with the liberty of the University, as one ot the greatest disasters to the education of the country. The University, we are told, will be’ on the verge of bankruptcy and will be in danger of becoming absorbed by the Education Department, the result of bureaucratic cuitailment of privileges and liberties of local bodies, the spirit of generosity to educational institutions will be annihilated and disastrous results will follow. Strong statements such as these would lead the public to think that some very drastic action had been taken by the Government that presaged impending ruin and disaster to the University, that the very existence rtf the University and the colleges was at stake, and that the Government was starving university education. “What are the facts? Last year the Government found it necessary to provide additional assistance for the prolessors and to strengthen the staffs at the University colleges, and increased the grants to these institutions by about £IO,OOO per annum. The total income of the University institutions from Government sources, including endowment income, but excluding grants for buildings amounting annually to many thousands, is now nearing the £200,090 mark, yet Professsor Brown talks of the niggardly and destructive spirit of the Department and the Government. “ While investigations were being made into the needs of the University, it was found that the income of the New Zealand University for 1927. including a Government grant of £3840. was 235,144, while the expenditure was £4292 less than that sum, and this expenditure includes nearly £BOO9 for administration. At the same time the University has accumulated funds of over £7UOOO (not £32.000 mentioned by the Chancellor), and these funds are being rapidly increased, lhe question then arose as to whether as a policy the Government was justified in providing grants to an institution that were not needed when the needs in other directions were clamant. Clearlc no Government should load the present taxpayer to provide funds to build up large'capital sums so that posterity would be relieved of its responsibility. It, was therefore, decided not to deprive the University of Us subsidy as the Cliandellor states, hilt to allow Parliament to vote annually the sum that was considered necessary, and. as ~ mutter of fact, the reduction in the errant for the current year is only £961 Whether this is so drastic a cut „ 5 to warrant the attack above reterred to. let the public decide. _ it ,\ s to the charges of depriving the University of liberty of action, the difficulty in the past has been tn get the New Zealand University to function and exercise any control oxer its department of the education ol the country bevond acting as a mere examinbody for degrees. r l« charge the Government with usurping the poveis of the University, with mutilating Us liberty, merely because Us me,,me - reduced by 3 per cent, too . > 1 for serious consideration, lhe Dcp.u mint has no desire to interfere with Xrmve™.ysolo„ s a S reasonable and effective contiol of us work, and the history ot unnmsM education during the past few . > • will show that the Department s policy has been to provide more and mo facilities for university education without interfering with the iunc unis of the bodies controlling our colleges. “ Certainly there has been no ground for the alarmist statement that the Chancellor has published. At the same time it must ho pointed out that, d Parliament is asked to provide funds for any Purpose, it -ust n, the interest of the taxpayer, he satisfied that the expenditure is immediately necessary.”