“AN IDIOTIC AMENDMENT.”

Otago Witness, Issue 3754, 23 February 1926, Page 16

“AN IDIOTIC AMENDMENT.”

SHOULD CHANCELLOR’S ADDRESS BE DISCUSSED. Most; of the time of the New Zealand University Senate on Thursday afternoon nras spent in a discussion whether the Chancellor’s address should be discussed or sot. It was quite a serious discussion, too, and it arose from a motion by Sir Robert Stout: “That the Chancellor’s address be referred to the committee set up to discuss the University Commission’s report.” The motion was seconded by Mr T. K. . Bidey, M.P. Professor Hunter said that he had been one of those on the Senate who had always objected to the practice of discussing the Chancellor’s address. He thought it should not be discussed. However, seeing that 4he principle had never been laid down the-fc it should not be discussed he would proceed to discuss it. “I don’t think it is right.” he said, “that we should think there are such peculiar conditions in the Now Zealand University that when there are difficulties they arise out of these conditions, and I don’t think that the question •f the immediate establishment of four ptvWorsities was the fundamental point the commission had to deal with. It was university education that was the fundamental point. Then another point the Chancellor referred to was the poverty of the libraries. One would conclude from his statement that this part of the work had been neglected. The fact was that for a number of years no use had been made of them.” The Chancellor appeared surprised. “Is that the case?” he asked. Professor Hunter said that it was. “The library in this university college had wire netting over it,” he said, “and Canterbury had no library. The colleges for the past 15 years hove been working at this problem.” “It’s not true of Christchurch,” said Dr Anderson. “The college has control of the public library.” Professor Hunter went on to say that he did not think that the Chancellor’s statements regarding special schools was correct The problem of Npcoial schools had been decided on the bu«is of provincial jealousies. Auckland had ngitnied for recognition of n school of engineering that they already had. and instead of that the Senate had voted for the recognition of a school of architecture in Auckland that did not exist* In reply to Professor Hunter, Sir Robert Stout said flint the proposal for a school of architecture did not come from Canterbury. The man that had most strongly advocated it was Sir Maurice O'Rorke, of Auckland. Professor Hunter then remarked that tho Senate had voted for two schools of forestry bo.ftiise both Auckland and Canterbury wanted the school. Dr And*ison rose to a point of order. “What, is ih. l motion bofo e the Senate?”

Professor Hunter was ruled out of order as no motion had arisen out of the meeting. “I didn’t want to interrupt you,” the Chancellor explained “because your remarks were a criticism of myself.” Then followed the long discussion—to discuss or not to discuss. The Chancellor (to Professor Hunter); You are discussing the whole question. Professor Hunter: I can only discuss the question whether the address should go to the committee. Tile Chancellor: That is the point. If no one wishes to discuss the matter further I shall put the motion that the Chancellor’s address be sent, to the committee set up to discuss the University Commission’s report. Mr Caughley hold that if they discussed the Chancellor’s address, in effect, they became responsible more or less for everything in it. Voices: “Yes,” and “No.” Mr Caughley said he did not think the Chancellor should be put in that position. The Chancellor should have a perfectly free hand without any fear of discussion, though he thought there was no fear of that in bringing up his address. They would immediately make themselves - responsible if they discussed the address and the discussion went out to the public. Ho would move as an amendment “That, tho Senate do not discuss the Chancellor’s address.” Mr De La Mare seconded the amendment. Sir Robert Stout: llow is that an amendment? The Hon. .T. A. Kanan: Onnnot you simplv vote against the motion? Mr Caughley: What would happen then? He would like to establish the precedent by a direct vote that they do not discuss the address, and the Chancellor would then know it was not to be discussed in compiling his next address. Mr G. Fowlds submitted that the amendment was in order. What was the sense of referring the address to a committee unless for consideration, and that meant discussion. The Chancellor should he free to form his own opinions. Hp did not want to be put in the position of standing up to criticism by members of the Senate. If there was anything in the address that warranted discussion by the Senate as a | whole, then that was another matter, but It was surely wrong to enter into a discussion on ex cathedra statements by their Chancellor. Mr Dc La Mare said that he had had an unfortunate experience in Auckland. lie had dissented very trongly from Sir Robert Stout’s address on that occasion, hut his criticism had been stopped by a motion that they proceed to the next business. it. was clear that the members of the Senate would not countenance criticism of the Chancellor’s address. A motion he had intended to put on that occasion had not come to the vote —it had not been put—and possibly quite rightly. The nidress should be left a the personal opinion of the Chancellor. mid ns such it would carry much i greater weight with the public. He did

not think the Chancellor should be put in an invidious position. Sir Robert Stout: Might I ask what is the question before us? The Chancellor explained the effect of the motion. He did not think Mr Caughley was at all in order in moving his amendment that the Chancellor’s address be not discussed. Sir Robert Stout said that the question was whether the address should be referred to a committee. The amendment did not answer this question. If they thought the address should not be referred to the committee they could vote against the motion. Professor Hunter: What is the ruling on the question? The Chancellor again said that he did not think the amendment was in order. It was really an expression of a negative character. Professor Hunter rose to speak. Sir Robert Stout: What are you speaking to? You have already spoken. Professor Hunter: I am speaking to the amendment. I was called to order before. Sir Robert Stout: Oh you are speaking to the amendment? —(Laughter.) Professor Hunter said he thought the address would give a valuable lead—not only to the Senate but to the publis as well, whether they agreed with it or not. Personally. he did not think they should discuss the address. Professor Thomas said he was in favour of the address not being discussed. He thought the Senate had always agreed that, it should not be discussed. Dr Anderson said he surprised that such a motion should be moved at all in view of the previous unanimon opinion that the address should be accepted without discussion. He upheld the view that the address should not be discussed. Sir Robert Stout said he was amazed that such an amendment should be proposed. He did not ask the Senate to discuss the address nor ask them to say one word about it. He simply asked that it he referred to a committee. There might he many suggestions in tl address that were valuable to them, and whether they were or not they should he examined by the committee. It was not for the Senate to discuss it. The amendment was idiotic-- it was no proposal at. all. Did thev not want to take the trouble of even send ng the address to a committee? After a cross the table talk between Sir Robert SI out and Professor Hunter whether the motion itself was in order, Professor Rinkine Brown rose to speak. Sir Robert Stout: I am in possession of the floor. Ido not want any assistance. Professor Rankine Brown sat down. Sir Robert Stout, said he would like to know what the Senate was called there for—not to discuss any proposals brought, hofore them? Were they to do nothing? No wonder that the Minister of Education was saving that the Senate should he abolished.—(“lTenr hear.”) The Hon. J. A. Hanan questioned whether if the address did not go to the committee it was anything but a mere empty formality. voices \ Not at all.

Mr Hanan said if the address contained matters worthy of discussion why close the door? There were certain statements that called for discussion. He disagreed with the statement that if they discussed the address they were responsible. The chancellor was responsible. He did not think it was right that any address should go forth to the public if the statements were not in accordance with facts. The public should not be misled. Mr Caughley: Then that means discussing it. Mr Hanan: Yes. It was the duty of the members of the senate to say whether they agreed or not with the observations made in the address. He hoped they would not let it go forth that they had treated the address merely as a matter of words, words, words. Mr Caughley said ho wanted to make a personal explanation. Sir Robert Stout: You have already spoken. Mr Caughley said he wished to refer to Sir Robert Stout’s remark that he (tho speaker) wished to demonstrate the incapacity of the Senate and thus strengthen the argument of the Minister that they could get along without the Senate —that was quite unworthy of the gentleman who had made the remark.—(Hear, hear.) He also took strong exception to Sir Robert Stout’s remark that his amendment was idiotic. . A voice: That should be withdrawn. Sir Robert Stout: This is not a personal explanation. Mr Caughley (a 9he sat down): Very well. Mr Bake well (blandly): I am in order in speaking? The Chancellor: Yes. Mr Rakewell: Would I be in order if I said the Chancellor should not give an address at all?—(Laughter.) He was in sympathy with Professor Hunter’s reSir Lindo Ferguson: I am in order?— (Laughter.) The Chancellor: Yes, perfectly in order. Sir Lindo said he had come there to work that afternoon. He would move as a further amendment: That the Senate heartily thank the Chancellor for his address and that we proceed to the next business. Mr Morrell seconded the amendment. The vote on Sir Lindo Ferguson’s amendment was taken on the voices. _ _ The aves seemed to have a clear majority. The Chancellor: The ayes have it. Sir Ribert Stout: The noes have it. The Chancellor: All right, we will take a count. _ , , „ The count showed that Sir Lindo Ferguson’s amendment was carried by 17 votes to six. The Senate then went into committee.