Summary of submissions received on the proposals for
changes to university and wānanga governance
Table of Contents
Introduction and background ..................................................................................... 3
Responses regarding university governance ............................................................. 6
Responses to question one ................................................................................. 11
Responses to question two ................................................................................. 17
Responses to question three ............................................................................... 23
Responses to question four ................................................................................. 29
Responses to question five ................................................................................. 35
Responses regarding wānanga governance ........................................................... 47
Responses to question one ................................................................................. 49
Responses to question two ................................................................................. 51
Responses to question three ............................................................................... 53
Responses to question four ................................................................................. 55
Responses to question five ................................................................................. 56
2
Introduction and background
1. On 2 October 2013, as part of the ongoing reviews of university and wānanga
governance, two consultation documents were released for public consultation.
These consultation documents contained proposals for changes to the legislative
settings for university and wānanga governance. The proposals put forward were
to:

decrease council size

make council membership more flexible

require the Minister responsible for tertiary education and councils to appoint
council members with the skills to govern universities and wānanga

clarify the duties and accountabilities of individual council members.
2. Consultation closed on 12 November. A total of 194 unique submissions were
received from:

eight universities

three wānanga

21 organisations (one organisation made separate submissions on university
and wānanga governance)

161 individual submitters.
3. In addition, 1,911 form submissions were received.
4. The Ministry of Education also held face-to-face discussions about the changes
with all universities and wānanga, the Tertiary Education Union (TEU), the New
Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), the New Zealand Union of Students’
Associations (NZUSA) and Te Mana Ākonga.
5. This report summarises the 194 unique submissions received during public
consultation. Submissions regarding universities and wānanga are summarised
separately.
6. The report begins with an overview of the responses received on the proposed
changes to university governance. This overview summarises feedback from
universities, organisations, staff, students and other submitters, and is followed
by detailed analysis of responses to the four proposals and five questions put
forward in the consultation document. The second part of the report follows the
same format, detailing the responses received on the proposed changes to
wānanga governance.
7. For the purposes of analysis we divided the organisations that submitted into two
groups. The first group consists of the key peak-body and union organisations.
The second group consists of other organisations, including other peak-body
3
organisations, local students’ associations, alumni bodies and local union
branches. The following lists show these two groups and which organisations
submitted on university governance, wānanga governance or both:
Key peak-body and union organisations that submitted on university
governance:

Business NZ

New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA)

Universities New Zealand (UNZ)
Key peak-body and union organisations that submitted on university and
wānanga governance:

New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU)

Te Mana Ākonga

Tertiary Education Union (TEU)

Tertiary Institutes Allied Staff Association (TIASA)
Other organisations that submitted on university governance:

Academic Freedom Aotearoa

Auckland Student Movement at Auckland University of Technology
(AuSM)

Auckland University Students’ Association (AUSA)

Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (VUWSA)

Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA)

Business Central

New Zealand Nurses Organisation

TEU – University of Auckland branch (Auckland TEU)

TEU – Massey University branch (Massey TEU)

TEU – University of Otago branch (Otago TEU)

TEU – University of Waikato branch (Waikato TEU)

Otago branch of the Council of Trade Unions (Unions Otago)

University of Auckland Society
4
Other organisations that submitted on wānanga governance:

Aotearoa Institute.
Methodology
8. Submissions were read in full and assigned codes based on whether they agreed
or disagreed with the proposals. We also identified common advantages and
disadvantages to the proposals and attributed codes to each of these advantages
and disadvantages. This approach has enabled us to produce quantitative data
on the responses to the proposals and the range of arguments for and against
the proposals.
9. This report presents this quantitative data along with analyses of key themes and
key quotations from submissions.
10. The form submissions, of which 1,911 were received, were only counted once in
coding.
5
Responses regarding university governance
Overview
11. A total of 187 individual submissions were received regarding university
governance, along with 1,911 form submissions. The majority of these submitters
identified as staff members, with students, graduate/former students, union
members and organisations accounting for most of the remainder.
12. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the respondent groups for the 187 unique
submissions. The number of submitters in the right-hand column exceeds the
total of 187 submissions, because a number of submitters identified with more
than one respondent group. For example, a number of staff and students also
indicated that they were union members.
Table 1: University governance public consultation: respondent type
Respondent type
Number of submitters
University
8
Organisation
20
Academic staff member
96
General staff member
27
Student
26
Graduate/former student
33
Union member
32
Council member
5
Former council member
4
Other
11
Prefer not to say
4
13. Universities are mixed in their support for the proposals, with five somewhat or
mostly in favour of the proposals and three indicating a preference for the status
quo. Business NZ and Business Central both support the proposals, citing the
need for more responsive governance structures. Union organisations and staff
submitters generally oppose the proposals, as do student submitters and their
associations, including NZUSA and Te Mana Ākonga. Most other submitters also
oppose the proposals.
14. The following key themes are present across a number of submissions:

Staff and student representation on councils is valuable in informing
council decision-making.

Council members should have the appropriate knowledge, skills or
experience to govern universities, as long as these are broadly defined to
recognise the value that students, staff and other stakeholders can bring
to councils.

Smaller councils, without required representational membership, would
lack the diversity needed to link universities to their stakeholders and
communities.
6

Universities are unique institutions and are different from other
organisations (for example, institutes of technology and polytechnics
(ITPs) and private-sector organisations), and this uniqueness should be
reflected on universities’ councils.

The proposed changes would negatively impact institutional autonomy
and academic freedom.

Insufficient detail and evidence has been provided regarding the
proposals for change and the rationale behind them.
Summary of responses from universities
15. All eight universities submitted on the proposed changes and are mixed in their
opposition and support. Of the eight universities, five somewhat or mostly support
the changes outlined in the consultation document and three prefer the status
quo.
16. Lincoln University (Lincoln) and the University of Waikato (Waikato) support the
proposed changes, but would prefer legislation that does not specify council size.
17. Auckland University of Technology (AUT) and Victoria University of Wellington
(Victoria) support the changes but favour a council size of 14. Neither institution
supports retaining the current number of ministerial appointees as part of an eight
to 12 member council.
18. Massey University (Massey) generally supports the proposals, but would like to
ensure that a focus on council members’ skills does not exclude stakeholders like
students and staff from being able to sit on councils, and that ministerial
appointments are capped at no more than one-third of council members.
19. The University of Canterbury (Canterbury) supports the principles behind the
proposed changes, but believes the status quo can support these principles. It
does not favour legislative change.
20. The University of Auckland (Auckland) and the University of Otago (Otago) are
opposed to the proposed changes. Auckland states that the current governance
model is performing well and should be retained. Otago submits that the
proposed changes are inappropriate and that councils should have a mix of
stakeholder representation and appointees.
Summary of responses from key peak-body and union organisations
21. Of the seven key peak-body and union organisations that submitted on the
changes, Business NZ supports the proposals, though it expressed reservations
that the consultation paper was unclear about what skills council members should
have.
22. The other six key peak-body and union organisations oppose the proposals and,
either explicitly or implicitly, prefer the status quo.
23. The TEU, NZCTU, TIASA, NZUSA and Te Mana Ākonga all state in their
submissions that the proposed changes would lead to the loss of representational
membership on university councils. The TEU, NZCTU, NZUSA and Te Mana
7
Ākonga believe this would result in less diversity on councils, reducing the quality
of decision-making and leading to narrower and more constrained thinking.
24. UNZ and NZCTU do not believe that there is a compelling case for change, and,
alongside NZUSA, point to a lack of evidence to justify the changes.
Summary of responses from other organisations
25. Of the 13 other organisations that submitted on the proposals, Business Central
fully supports the changes, acknowledging that councils need a stronger
governance focus than occurs under the current representative model.
26. Academic Freedom Aotearoa and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation both
oppose the changes, stating that they would reduce institutional autonomy and
increase government control of councils.
27. Of the four local students’ associations, VUWSA and AUSA oppose the changes,
stating that they would result in less diversity on councils and a reduction in the
quality of decision-making. AuSM is also opposed to the changes; however, it
does not oppose a reduction in council size, providing student and staff
representation on councils is retained. OUSA provided a more mixed response,
opposing the proposal to reduce council size, yet supporting the proposal to
make council membership more flexible.
28. All of the local TEU and CTU branches oppose the changes, submitting that they
would lead to the loss of representative stakeholders on councils, an increase in
political appointments to councils and a narrower, more market-focused model of
governance. A number of these organisations also argue that there is little
evidence to support the proposed changes.
29. The one alumni organisation that submitted on the proposal, the University of
Auckland Society, also opposes the changes. It states that any perceived
problems in the structure of university governance are not major and that it would
be unnecessary to change legislation.
Summary of responses from university staff members
30. Of the 123 academic and general staff members who submitted on the proposals,
the majority oppose the changes, identifying the impact of the proposals on
stakeholder representation on councils as their greatest concern. Almost half of
staff members who submitted on the proposals state that they would lead to the
loss of stakeholder representation on councils, whilst more than one-third express
concern that representation would not be prioritised in the selection of council
members.
31. Other prominent themes among submissions from staff include that the proposed
changes would result in councils that are too narrowly focused and councils that
are skewed towards ministerial appointees and business interests. Many staff
also comment that changes would have negative implications for institutional
autonomy and academic freedom.
32. Staff members who submitted state that the proposed changes lack supporting
evidence and sufficient detail.
8
33. Staff members were most supportive of the proposal to clarify the duties and
accountabilities of individual council members, with just under one-quarter of
those who submitted supporting this proposal.
Summary of responses from university students
34. Of the 26 students who submitted on the proposals, the majority oppose the
proposed changes, identifying the impact of the proposals on stakeholder
representation on councils as their greatest concern. Over one-third of these
students feel that the proposed changes would lead to the loss of stakeholders
on university councils, and a similar number express concern that stakeholder
representation on councils would not be prioritised.
35. These students also express concern that the proposals would skew councils
towards ministerial appointees and business interests, lead to political
appointments and negatively impact institutional autonomy and academic
freedom.
36. The proposal that received the most support from students who submitted was
the proposal to clarify the duties and accountabilities of individual councils
members, with just over one-third supporting this proposal.
Summary of responses from other submitters
37. Other submitters include graduates/former students, union members, current and
former council members and retired staff members. Not included in this summary
section are submitters who chose not to identify with a respondent group and
respondent groups with only one submitter. (Feedback from these submitters is
captured in the overview of all responses).
38. The majority of graduates/former students and union members who submitted on
the proposals oppose the proposed changes, identifying the impact of the
proposals on stakeholder representation as their greatest concern. These
respondent groups also express concern that the changes will negatively impact
institutional autonomy and academic freedom and skew councils towards
ministerial appointees and business interests. These submitters are most
supportive of the proposal to clarify the duties and accountabilities of individual
council members.
39. Current and former council members who submitted on the proposal mostly
oppose the proposed changes, indicating a preference for the status quo and
expressing concern that the proposals would lead to a loss of stakeholder
representation and to greater ministerial control of councils. These submitters are
most supportive of the proposal to clarify the duties and accountabilities of
individual council members.
40. Former staff members who submitted oppose the first three proposals, submitting
that they would lead to councils losing stakeholder representation and to greater
ministerial control of councils. However, opinion is split regarding the proposal to
clarify the duties and accountabilities of individual council members.
9
Form submissions
41. The 1,911 form submissions from staff, students and community members read
as follows:
“I submit that New Zealand should preserve the autonomy,
integrity and independence of university and wānanga councils by
retaining democratically elected staff, student and community
representation. I do not believe that the minister’s proposed
model of governance is appropriate for universities, wānanga or
polytechnics, or for the promotion of academic freedom.”
10
Responses to question one
Proposal
Decrease council size from 12 to 20 members to 8 to 12 members
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to
decrease the size of university councils?
Overview
42. Universities are mixed in their support
institutions somewhat agreeing with the
Business NZ and Business Central both
other organisations, staff, students and
proposal.
for reducing council size, with four
proposal and four broadly opposed.
support reducing council size, whilst
other submitters mostly oppose the
43. Almost half of submitters (48.1%) indicate concern that smaller councils would
result in a loss of stakeholder representation on councils.
44. More than one-quarter of submitters (28.9%) indicate concern that smaller
councils would be skewed towards ministerial appointments and/or business
interests, and a further 16.6% of submitters indicate that decreasing the size of
university councils would result in the Minister appointing too high a proportion of
council members.
45. More than one-quarter of submitters (27.2%) indicate that there was a lack of
evidence in the consultation document to support the proposal.
46. Some submitters (13.4%) indicate that the proposal would not improve the
effectiveness of university councils.
47. Submitters also express concern that decreasing council size would result in
universities being inappropriately run like a business and would have negative
implications for maintaining institutional autonomy and/or academic freedom.
Responses from universities
48. Universities are mixed in their responses to the proposal to reduce council size,
with four institutions somewhat agreeing with the proposal and four broadly
opposed.
49. Victoria and AUT both support a reduction in council size, but prefer an upper
limit of 14 members. Victoria also seeks a reduction in the number of ministerial
appointments to three.
“14 council members is the optimal number to ensure an appropriate breadth
of skills and experience.” (AUT)
11
50. Massey supports the proposal and has no concerns with the concept of smaller
councils, as long as the maximum number of members is not lower than 12 and
the number of ministerial appointees is capped at no more than one-third.
51. Canterbury supports the principles behind the proposal to reduce council size,
submitting that its optimal council size would be 12 members. It prefers to make
changes within current legislative settings.
52. Auckland and Otago oppose any reduction in council size, submitting that it
would not result in more effective governance. Despite its opposition, Otago
would prefer a maximum council size of 14 members, if change to council size
proceeds.
53. Waikato and Lincoln are also against a reduction in council size. Waikato
considers a reduction to be unnecessary, whilst Lincoln would prefer to have the
flexibility to appoint the number of council members it chooses, rather than have
a limited range.
“A reduction in the size of the councils is neither a necessary nor sufficient
condition to ensure more effective governance.” (Waikato)
“We envisage the council changing in size depending on the particular needs
at the time, with council having the ability to make appointments to add
capability to address those needs.” (Lincoln)
Responses from key peak-body and union organisations
54. Of the key peak-body and union organisations that submitted on the proposal,
Business NZ supports reducing the size of university councils.
55. The other six key peak-body and union organisations oppose the proposal to
reduce council size. The most common explanation for this opposition is that it
would lead to a loss of diversity on university councils. The TEU and NZCTU both
state that smaller councils would result in narrower and more constrained thinking
and would reduce the quality of decision-making. NZCTU also argues that this
would distance councils from some of universities’ most important stakeholders.
“The major risk in reduced council size is the very real risk of reduced
diversity on councils and distance and alienation from critical stakeholders.”
(NZCTU)
56. Te Mana Ākonga states that alongside a loss of diversity, the proposal would
negatively impact the ability of universities to represent the communities they
serve.
“The reduction in the size of university councils runs the risk of being
unrepresentative of the communities that universities serve and this, in turn,
has impacts on the wider community throughout Aotearoa.” (Te Mana
Ākonga)
57. TIASA feels that smaller councils would result in universities being less likely to
meet the social objectives and expectations that New Zealanders have of them.
58. UNZ and NZUSA both submit that there is no evidence that council size is
negatively correlated with institutional performance, emphasising that some of the
12
world’s leading universities have large governing bodies. These organisations
also state that reducing council size, without also reducing the number of
ministerial appointees on councils, would give ministerial appointees a dominant
voice on university councils and would be inconsistent with institutional
autonomy.
“Given that the ministerial appointees will not be reduced under the proposal,
there will be a greater influence exercised by the government on universities.
This will seriously undermine institutional autonomy, and will make
universities subject to the whims of the current government.” (NZUSA)
Responses from other organisations
59. Of the other organisations that submitted on the proposal, Business Central
supports reducing the size of councils.
60. Like several of the key peak-body and union organisations, Academic Freedom
Aotearoa and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation oppose the proposal to
reduce council size on the grounds that it would result in less diversity on
university councils.
“Smaller, non-representative councils cannot reflect the same diversity.” (New
Zealand Nurses Organisation)
61. Three of the four local students’ associations (VUWSA, AUSA and OUSA)
oppose any reduction in council size. These associations state that there is no
evidence to support the need for smaller councils and express concern that the
increased proportion of ministerial appointees on councils would expose
universities to political influence.
“There is zero evidence in these consultation documents that suggest that
there are any advantages to increasing or decreasing the size of council
structures.” (OUSA)
62. OUSA and AUSA also state that reducing the size of councils would limit the
skills, experience and perspectives of council members, resulting in less effective
decision-making. AuSM does not oppose a reduction in council size; however, it
does not support reduction solely for the sake of reduction.
63. All of the local TEU and CTU branches that submitted on the proposal oppose
reducing the size of university councils. Unions Otago feels this would lead to the
loss of alternative and dissenting voices on councils, which would impact on the
productivity and democracy of decision-making. Auckland TEU states that smaller
councils would make it very difficult to represent the community of university
stakeholders. Massey TEU states that smaller councils would not have the range
of perspectives required to make decisions in the long-term interests of the
institution. Other grounds for opposing the proposal include a lack of evidence
that smaller councils are advantageous (Auckland TEU and Massey TEU) and a
lack of evidence that the current size of councils is too large or unwieldy (Unions
Otago).
64. The University of Auckland Society also opposes the changes, submitting that the
current size of councils is appropriate as it allows for the representation of
members with a wide range of skills and knowledge.
13
“Small councils do not always have the insight or knowledge to make well
thought out, long term and balanced decisions.” (University of Auckland
Society)
Responses from university staff members
65. Of the 123 general and academic staff members who submitted on the proposals,
114 answered this question. Of those, 85.1% oppose reducing council size and
almost half (49.1%) state that this would lead to councils losing stakeholder
representation.
“I believe that when a university has so many stakeholders it is hard to
decrease the number of council members without leaving out some voices
that are important to hear.” (academic staff member)
“The reduced size means that very little representation of the actual
stakeholders would be present. There is already evidence that the current
managerial style is producing senior leadership teams that have no real idea
about how teaching is done in a university and without representation of
academic, general staff and students on councils the situation can only get
worse.” (academic staff member)
66. One-third (33.3%) submit that smaller councils would be skewed towards
ministerial appointees and business interests.
“This proposal will give government appointed members unacceptable power
in the decision making of councils.” (academic staff member)
67. More than one-quarter (28.1%) feel that there is a lack of evidence to support the
proposal.
“Given that there is no evidence that council size is a problem, this is a very
poor proposal.” (academic staff member)
68. Staff also submit that the proposal would have negative implications for
institutional autonomy (21.1%) and academic freedom (14.0%), lead to councils
being inappropriately run like businesses (14.0%) and not result in more effective
governance (10.5%).
69. Of the staff members who answered this question, 4.4% support reducing council
size and feel that it would lead to more effective governance, and 2.6% submit
that it would lead to improved decision-making and communication.
“Advantages: - increased productivity due to smaller size, ease of getting
everyone present.” (general staff member)
“Decreasing the size of the council to between 8 and 12 members increases
the speed of decision making.” (academic staff member)
Responses from university students
70. Of the 26 students who submitted on the proposals all 26 answered this question.
Of those, 84.6% oppose reducing council size. More than one-third (38.5%)
submit that this would lead to councils losing stakeholder representation.
14
“Decreasing council size is a means to an end of removing staff and student
representation.” (student)
71. More than one-third (34.6%) submit that smaller councils would be skewed
towards ministerial appointees and business interests.
“New Zealand is a democracy; removing guaranteed representative seats
from Councils isn’t right. The Ministry is aiming to remove all guaranteed
stakeholder seats except its own seats.” (student)
“Having fewer members on a university council means that a particular vision
or ideology may come to dominate the council and go unchallenged within it.”
(student)
72. Almost one-third (30.8%) submit that the proposal would not improve the
effectiveness of university councils.
“There is no evidence that a smaller council will make better decisions or
even run more efficiently.” (student)
73. Students also submit that there is a lack of evidence to support the proposal
(15.4%) and that the proposal would have negative implications for institutional
autonomy (19.2%) and academic freedom (11.5%).
74. Of the students who answered this question, 3.8% support reducing council size.
However, a higher proportion identify advantages to the proposal, with 11.7% of
students submitting that it would lead to more effective governance and 7.7%
submitting that it would improve decision-making and communication.
Responses from other submitters
75. Of the other submitters who commented on the proposal, the majority oppose
reducing council size.
76. Of the 32 graduates and former students who submitted on the proposal, 75%
oppose reducing council size. More than one-third (34.4%) submit that this would
lead to councils losing stakeholder representation and just under one-third
(31.3%) submit that smaller councils would be skewed towards ministerial
appointees and business interests.
“Disadvantages: reduces representation for core strategic groups and
stakeholders. ‘Making the boat go faster' does not necessarily mean better
outcomes for students and communities. Tertiary Institutes are supposed to
be the 'critic and conscience of society', and all this proposal does is
corporatise them and remove their role within our country.” (graduate/former
student)
77. Of the 32 union members who submitted on the proposal, 93.8% oppose
reducing council size. Half submit that this would lead to councils losing
stakeholder representation, and 37.5% submit that this would make councils too
small.
“This reduction in size compromises the need to have effective representation
of all those involved in the university on university councils.” (union member)
15
“I don't believe we can have proper representation of all stakeholders with 8
members.” (union member)
78. Four out of five current council members who submitted on the proposal oppose
reducing council size, as do three out of four former council members. Those
opposing the proposal submit that it is unnecessary, would lead to the loss of
stakeholder representation and increased ministerial influence on councils, and is
not evidence-based. The submitter who supports the proposal notes that small
councils are in keeping with governance best practice.
“I do not see any advantages in decreasing the size of university councils.
Our Council functions really well with the 18 members on council.” (Council
member)
“I believe the limitation to a maximum of 12 is unnecessarily restrictive. The
consultation document does not provide any convincing reasons for why this
should be a maximum, and to set it while retaining four ministerial appointees
unbalances the council with respect to representing the crown’s interest in
universities.” (former council member)
“Best practice for governance generally is widely acknowledged to be a
maximum of 8 to 10. It is difficult to hear and understand the views of
members of a group larger than 8 on a range of topics. Inevitably there are
those who speak and those who go along. Groups or cliques form in larger
councils to the detriment of individual contributions.” (former council member)
79. Three former staff members submitted on the proposal, all of whom oppose
reducing council size. These submitters argue that the proposal would lead to
councils losing stakeholder representation and that it is not evidence-based.
“Reducing the size of councils in this way (removing academic staff and
students) will limit crucial representation on councils and is thus highly
disadvantageous.” (former academic staff member)
16
Responses to question two
Proposal
Make council membership requirements more flexible
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to make
council membership requirements more flexible?
Overview
80. Universities are mixed in their support for making council membership more
flexible, with five somewhat or mostly in favour of the proposal and two opposed.
Business NZ and Business Central both support increased flexibility, whilst other
organisations, staff, students and other submitters mostly oppose the proposal.
81. Almost one-third of submitters (30.0%) express concern that representation
would not be prioritised in council member selection.
82. Almost one-third (28.9%) indicate that the proportion of members appointed by
the Minister would be too high.
83. Almost one-fifth of submitters (19.8%) indicate the proposal would result in
councils that would be too narrowly focused and 10.7% of submitters indicate that
the proposal may worsen the quality of decision-making.
84. Some submitters (12.8%) indicate that there was a lack of evidence in the
consultation document to support the proposal.
85. Submitters also express concern that the proposal would have negative
implications for maintaining institutional autonomy and/or academic freedom.
Responses from universities
86. Universities are mixed in their responses to the proposal to make council
membership requirements more flexible.
87. AUT and Waikato support the proposal on the grounds that it would better enable
them to reflect the uniqueness of their institutions on their councils.
“AUT supports the proposal to make university council membership
requirements more flexible so that universities can reflect their unique
characteristics in their council as well as ensuring expert and skilled council
members who include members with experience and understanding of the
core business of a university.” (AUT)
88. Lincoln broadly supports greater flexibility around membership; however, it does
not believe this can be achieved with legislation that specifies council size.
“We want flexibility to appoint how many council members we wish, rather
than have specified numbers or a limited range. We envisage the council
changing in size depending on the particular needs at the time, with council
17
having the ability to make appointments to add capability to address those
needs.” (Lincoln)
89. Canterbury supports making council membership more flexible, but does not
support legislative change to achieve this. It proposes increasing membership
flexibility by making changes to its constitution within current legislative settings.
90. Massey and Victoria also express some support for the proposal; however, both
institutions oppose retaining four ministerial appointees on an 8 to 12 member
council. Massey submits that this would lead to greater ministerial control over
councils.
“The Minister’s appointment proportion of council membership is currently
20% - 33.3%. Within a membership of 8-12 this proportion would be 33.3% 50%. Increasing this proportion increases ministerial ‘reach’ into Universities,
and, at the lower end of the range, size effectively provides ministerial
control.” (Massey)
91. Auckland and Otago oppose the proposal to make council membership more
flexible, preferring to retain mandated stakeholder representation. Both
institutions assert that a representative council is better able to engage
universities’ key stakeholders.
“A broad based, representative council which is focused on the delivery of
excellent research, teaching and service to the community is far more able to
reach out effectively to all the university’s constituents, and attract their
support.” (Auckland)
Responses from key peak-body and union organisations
92. All of the key peak-body and union organisations, with the exception of Business
NZ, oppose the proposal to make council membership more flexible.
93. The TEU and NZCTU both submit that flexibility would not be increased by
eliminating required representational membership. UNZ questions the need for
greater flexibility, arguing that current arrangements are sufficient to ensure
flexibility and variation in council membership.
“We disagree that the proposed changes will create greater flexibility. In fact,
we predict greater rigidity will occur as a result of the dangers of ‘group think’
stemming from a more limited selection of council members.” (TEU)
94. The TEU, TIASA, NZUSA, Te Mana Ākonga, NZCTU and UNZ all support
retaining mandated stakeholder representation on university councils and
emphasise the contribution of stakeholder representatives to ensuring good
governance.
“It is widely acknowledged that the dynamic tension and healthy debate
engendered by this type of stakeholder involvement creates better outcomes
in every respect for the organisation.” (TIASA)
“Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors support the continuation of the current
hybrid model of university governance, with a mix of stakeholder
representatives and members appointed on the basis of their skills and
18
experience. This model of governance is demonstrably consistent with New
Zealand having the most efficient university system in the world.” (UNZ)
95. NZCTU opposes the removal of statutory representation for employee and
employer representatives on councils.
96. In addition, the TEU, NZUSA and TIASA express concern that the proposal to
make council membership more flexible would result in the loss of stakeholder
representation on university councils and lead to less effective and less
responsive councils.
“Although the consultation document notes that individual councils would
not be prevented from appointing staff, students and other stakeholders,
we have little confidence that this will occur.” (TEU)
“We are deeply concerned that the proposed model removes most
stakeholder participation altogether. We believe this flies in the face of well
established models of good governance worldwide and rather than reduce
risk to any university or enable it to better manage risk, this proposal will
greatly exacerbate risk and the likelihood of adverse risk impacts.” (TIASA)
Responses from other organisations
97. Of the 13 other organisations that submitted on the proposal for change,
Business Central supports making council membership more flexible.
98. OUSA supports making council membership more flexible, but only if student
representation is guaranteed. The other three local students’ associations
(VUWSA, AUSA and AuSM) oppose the proposal, submitting that mandated
stakeholder representation is crucial to inform and enrich good governance
(AuSM), maintain flexibility through diversity of representation (VUWSA) and
ensure the views of different stakeholder groups are accurately reflected (AUSA).
“AuSM is opposed to the removal of specific representation of staff and
students. It is our view that key stakeholder representation informs and
enriches good governance and is at the heart of ensuring that the University
is meeting the needs of its community.” (AuSM)
99. The University of Auckland Society also opposes the proposal, submitting that
statutory stakeholder representation is crucial to ensure councils have links into
the wider community and the range of skills and knowledge to govern effectively.
100. All of the local TEU and CTU branches oppose the proposal to make council
membership more flexible. Massey TEU, Waikato TEU and Unions Otago state
that council membership is already sufficiently flexible. Auckland TEU states that
the proposal would actually make council membership less flexible.
“To increase flexibility would require a wider range of representation and
governance; this proposal seeks to narrow the range of representation…In
the proposal, 'flexible' seems to be a code word for narrow conformity.”
(Auckland TEU)
101. Auckland TEU also states that the proposal would narrow the range of
representation in all areas except ministerial appointees. This view is echoed in
19
the submissions of Academic Freedom Aotearoa and the New Zealand Nurses
Organisation.
“The proposal put forward extends the scope of ministerial patronage and
party-political interests.” (Academic Freedom Aotearoa)
Responses from university staff members
102. Of the 123 general and academic staff members who submitted on the
proposals, 107 answered this question. Of those, 87.9% oppose making council
membership more flexible. More than one-third (37.4%) express concern that
representation would not be prioritised, and a similar number (34.6%) submit that
the proposal would result in the Minister appointing too high a proportion of
council members.
“Making council membership more flexible disadvantages stakeholder groups
that should be guaranteed a voice on councils, in particular students, staff
and the community the institution is embedded in.” (academic staff member)
“The suggestion that half or more of appointees to a governing body meant to
serve all New Zealanders should be political seems radically out of step in a
developed nation.” (academic staff member)
103. Almost one-third (30.8%) submit that the proposal would have negative
implications for institutional autonomy.
“The proposal would likely lead to council membership requirements
becoming less flexible, especially at the proposed minimum level with half of
the Council members appointed by the Minister. This could lead to a serious
undermining of legislative and constitutional university autonomy.” (academic
staff member)
104. Almost one-quarter (23.4%) submit that the proposal would result in councils
that are too narrowly focused.
“The proposal runs the risk of creating an overly narrow council where the
four government appointees select other council members with similar
backgrounds, interests and inclinations. There is nothing in the proposal that
ensures that council members will represent a range of perspectives.”
(academic staff member)
105. Staff members also submit that there is a lack of evidence to support the
proposal (15.9%) and that the proposal would have negative implications for
academic freedom (13.1%), worsen the quality of decision-making (9.3%), and
lead to political appointments (7.5%).
106. Of the staff members who answered this question, 7.5% support making
council membership more flexible.
“This proposal to make council membership requirements more flexible is a
very good idea. Not every interest group needs to have a direct
representative on the council.” (academic staff member)
20
Responses from university students
107. Of the 26 students who submitted on the proposals, 20 answered this
question. Of those, 75.0% oppose making council membership more flexible.
More than one-third (35.0%) express concern that representation would not be
prioritised on councils, and one-quarter (25.0%) submit that the proposal would
result in councils that are too narrowly focused.
“I think, in the long term, more flexible requirements would mean that the
wrong people become part of the council and the needs of the wide array of
people at the university, which the council represents, will not be achieved.”
(student)
108. One-quarter (25.0%) submit that the proposal would have negative
implications for institutional autonomy.
109. One-fifth (20.0%) submit that the proposal would result in the Minister
appointing too high a proportion of council members.
“Flexibility is fine, provided that flexibility is not a tool of government
domination of the council. The number of government appointees must be set
less than 50% of the council and ideally no more than 1/3.” (student)
110. Students also submit that there is a lack of evidence to support the proposal
(10.0%) and that the proposal would worsen the quality of decision-making
(10.0%) and lead to political appointments (10.0%).
111. Of the students who answered this question, 10.0% support making council
membership more flexible.
“I believe this proposal will make it easier to select council members.”
(student)
Responses from other submitters
112. Of the other submitters who commented on the proposal, the majority oppose
making council membership more flexible.
113. Of the 30 graduates and former students who answered this question, 93.3%
oppose making council membership more flexible. Between one-third and onehalf (43.4%) submit that the proposal would negatively impact institutional
autonomy and 40.0% express concern that stakeholder representation would not
be prioritised.
“Disadvantages: far greater ministerial influence, reducing the autonomy of
the university and thus its ability to pursue academic goals.” (graduate/former
student)
“Disadvantages: Makes university councils less representative of the people
they are supposed to represent.” (graduate/former student)
114. Of the 30 union members who submitted on the proposal, 96.7% oppose
making council membership more flexible. Union members submit that
representation would not be prioritised (43.3%), that the proposal would
21
negatively impact institutional autonomy (40.0%) and that it would result in
councils that are too narrowly focused (30.0%).
“This proposal seems to be a way for the government to assert more
influence on councils, making universities less independent. I see this as a
major disadvantage.” (union member)
“Terrible idea: with poor student/staff/Maori representation, there is less room
for dissent. The council would also have no mandate to represent those
groups.” (union member)
115. Four out of five current council members and three out of four former council
members who submitted on the proposal oppose making council membership
more flexible. They express concern that representation would not be prioritised
and that the proposal would result in the Minister appointing too high a proportion
of council members.
116. One former council member supports the proposal, submitting that it would
help councils make decisions in the interests of the whole university, rather than
individual stakeholder groups.
“This should help to move towards council members who have the required
range of governance skills and away from the representative model where
members feel constrained to present on behalf of a stakeholder.” (former
council member)
117. Three former staff members submitted on the proposal, all of whom oppose
making council membership more flexible. They argue that the proposal would
lead to less flexibility and greater ministerial control.
“Flexibility is the wrong word. More ministerial control is not flexibility, it is
simply more government power.” (retired professor)
22
Responses to question three
Proposal
Require the Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to
govern universities
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to require
the Minister and councils to appoint council members capable of governing
universities?
Overview
118. Universities are mixed in their support for requiring the Minister and councils
to appoint council members with the skills to govern universities. Business NZ
and Business Central support the proposal, although both expressed concern
about the lack of clarity with respect to the knowledge, skills and experience
necessary for council members. Other organisations, staff, students and other
submitters mostly oppose the proposal.
119. Over one-fifth of submitters (22.0%) express concern that council members
would not represent stakeholder interests.
120. Over one-fifth of submitters (22.0%) indicate that the skills required of council
members are unclear in the proposal. One-fifth of submitters (20.3%) also
indicate that the proposed skill-set may not be sufficiently diverse to support
effective governance.
121. Some submitters (15%) indicate that the proposal would result in politically
motivated appointments to university councils, and 11.2% express concern that
the proposal would result in universities being inappropriately run like businesses.
122. Almost one-tenth of submitters (9.1%) indicate that the proposal would result
in council members with better skills and experience.
Responses from universities
123. Universities are mixed in their responses to the proposal to require the
Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to govern
universities.
124. AUT and Lincoln both express support for the proposal. Lincoln submits that
the proposal would enhance governance capability, and AUT welcomes the
indication in the consultation document that the skills to govern would be
sufficiently broad to allow universities to appoint stakeholder representatives.
“We support council members being appointed for their skills and experience
relevant to the task of governing universities. Introducing an explicit
requirement that both the Minister and councils themselves make
appointments on this basis should enhance governance capability. Removal
of the existing reference to the Minister considering appointees’ management
experience is consistent with this clearer focus on governance.” (Lincoln)
23
125. Massey supports the need for the Minister and councils to focus on
governance skills when selecting appointees to university councils. However, it
argues that this requirement should not be used to exclude the appointment of
staff and student members. It states that being a staff member or student should
be considered a specific governance skill.
126. Canterbury supports a focus on council members’ skills, but does not believe
this should be required in legislation and should, instead, be strengthened
through its constitution.
127. Waikato and Victoria both emphasise the importance of membership diversity
in effective governance.
“a key factor in effective governance is diversity of membership.” (Waikato)
128. Auckland and Otago oppose the proposal. Otago expresses concern that the
proposal could result in councils that consist solely of those with business
governance experience. Auckland states that the current governance model
already ensures that council members are skilled and knowledgeable. It queries
the framing of the proposal, arguing that it wrongly implies an inherent mismatch
between the current method of appointing council members and the ability of
these members to govern universities.
“A range of members bringing a number of perspectives to the council table
with knowledge and skills attained inside and outside the council setting
enables the council to make informed and appropriate decisions in the best
interests of the institution.” (Auckland)
Responses from key peak-body and union organisations
129. Of the key peak-body and union organisations that answered this question,
Business NZ supports the proposal to require the Minister and councils to appoint
council members with the skills to govern universities. However, it expresses
concern about the lack of clarity with respect to the capabilities necessary for
council members to fulfil their duties.
130. The TEU opposes the proposal, arguing that universities are not businesses
and should not be subject to corporate models of governance.
“Given the very strong business focus evident in the Draft Tertiary Education
Strategy 2014-2019, we can only assume that the intention here is to promote
the appointment of ‘professional’ board members from the commercial sector,
rather than individuals who have direct experience of tertiary education.”
(TEU)
131.
NZUSA states that expertise should not be favoured over representation.
“The rejection of the current representative nature in favour of ‘expertise’ is
also a rejection of democracy. It is ridiculous that secondary schools would
continue to have elected student representatives but that tertiary institutions
would not.” (NZUSA)
132. In addition, the TEU and NZUSA both state that the current governance
model has produced capable councils.
24
“The current model with its mix of representatives from staff, students, and
alumni, together with expertise-based appointments and government
appointments, has produced councils that are capable of governing
universities.” (TEU)
133. This view is shared by NZCTU, who argue that the consultation document
wrongly implies that current council members do not have the skills and
experience that make them capable of governing universities.
134. UNZ and Te Mana Ākonga both express concern that the proposal could
compromise the representation of key stakeholders such as students and staff.
“The Minister proposes to amend the legislation to ‘require the Minister and
councils to appoint council members with the skills to govern universities’.
Taken in isolation, this dominant criterion could exclude student membership
of university councils.” (UNZ)
135. In addition, Te Mana Ākonga states that the proposal could make councils
less likely to reflect gender diversity and the communities they serve.
Responses from other organisations
136. Of the 13 other organisations that submitted on the proposal, Business
Central supports requiring the Minister and councils to appoint council members
with the skills to govern universities.
137. All four of the local students’ associations oppose the proposal. AuSM states
that each institution should be free to determine the skills and experience it needs
on its council. AUSA submits that stakeholder representatives are needed on
councils. OUSA argues that there is no evidence that New Zealand universities
lack highly skilled councils, and VUWSA disagrees that the current representative
nature of councils means they are not capable.
“AuSM opposes the proposal to define the skills required to govern
universities. We are of the view that this should be left to each individual
institution to determine what skills they require on their councils to best meet
their specific needs.” (AuSM)
“A non-representative model of governance will not necessarily result in
effective governance of tertiary institutions. In our experience, having
representatives of stakeholders at the table can improve decision-making and
institutional responsiveness.” (VUWSA)
138. Local TEU and CTU branches also oppose the proposal, submitting that it is
unnecessary (Unions Otago), would lead to the loss of a wide range of views
from councils (Massey TEU and Waikato TEU), and treats universities as a
business enterprise, failing to recognise their complexity (Auckland TEU).
“The government’s proposals are predicated on a narrow conception of the
university as a business enterprise which fails to recognise the complexity of
universities and their wider social and cultural mission.” (Auckland TEU)
139. The principal themes that emerge in the submissions of the remaining other
organisations include the strength of the current model in providing governance
25
capability and the importance of the skills that representative members bring to
the council table.
140. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation submits that the proposal represents
an attempt to subject universities to a corporate model of governance and that
there is no evidence to suggest this would be better than the current model. The
University of Auckland Society states that the current model already provides for
a uniquely appropriate balance of the skills required for successful governance.
Academic Freedom Aotearoa states that representative stakeholders have the
skills to govern universities.
“Academic and general staff members have the skills to govern academic
institutions – knowledge about pedagogy, research, and the ways these can
be properly supported in universities. These skills should not be side-lined by
vague ‘governance’ skills, which ignore the unique nature of universities.”
(Academic Freedom Aotearoa)
Responses from university staff members
141. Of the 123 general and academic staff members who submitted on the
proposals, 100 answered this question. Of those, 82.0% oppose requiring the
Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to govern
universities. More than one-quarter (28.0%) feel there is a lack of detail in the
proposal, particularly around the definition of skills, and that this makes the
proposal difficult to respond to.
“The question is unanswerable without a definition of ‘capable of governing
universities’.” (general staff member)
142. One-quarter (25.0%) submit that the proposed skill set may not be sufficiently
diverse, and almost one-quarter (23.0%) submit that if these requirements were
put in place, members would not represent stakeholder interests.
“The disadvantage is that there will be too many people with the same skill
set on the council. Councils work best if they are diverse.” (academic staff
member)
“The proposal undercuts representation of key stakeholders: for example,
how many student representatives are likely to have demonstrated abilities to
govern a university. The appointments to council cannot fit under some
homogenous capability criteria.” (academic staff member)
143. Almost one-quarter (23.0%) submit that the proposal would lead to political
appointments.
144. Staff members also submit that there is a lack of evidence to support the
proposal (12.0%), and that the proposal would have negative implications for
institutional autonomy (8.0%) and academic freedom (8.0%) and would lead to
councils being inappropriately run like businesses (13.0%).
145. Of the staff members who answered this question, 5.0% support requiring the
Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to govern
universities. Some (3.0%) submit that the proposal would increase the capability
of councils, and, whilst not all agree with the proposal, 11.0% acknowledge that it
would result in council members with better skills and experience.
26
“This will ensure that appropriate members are appointed with required skills
and experience to govern universities.” (academic staff member)
Responses from university students
146. Of the 26 students who submitted on the proposals, 19 answered this
question. Of those, 84.2% oppose requiring the Minister and councils to appoint
council members with the skills to govern universities. Over two-fifths (42.1%)
express concern about the lack of detail in the proposal.
“Needs to be more specific as to the skills the minister arbitrarily deems as
necessary to govern a university.” (student)
147. Almost one-third (31.6%) submit that councils would not represent
stakeholder interests.
“Students don’t want to be governed. We want to be heard.” (student)
148. Students also submit that the proposed skill set may not be sufficiently
diverse (10.5%) and argue that the proposal could lead to political appointments
(10.5%).
“The danger is that this works against the principle of flexibility. If the standard
of 'capability' is narrowly defined or prescribed by the government, then only a
narrow set of values and ideas will be brought to the council.” (student)
“This proposal is an excuse for the Minister to influence councils to appoint
members who will benefit the government, even if this is at the expense of
students and staff.” (student)
149. Of the students that answered this question, 5.3% submit that the proposal
would result in council members with better skills and experience.
“I fully support the suggestion that Ministers be required to appoint members
with the skills to govern universities, rather than members with managerial
skills”. (student)
Responses from other submitters
150. Of the other submitters who commented on the proposal, the majority oppose
requiring the Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to
govern universities.
151. Of the 29 graduates and former students who answered this question, 79.3%
oppose the proposal. Almost one-third (31.0%) indicate a preference for the
status quo. Almost one-quarter (24.1%) feel the proposal would lead to councils
failing to address stakeholder interests.
“The council members that currently serve on Councils around the nation are
more than able to govern universities capably.” (graduate/former student)
“I am VERY concerned that the student body, under the proposed legislation,
would no longer have a say or a means to voice their opinion.”
(gradate/former student)
27
152. Almost one-third (31.0%) also comment on the lack of detail in the proposal,
specifically around the definition of skills.
“Too vague to be meaningful.” (graduate/former student)
153. Of the 30 union members who answered this question, 90.0% oppose the
proposal, with just under one-quarter (23.3%) indicating a preference for the
status quo. Union members express concern that there is insufficient detail and
evidence to support the proposal (23.3%), that it could lead to councils being
inappropriately run like businesses (20.0%), and that it could lead to political
appointments (16.7%).
“This proposal is extremely worrying. Why else would council members be
appointed!? This indicates that there is a danger that future ministers will
appoint incompetent council members for political reasons. Otherwise there is
no reason for this proposal. This proposal also tacitly asserts that current
councillors are NOT capable of governing universities and that they currently
appoint incompetent council members. Again there is no evidence that there
is any need for this proposal.” (union member)
154. Four out of five current council members who answered this question oppose
requiring the Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to
govern universities, as do three out of four former council members. Those
opposing the proposal indicate a preference for the status quo, submitting that
current council members have the skills to govern universities and that the
proposed skill set may not be sufficiently diverse.
“I think this is based on a misconception that governance capability is at odds
with other institutional positions, and with an election process…My
experience is that the combination of the different skills and understanding,
which broadly based membership brings to council deliberations is effective.”
(former council member)
“The appointment mechanism proposed would allow the appointment of 12
people with essentially similar skills. How will the necessary perspective for
the council as a whole, one of the skills surely necessary for a successful
board, be incorporated into the new councils?” (council member)
155. One former council member supports the proposal, submitting that the current
representative model has failed to populate council with members capable of
governing universities.
“The clumsy representative model of the past, which included management
but not governance skills as a guide for appointments has led to some
dreadful short term decision making and involvement of councils in detailed
matters which were clearly management decisions.” (former council member)
156. Three former staff members submitted on the proposal, all of whom oppose
requiring the Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to
govern universities. These submitters argue that current council members have
the skills to govern universities and that the proposed change is unnecessary.
“This solves a non-existent problem.” (retired academic staff member)
28
Responses to question four
Proposal
Clarify the duties and accountabilities of individual council members
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to clarify
the duties and accountabilities of individual council members?
Overview
157. Responses to the proposal to clarify the duties and accountabilities of
individual council members were generally mixed. Four of the eight universities
addressed this proposal in their submissions. Two of these support the proposal,
whilst the other two offer a mixed response. Of the organisations, Business NZ,
Business Central and NZCTU support the proposal, whilst the others oppose it.
Responses from staff, students and other submitters are mixed, although a higher
proportion oppose the proposal than support it.
158. Over one-fifth of submitters (20.9%) indicate that duties and accountabilities
for individual council members already exist and almost one-tenth of submitters
(9.6%) indicate that the definition of duties and accountabilities in the proposal is
unclear.
159. Over one-tenth of submitters (10.7%) also indicate that the proposal would
not help to ensure that councils operate in the best interests of universities.
160. However, over one-tenth of submitters (10.2%) indicate that the proposal
would clarify the duties of individual council members, and 10.7% indicate that
the proposal would result in council members being accountable for fulfilling their
duties.
Responses from universities
161. Four of the eight universities (Lincoln, Massey, AUT and Auckland) address
the proposal to clarify individual council members’ duties and accountabilities.
162. Lincoln supports the proposal, submitting that it would provide council
members with a clearer picture of their duties and accountabilities.
“The proposed addition of duties and accountabilities of individual council
members should provide a clearer framework under which members
discharge their collective and individual duties”. (Lincoln)
163. AUT also supports the proposal, submitting that members’ duties should be
clarified in a manner similar to those of board members under the Crown Entities
Act 2004.
“AUT welcomes the review’s proposal that the duties and accountabilities of
individual council members should be clarified. Individual duties and
accountabilities to the university that each council member serves, such as
acting with honesty and integrity, in good faith, and with reasonable care,
29
diligence or skill, are consistent with the continued development of a high
performing university council culture.” (AUT)
164. Auckland states that council members already have a clear understanding of
their collective responsibilities. However, it expresses support for clarifying that
council members’ responsibilities to the institution outweigh responsibilities to
those who appointed or elected them.
165. Massey cautions that focusing on individual sanctions against individual
members could act to undermine the key principle of the collective accountability
of councils.
Responses from key peak-body and union organisations
166. Five of the seven key peak-body and union organisations (TEU, NZUSA, Te
Mana Ākonga, Business NZ and NZCTU) address the proposal to clarify the
duties and accountabilities of individual council members.
167. Business NZ and NZCTU are broadly supportive of the proposal and
acknowledge the need for clarity in this area.
“It is essential to ensure that the duties and accountabilities of individual
members are articulated.” (NZCTU)
168. Business NZ states that this clarification should go beyond the duties and
accountabilities of individual council members and include an accountability
framework, clearly setting out roles and responsibilities, including the relationship
between university councils, the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of
Education, and the Minister.
“Further work is required to establish as transparently as possible who is
accountable for what, when, and how (e.g. establishing clear boundaries).”
(Business NZ)
169. The TEU argues that clear statements on the duties and responsibilities of
councils members already exist in current legislation and requests further details
of what duties and accountabilities would be clarified.
“Without any specification as to what needs to be clarified regarding roles and
responsibilities in the consultation document, we have no way of knowing how
the definition of individual council member duties and accountabilities might
be changed….We would appreciate further information that discusses
perceived problems in relation to council members’ understanding or
fulfilment of their duties and responsibilities, so that we can make an informed
assessment of the strength of the case for any change.” (TEU)
170. NZUSA does not address the question directly, but argues that the Minister
already has options for addressing performance problems.
“The Minister already has a number of tools available for dealing with councils
which are ineffective. This includes his own appointments, the ability for TEC
to withhold funding for unsatisfactory performance and appointments of
observers to the council.” (NZUSA)
30
Responses from other organisations
171. Ten of the 13 other organisations address the proposal to clarify individual
council members’ duties and accountabilities. Otago TEU, VUWSA and AuSM did
not address this proposal.
172.
Two organisations, Business Central and OUSA, support the proposal.
“This is absolutely a good idea” (OUSA)
173. The remaining eight organisations oppose the proposal. The most common
argument is that clarification is not needed.
“Massey TEU are surprised that this review has determined any need to
clarify duties and responsibilities, when councils already have a Code of
Conduct and Operating Manual to guide council members on their duties and
accountabilities.” (Massey TEU)
“We see no need to further codify the ‘duties and accountabilities of individual
council members’. We are aware of no credible evidence that council
members have not been to date adequately aware of their duties and
responsibilities or performed in their roles less.” (Academic Freedom
Aotearoa)
174.
Several of these organisations also question the motives behind the proposal.
“The suspicion remains that this is intended to ensure a business orientated
model of governance.” (Unions Otago)
“The rationale for the proposed change seems to be to impose greater
statutory obligations on council members to abide by the policies of the
government.” (Auckland TEU)
Responses from university staff members
175. Of the 123 general and academic staff members who submitted on the
proposals, 96 answered this question. Of those, 53.1% oppose clarifying the
duties and accountabilities of individual council members. More than one-quarter
(26.0%) submit that duties and accountabilities already exist for individual council
members.
“I believe the duties and accountabilities of individual council members are
clear as they stand. If it’s not broke then don’t fix it.” (general staff member)
“The consultation document’s expectations are excellent but are already in
place. The proposed changes will not alter current expectations of council
members.” (academic staff member)
176. Some (15.6%) indicate that the proposal would not help councils operate in
the best interests of universities and their stakeholders.
“Accountability is a top down approach. More collaborative, high trust
approaches have been shown to be more effective. Accountability does not
ensure that councils operate in the best interest of the university and its
stakeholders.” (academic staff member)
31
177. Staff members also express concern that the proposed sanctions would be
too severe (11.5%), that the definition of duties and accountabilities is unclear
(11.5%), and that the duties would be too specific (10.4%).
“I would question the benefit of legislation that is prescriptive. Why not use
existing employment law; the use of increasing regulations that are
ambiguous as a panacea is neither clever nor does it really fulfil its purpose.”
(academic staff member)
178. Of the staff members who answered this question, 24.0% support clarifying
the duties and accountabilities of individual council members. Some (13.4%)
indicate that the proposal would successfully clarify the duties and
accountabilities of staff members, 11.5% submit that it would ensure individual
members are held accountable for fulfilling their duties, and 7.3% state that it
would help to ensure councils operate in the best interests of universities and
their stakeholders.
“This seems very reasonable; I’m surprised that it isn’t already in place.”
(academic staff member)
“It is a very good idea; each council member should bring valuable
experience/ideas to the table, and contribute to the growth of the university.”
(academic staff member)
“Clarifying the duties and accountabilities of anyone on a ruling body is
useful.” (academic staff member)
Responses from university students
179. Of the 26 students who submitted on the proposals, 17 answered this
question. Of those, 41.1% oppose clarifying the duties and accountabilities of
individual council members.
180. Almost one-third (29.4%) submit that duties and accountabilities already exist
for individual council members.
“It is not necessary for legislation to intervene in this by dictating roles and
punishments. Universities are capable of setting expectations and regulating
membership themselves.” (student)
181. Some (17.4%) indicate that the definition of duties and accountabilities in the
proposal is unclear.
182. Of the 17 students who answered this question, over one-third (35.3%)
support clarifying the duties and accountabilities of individual council members.
Some (17.6%) submit that, unlike the status quo, the proposal would ensure that
members are held accountable for fulfilling their duties.
“I think it is a good idea to hold individual members accountable, for it must be
easier to do so if they are individually rather than collectively accountable. It
would be far better for an individual member to be sacked than for an entire
council to be sacked because of one member’s incompetence...Under the
status quo, sacking the entire council or leaving the incompetent (et cetera)
member on it would seem to be the only options.” (student)
32
183. Students also submit that the proposal would successfully clarify members’
duties and accountabilities (11.8%) and would help to ensure councils operate in
the best interests of universities and their stakeholders (11.8%).
“Outlining these expectations in legislation would seem to me advantageous.
These expectations would serve as a standard against which members’
service could be measured.” (student)
Reponses from other submitters
184. Other submitters are divided in their support for clarifying individual council
members’ duties and accountabilities.
185. Of the 27 graduates and former students who answered this question, 14.8%
support and 44.4% oppose the proposal.
186. Almost one-third (29.4%) submit that duties and accountabilities already exist
for individual council members. In contrast, 22.2%, several of whom did not
indicate their support for the proposal, submit that it would ensure that members
are held accountable for fulfilling their duties.
“Disadvantages: Not necessary (already happens).” (graduate/former student)
“I think this is positive. We have had several disengaged governmentappointed members on our council over the years, whose tendency has been
to rubber-stamp management's plans, rather than asking educationally sound
and research-led questions.” (graduate/former student)
187.
Of the 30 union members who submitted on the proposal, 14.3% support and
53.6% oppose the proposal. Almost one-third (32.1%) submit that duties and
accountabilities already exist for individual council members. Almost one-fifth
(17.9%) argue that the proposal would not help councils to operate in the best
interests of universities and their stakeholders. In contrast, 14.3% submit that the
proposal would ensure that members are held accountable.
“There is no reason to suspect that university councils currently do not
operate with honesty, integrity, good faith, reasonable care, diligence and
skill…It is perverse to legislate the behaviour of an unproblematic group of
people.” (union member)
“There are significant advantages in the proposal to clarify the duties and
accountabilities of council members. The process of clarification would lead to
a more transparent set of criteria for university governance.” (union member)
188. There is general support for clarifying individual council members’ duties and
accountabilities among the current council members who submitted on the
proposal, (only one member opposes the proposal); however, several suggest
that clarifications should be flexible.
“Making clear the duties and accountabilities of both individual council
members and the council as a whole seems unproblematic provided it is not
too prescriptive and allows the 'flexibility' that councils need to do their job.”
(council member)
33
189. Three out of four former council members oppose the proposal arguing that it
is too general and more appropriate to a board of directors than a university
council.
“I do not see any benefit to this. The duties and accountabilities suggested in
the discussion document are so general as to have no real impact on the
behaviour of council members.” (former council member)
190. Three former staff members submitted on the proposal, with two in favour and
one opposed. Those in favour consider it an attempt to improve transparency,
whilst those opposed submit that it is unnecessary and express concern
regarding the motives behind it.
“How can one object to this? It looks like a standard procedure to ensure
openness and transparency.” (retired academic staff member)
“Individual council members normally understand their duties and
accountabilities already. If clarification means they must follow a political party
line or specific business interests that would be simply disastrous.” (retired
professor)
34
Responses to question five
Question
Is there anything else you would like to share about university governance?
Responses from universities
191.
In responding to this question, universities comment on the following:

transitional arrangements

institutional autonomy and academic freedom

the uniqueness of universities

vice-chancellors on councils

government policy in the tertiary education sector

comparisons with the polytechnic model

misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising
representation over skills

evidence for the proposal.
Transitional arrangements
192. Two universities (Auckland and AUT) comment on possible transitional
arrangements. AUT welcomes the indication in the consultation document that
legislative changes would include arrangements to transition smoothly to the new
governance settings and states that it would need until at least 2016 to implement
the new settings.
193. Auckland is critical of a lack of detail in the consultation document about
transitional arrangements and expresses concern that the composition of the new
council could be heavily influenced by the four ministerial appointees.
Institutional autonomy and academic freedom
194. AUT states that the review’s proposed changes show that the Government is
aware of the need to protect institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
195. Auckland and Otago are critical of the impact of the changes on institutional
autonomy and academic freedom.
“We perceive the proposed changes as inappropriate and potentially
detrimental to institutional autonomy and academic freedom.” (Otago)
“The process and substance of the current review appears itself to be at risk
of breaching the obligations of [section] 161(4) [of the Education Act 1989] to
both preserve and enhance academic freedom and institutional autonomy.”
(Auckland)
35
The uniqueness of universities
196. Several universities comment on the uniqueness of universities, submitting
that they are complex institutions that are different from other tertiary education
organisations and private sector businesses.
“The requirements of the Education Act 1989 make it clear that universities
are broader in focus and more complex than other types of tertiary
organisations…A university’s business is much more complex: it does involve
the mechanics of capital, income and expenditure that are common to all
businesses, but it has as its key functions the additional responsibilities of
teaching, of developing intellectual capital (through blue skies and
industry/economy-facing research), promoting social advancement (ensuring
the welfare, educational outcomes and future of our students, and promoting
the health, well-being and wealth of wider New Zealand society), and serving
as a champion and arbiter for national and international ethics.” (Otago)
Vice-chancellors on councils
197. AUT, Canterbury and Waikato all submit that the vice-chancellor should
continue to be a required member of university councils.
“As a matter of fundamental principle, the legislation must provide for the
vice-chancellor to be an ex officio member. The vice-chancellor must be a
member of the Council as a statutory right rather than by choice of individual
councils.” (Waikato)
Government policy in the tertiary education sector
198. Auckland and Massey comment on government policy in the tertiary sector,
suggesting that government policies and processes have negative impacts on
council efficiency and university performance.
“It is the experience of the Massey Council that what has greatest impact on
its ability to act expeditiously and make appropriate decisions in the interest of
the institution is not the size or make up of the Council but rather the large
number of key decisions that have to be approved by the central bureaucracy
(often involving extended timeframes) and the constrained decision options
around fees and student numbers.” (Massey)
“Current governance arrangements at this university have not by any
measure been an impediment to a high level of performance. What has been
an impediment, and a significant contributor to our decline in international
rankings is the fact that Government policy forces us to operate with the
lowest income levels per student in the developed world.” (Auckland)
Comparisons with the polytechnic model
199. Auckland and Otago both submit that comparisons should not be made
between the governance of universities and polytechnics. Otago feels that
polytechnics are less complex organisations than universities and, therefore, the
small councils that polytechnics have would not be appropriate for universities. It
also questions the view that governance changes in the polytechnic sector
comprise evidence of the benefits that will derive from reducing university council
size. Auckland describes comparisons between the two sectors as inappropriate
36
and states that the proposal appears to be an adaptation of the governance
model previously applied to polytechnics. It considers that this model has failed to
achieve its objectives.
“There has been no attempt to differentiate universities from other sectors in
the tertiary education system, despite fundamental differences in the roles
played by universities historically and internationally as recognised by the
Education Act 1989.” (Auckland)
Misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising representation
over skills
200. Auckland and Waikato question the statement in the consultation document
that the current governance model prioritises stakeholder representation over the
governance skills and abilities of council members. Waikato argues that this
statement is too simplistic, whilst Auckland suggests that it is not an accurate
description of the current governance model.
Evidence for the proposal
201. Auckland and Otago feel that there is insufficient evidence to support the
proposal or to show how it would improve current institutional performance.
“The government is committed to evidence-based policy yet the consultation
document does not meet that standard. It provides no evidence that councils
are systemically failing to meet their obligations or address the challenges
they face, or how the proposed legislative changes would achieve the stated
goals.” (Auckland)
“Evidence that New Zealand university councils are not nimble is
lacking…The problem with the current council sizes has not been clearly
articulated, with evidence of the need for change limited or non-existent.”
(Otago)
Responses from key peak-body and union organisations
202. In responding to this question, key peak-body and union organisations
comment on the following:

transitional arrangements

institutional autonomy and academic freedom

the Treaty of Waitangi

comparing universities to businesses

detail and supporting evidence in the consultation document

misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising
representation over skills

processes for recruiting, screening and appointing council members

student membership of university councils
37

Māori membership of university councils.
Transitional arrangements
203. Business NZ and UNZ comment on possible transitional arrangements.
Business NZ states that transitional arrangements should ensure that councils
are able to maintain their ability to function at a high level during a transition. UNZ
endorses the need for a smooth transition process, should legislative change
proceed. It states that outgoing councils should be involved in developing new
constitutions.
“New Zealand needs its universities to continue to perform strongly and the
transitional arrangements must avoid any negative impact on that
performance from disruptions at the governance level.” (UNZ)
Institutional autonomy and academic freedom
204. Several key peak-body and union organisations comment on the possible
negative impact of the proposals on institutional autonomy and academic
freedom.
“The proposals in the document are a challenge to fundamental higher
education and university principles of protecting academic freedom,
institutional autonomy and the critic and conscience role played by
universities.” (NZCTU)
205. NZUSA and UNZ express concern that a higher proportion of ministerial
appointees on councils could negatively impact universities’ institutional
autonomy.
“Given that the ministerial appointees will not be reduced under the proposal,
there will be a greater influence exercised by the government on universities.
This will seriously undermine institutional autonomy, and will make
universities subject to the whims of the current government.” (NZUSA)
“Chancellors and vice-chancellors note that although the Minister’s proposals
would not result in the numerical dominance of ministerial appointees on
university councils they would result in ministerial appointees comprising an
increased proportion of university council members. Absent other stakeholder
representation, the proposals would give one stakeholder group a dominant
voice…Any governance model in which the Minister or any other party
appointed a substantial proportion of the members of university councils
would be inconsistent with institutional autonomy.” (UNZ)
206. The TEU references a position paper it sent to the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills and Employment in October 2012 entitled “Independence,
responsible autonomy and public control: the keys to good governance in tertiary
education”, which presents a number of core principles needed to underpin
decisions about tertiary governance. It suggests that some of these principles are
reflected in the proposals, but a number of the proposals fall short of these
principles. It argues that, if changes to the governance structure of universities
occur, they must be based on these principles, as this would ensure open and
democratic processes.
38
The Treaty of Waitangi
207. NZCTU, Te Mana Ākonga and the TEU comment on a lack of references to
the Treaty of Waitangi in the proposal. NZCTU expresses concern that the
consultation document makes no reference to the role of the Treaty or the rights
and responsibilities that it confers. The TEU states that, given Māori learner
achievement is a priority for the whole sector and that universities have Treaty
responsibilities via their relationship with the Crown, it would expect specific
reference to these elements in the review objectives.
208. Te Mana Ākonga expresses concern that the loss of student representatives
on councils will make it difficult for institutions to acknowledge the principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi.
“For Te Mana Ākonga, the practical application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi every
day is essential and so we cannot support any proposal that has the potential
to contradict or impede the recognition and practical application of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi in the functioning of institutions and their councils.” (Te Mana
Ākonga)
Comparing universities to businesses
209. The TEU, NZUSA, TIASA and NZCTU comment that universities are different
from businesses and state that a corporate governance model is not appropriate
for universities.
“Universities are not businesses – they exist for fundamentally different
purposes, and therefore operate by a different set of requirements. In
business, the primary goal of the organisation is to deliver returns to
shareholders or the business owner. In contrast, universities are public
institutions that as part of their accountability responsibilities, must retain
strong links to the communities they serve.” (TEU)
“Universities and wānanga are public entities and their role, stakeholder
relationships and governance cannot be simply translated or copied from the
private corporate sector. Their role is not the same as a corporate entity
seeking to maximise profits.” (TIASA)
Detail and supporting evidence in the consultation document
210. UNZ states that the consultation document is brief and lacks detail regarding
the nature and extent of the possible changes to legislation. It also suggests
there is a lack of evidence to justify the changes or show how they would improve
current institutional performance. In particular, it suggests there is a lack of
evidence that council size is correlated with poor performance, that large councils
have problems with timely decision-making and that the current governance
model has prevented councils from being agile and adaptive.
Misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising representation
over skills
211. NZCTU states that neither the current stakeholder model nor current
university practice prioritise representation over skills. It also emphasises that a
stakeholder model is not incompatible with a skills-based approach on councils.
39
Processes for recruiting, screening and appointing council members
212. Business NZ proposes a new approach for the process of appointing council
members.
“The Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission should
explore the use of nominations sub-committees with a majority of external
members, so that the recruitment, screening and recommendation processes
can be proactively managed. Such an approach would enhance
transparency.” (Business NZ)
Student membership of university councils
213. NZUSA emphasises the importance of student membership on university
councils.
“Research confirms that student participation in the decision-making or
governance level is valuable for learners themselves and for the
organisations where they study…This research confirms that student
representatives on councils need to be seen as part of, and connected into, a
system of student representation, and that they need to be trained, given
access to resources they can use to gather student opinion and perspective.
It also identifies that the culture of listening to the student voice needs to be
enshrined such that the student voice is legitimated, recognised and
rewarded.” (NZUSA)
Māori membership of university councils
214. Te Mana Ākonga states that it is appropriate for Māori students to be
represented at the governance level where key decisions are made regarding
provision and resourcing, both of which it feels are crucial to encouraging the
success and achievement of Māori in the university sector.
Responses from other organisations
215.
In responding to this question, other organisations comment on the following:

institutional autonomy and academic freedom

detail and supporting evidence in the consultation document

comparing universities to businesses

government policy in the tertiary education sector

comparisons with the polytechnic model.
Institutional autonomy and academic freedom
216. OUSA, AUSA, the University of Auckland Society, Academic Freedom
Aotearoa, Auckland TEU and Massey TEU are critical of the impact of the
changes on institutional autonomy and academic freedom, with the most
commonly identified concern being the increased proportion of ministerial
appointees resulting from smaller councils.
40
“Given that the ministerial appointees will not be reduced, there will be a
greater influence exercised by the government on universities. This is harmful
to institutional autonomy.” (AUSA)
“This proposal would undermine the independence of universities. It extends
the scope of ministerial patronage and party-political interests in ways that
could undermine academic freedom and good governance.” (Auckland TEU)
“In the absence of any proof around the efficiencies that will be gained by
reducing council size, we perceive the proposed changes as inappropriate
and detrimental to institutional autonomy and academic freedom.” (OUSA)
Detail and supporting evidence in the consultation document
217. Unions Otago, Academic Freedom Aotearoa, OUSA, Massey TEU and
Auckland TEU state that the review documentation fails to provide evidence of
the need for change.
“The Government argues that the current size of university councils is too
large and unwieldy and that governing boards with more than 12 members
‘can make decision-making difficult and reduce efficiency’, yet it provides no
data to support these claims.” (Auckland TEU)
“The review documentation provides little evidence that the current
arrangements do not provide for council members who can best reflect the
unique characteristics of the institution.” (Massey TEU)
218.
Unions Otago also questions a lack of evidence to support the proposals.
“We are concerned that the proposed changes are ideological in nature,
rather than based on any empirical evidence.” (Unions Otago)
219. AUSA and Waikato TEU express concern about the lack of detail in the
proposal, with AUSA submitting that the consultation document is vague and
Waikato TEU submitting that there has been no clear guidance as to where
representation will be drawn from.
Comparing universities to businesses
220. Waikato and Massey TEU, Unions Otago and the University of Auckland
Society argue that universities exist for different reasons than other businesses
and should not be treated the same.
“A university is not like a business or most voluntary agencies which have
deliberately been established and continue to advance a relatively narrow
purpose and focus. Unlike businesses or voluntary agencies a university
needs to have a very wide range of skills, knowledge and stakeholders
represented on its governing body.” (University of Auckland Society)
Government policy in the tertiary education sector
221. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation and AUSA are both critical of
government funding policies in the tertiary education sector.
“The proposed legislation is not an isolated assault on publicly funded
education, but follows funding cuts that have all but destroyed adult
41
community education, and have adversely affected institutes of technology
and polytechnics.” (New Zealand Nurses Organisation)
222. AUSA argues that increased investment, not governance changes, is most
likely to improve the performance of New Zealand’s universities.
“New Zealand universities are forced by government policy to operate with
the lowest income levels per student in the developed world. Changing
university governance would be a distraction from the investment required to
address and enhance the quality and ranking of our institutions.” (AUSA)
Comparisons with the polytechnic model
223. OUSA argues that comparisons should not be made between universities and
polytechnics. It submits that polytechnics are less complex organisations than
universities and questions the view that governance changes in the polytechnic
sector comprises evidence of the benefits that will derive from reducing university
council size.
Responses from university staff members
224. In responding to this question, academic and general staff members comment
on the following:

Government policy in the tertiary education sector

training for council members

misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising
representation over skills.
Government policy in the tertiary education sector
225. A number of staff members express concern about current funding levels for
universities and indicate that the Government should focus on funding rather than
changes to governance settings.
“Let’s focus on the real problems, primarily a lack of funding, rather than
rearranging (or reducing) the number of deck chairs on the Titanic. This
discussion about council size is just an unnecessary distraction.” (academic
staff member)
“It is likely that the size of councils is not an important variable in university
performance. On the other hand, funding levels clearly do matter and NZ
universities are barely hanging on internationally owing to the very low
funding levels in the entire tertiary education and research system.”
(academic staff member)
226. Some staff members submit that external compliance requirements are the
primary impediment to councils operating efficiently and effectively.
“In fact, it is general external compliance requirements (Universities New
Zealand, TEC, NZQA etc) that impede universities’ nimbleness in responding
to collaboration and commercialisation opportunities, rather than any internal
mechanisms at governance level.” (general staff member)
42
Training for council members
227. A number of staff comment on the importance of training for council
members.
“I affirm the need for council members to have and develop skills appropriate
to full participation in council responsibilities…A council needs to maintain for
all its members a supporting programme for the continuing enhancement of
these skills and understanding necessary to effective participation in council
responsibilities.” (academic staff member)
Misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising representation
over skills
228. Some staff members are critical of the consultation process, submitting that
the current governance model was misrepresented in the consultation document.
“In the rationale it is said that universities have a representative model of
governance. They do not. There are appointees by the Minister and the
council. In addition members of council who are not ministerial or council
appointees are not representative of any constituency…Staff, students and
the Court of Convocation might elect people to council but those elected in no
sense represent their electors (there is no provision for them to do so). They
become members of the council who are then required to be responsible to
the council alone.” (academic staff member)
Responses from university students
229.
In responding to this question, students comment on the following:

training for council members

comparing universities to businesses

the purpose of universities

world university rankings.
Training for council members
230. A number of students advocate for training programmes so that council
members can develop strong governance skills. They submit that such training is
preferable to excluding unskilled people from councils.
“You also run into the age old question of how an individual will ever gain the
skills to govern universities if they are not eligible to join a council where they
could learn such skills.” (student)
Comparing universities to businesses
231. Several students submit that the proposed changes are an attempt to run
universities as businesses.
43
“If guaranteed representative seats are removed from council the university
might be run as a business first and foremost which it shouldn’t. A university
is a place for teaching research and learning.” (student)
“A university is not a business and it should not be treated as such.” (student)
The purpose of universities
232. Some students submit that the purpose of universities is not reflected in the
proposals in the consultation document.
“I see nothing in any of the discussion documents that suggests the valuing of
any ethic greater than efficiency and nimbleness. This is a grave concern.
Tertiary councils need to govern in a manner cognisant of a social duty of
care that needs to be far broader than efficiency and nimbleness.” (student)
“Governing tertiary institutions with economic efficiency and growth as the first
purpose is likely to significantly harm the social purpose of the tertiary sector.”
(student)
World university rankings
233. Some students submit that the proposed changes will lead to universities
declining further in world rankings.
“The Government wants to give less money for greater control and financial
return. This will not work and will result in further loss of QS world rankings.”
(student)
Responses from other submitters
234. In responding to this question, other submitters also comment on the
following:

comparing universities to businesses

misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising
representation over skills.

government policy in the tertiary education sector

institutional autonomy and academic freedom

detail and supporting evidence in the consultation document.
Comparing universities to businesses
235. Other submitters comment that universities are not businesses and should
not be subject to a corporate model of governance.
“Universities do not have “business models.” They have complementary
missions of teaching, research, and public service…By treating universities
as businesses, you make their incentive profit over the people they are
created to serve. This is not good enough.” (graduate/former student)
44
“I am extremely concerned that this review looks like an attempt to apply a
business governance model to an institution which, while having some
aspects in common with businesses is of a quite distinctive nature and has
responsibilities which require a broad understanding of the nature of
academic activity, teaching, learning, and the academic freedom essential to
a role in democratic societies.” (former council member)
“The proposed shift is clearly about centralising control of the tertiary sector
and is an obvious attempt to bring education into even greater alignment with
a market model.” (union member)
Misrepresentation of the current makeup of councils as prioritising representation
over skills
236. A number of other submitters, including graduates and former students, union
members and current and former council members submit that there is no conflict
between the current representative model and the governance capability of
council members.
“The consultation is framed as if there is a conflict between the representative
method of appointment and the ability to govern. That is not the case,
particularly given the ability of councils to use co-options to fill skill gaps.”
(graduate/former student)
“The representativeness/capacity dichotomy is a false one.” (union member)
“A major error in the proposal is setting in opposition the representational
model of council membership and a model stressing the capability and
efficiency of council members. The two roles, with respect to universities, are
both essential and inter-dependent.” (council member)
Government policy in the tertiary education sector
237. Several former students and staff members express concern about current
funding levels for universities and indicate that the Government should focus on
funding rather than changes to governance settings.
“None of our universities have fared well in the time the present government
has been in office. Major reasons for their slippage have included (a)
excessive managerial pressure, causing serious loss of morale, and (b)
inadequate government funding and excessive government interference.”
(retired staff member)
“[The proposals are] distracting public attention away from the major issues
affecting tertiary education in New Zealand - i.e., continuing under-investment
in the sector.” (graduate/former student)
Institutional autonomy and academic freedom
238. A number of union members are critical of the impact of the changes on
institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
“If this legislation is passed, my university will be controlled by politicians in
Wellington. The value of universities lies in their independence. Naturally this
independence has a price. Researchers, scientists in particular, will not
45
always find what you want us to find or say what you want us to say.
Universities are often centres of dissent and discontent. But they are vital for
this very reason. This legislation is dangerous.” (union member)
“This displays an appalling lack of vision and democracy as well as
undermining the very principle of academic freedom.” (union member)
Detail and supporting evidence in the consultation document
239. Several other submitters, including former students and former council
members are critical of the consultation process and submit that this made it
difficult for them to respond to the proposals put forward.
“I consider the discussion document to be lacking. There is no substantive
analysis of any problems with the performance of councils under their existing
composition, and no evidence for thinking that what is proposed will be an
improvement. I find it extremely difficult to give a reasoned response to
something which gives no proposed legislation to consider.” (former council
member)
46
Responses regarding wānanga governance
Overview
240. Seven unique submissions were received on the proposed changes to
wānanga governance. These were received from each of the three wānanga, two
organisations (the Aotearoa Institute and TEU) and two individual submitters,
both of whom indicated they are wānanga staff members.
241. Three key peak-body and union organisations (Te Mana Ākonga, NZCTU and
TIASA) provided joint submissions on the wānanga and university governance
reviews. These submissions generally advance the same arguments for both
universities and wānanga. They also include feedback unique to the wānanga
governance review. UNZ, NZUSA and Business NZ did not address the proposed
changes to wānanga governance.
Summary of responses from wānanga
242. Wānanga are generally supportive of the proposal. Te Wānanga o Aotearoa
(TWoA) and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi (Awanuiārangi) both support
governance changes along the lines of the proposals outlined in the consultation
document; however, TWoA would prefer ministerial appointees to only account
for 25% of council membership. Both institutions explain that not all of their
stakeholders share their support.
243. Te Wānanga of Raukawa (TWoR) does not feel that there is a problem with
its council. It seeks flexibility to determine its council size, its chairperson and the
nature of non-ministerial appointees. Its priorities for its council include
representation of its founding iwi, the cultural competencies of its members, and a
balance between Crown- and council-appointed members.
Summary of responses from organisations
244. Organisations who submitted on wānanga governance generally oppose the
proposed changes, with the partial exception of the Aotearoa Institute.
245. The Aotearoa Institute supports reducing council size and the continuation of
four members appointed by the Minister. It also supports a focus on council
members’ skills and the clarification of duties and accountabilities. It does not
support the proposal that wānanga councils will appoint non-ministerial
appointees.
246. The TEU does not support the proposal to change wānanga governance
settings, other than to include provision to ensure representatives have the skills
to govern wānanga in accordance with āhuatanga and tikanga Māori and to
enable wānanga to represent their unique stakeholders on their councils.
247. TIASA accepts that current legislative settings for wānanga governance were
not written with wānanga in mind and may not reflect their unique status under
the Education Act 1989. However, it does not believe that removing mandated
stakeholder representation will allow wānanga to reflect their unique status on
their councils.
47
248. Te Mana Ākonga expresses concern that Māori students would not be
represented on wānanga councils without required representational membership.
It considers Māori student representation on wānanga councils particularly
important to meeting Māori students’ pastoral needs, as outlined in the Tertiary
Education Strategy 2010-2015.
Summary of individual submissions
249. Of the two individual submissions, one generally supports the proposals and
one generally opposes the proposals.
48
Responses to question one
Proposal
Decrease council size from 12 to 20 members to 8 to 12 members
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to
decrease the size of wānanga councils?
Responses from wānanga
250. Two of the three wānanga (TWoA and Awanuiārangi) support the proposal to
reduce council size to between 8 and 12 members, as this aligns with their own
preferences for their councils.
“Te Mana Whakahaere [TWoA’s council] was seeking to reduce its size to just
eight members. However, consultation with staff members revealed a desire
for a slightly larger council, offering increased scope for the inclusion of
suitably qualified Māori stakeholders.” (TWoA)
251. TWoA does not support the proposed model of four ministerial appointees on
eight to 12 members councils.
“The preferred model proposed by Te Mana Whakahaere allows for two
ministerial appointees who will make up 25% of an eight member council.
This proportion aligns with the existing model which has four ministerial
appointees on a seventeen member council.” (TWoA)
252. TWoR seeks flexibility to determine its council size and feels that Crown
appointees should not outnumber other council members.
Responses from organisations
253. Of the organisations who answered this question, only the Aotearoa Institute
supports the proposal to reduce council size.
254. The Aotearoa Institute states that it has no objection to the reduction in
council size providing that legislation protects membership on TWoA’s council for
the institute’s members.
“The Aotearoa Institute submits that the right to representation of the founding
iwi and Māori stakeholders who are the legitimating Māori authorities
(custodial authorities) in respect to the principles of Treaty partnership with
the Crown, and who protect the tikanga and āhuatanga Māori statutes of
wānanga is respected by means of an entrenched provision of seats for those
authorities.” (Aotearoa Institute)
255. The TEU states that wānanga are large and complex institutions and that a
larger council size is needed to reflect this.
“Wānanga must maintain relationships with a wide range of iwi, community,
research, and business relationships, both nationally and internationally. They
49
must manage and support a diverse staff population and respond to the
needs of an equally diverse student population…Therefore it is critical that
their governance structures reflect this diversity and complexity…A reduction
in council size will mean the loss of this diversity and will affect the quality of
decision-making.” (TEU)
256. Te Mana Ākonga submits that a reduction in council size would make it
increasingly difficult for wānanga to engage with iwi and ensure their council
reflects their communities.
“With respect to wānanga, the challenge for their council is to determine who
would be best to reflect their community. While a council may wish to engage
with a number of hapū and iwi, this becomes problematic when there are a
number of hapū and iwi within the immediate area that should be considered
for membership of the wānanga council but may not be able to participate
because of the reduced council size.” (Te Mana Ākonga)
Individual submissions
257. Of the two individual submissions, one supports the proposal to reduce
council size on the grounds that it will lead to faster decision-making, whilst the
other opposes it, submitting that there is no advantage to the downsizing of
councils.
50
Responses to question two
Proposal
Make council membership requirements more flexible
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to make
council membership requirements more flexible?
Responses from wānanga
258. TWoA and Awanuiārangi support the proposal to make council membership
requirements more flexible.
259. Awanuiārangi states that it is unhappy with the current representative model
of governance, which it considers counterproductive and slow to make decisions.
TWoA states that the existing model does not guarantee members’ capability or
provide enough flexibility for councils to select members with the necessary
strategic thinking skills.
“Te Mana Whakahaere agrees with the Crown’s proposal to make council
membership more flexible. Although the existing, highly prescribed
representative membership model provides good representation for
stakeholders, it does not necessarily furnish councils with highly capable
members able to make decisions about the future direction of multi-million
dollar organisations.” (TWoA)
260. TWoR states that any changes to its governance structure must ensure iwi
membership on the council and recognise the Treaty relationship.
“Our kaupapa/tikanga framework provides a good basis for commenting on
Governance arrangements: That the governance structure ensures positions
for the confederation of iwi that founded the organisation and recognises the
treaty relationship.” (TWoR)
Responses from organisations
261. With the partial exception of the Aotearoa Institute, organisations are opposed
to the proposal to make council membership more flexible.
262. The Aotearoa Institute agrees in principle to the enhanced flexibility of
councils. However, it considers that three organisations that were important to
TWoA’s founding (the Aotearoa Institute, the Kīngitanga and Ngāti Maniapoto)
should have the right to appoint non-ministerial council members to TWoA’s
council.
263. Both the TEU and NZCTU support making membership requirements more
flexible to enable wānanga to reflect their unique status and relationships, but not
at the expense of broader representation within the council’s structure.
51
“Wānanga perform a unique function in the tertiary education sector. The
CTU supports changes to ensure that crucial stakeholders such as iwi are
represented on wānanga councils. But we do not accept that this should
happen at the expense of staff and student representation.” (NZCTU)
264. TIASA does not support eliminating required representational membership,
submitting that the current stakeholder model is important to ensure wānanga are
able to respond to their unique challenges.
“Wananga are unique and as a result, councils have had to manage through
some turbulent changes and dynamic environments. The stakeholder model
with staff, Māori, and CTU representation, ensures staff and key stakeholder
input into and buy-in to the dynamic and sometimes unpredictable needs of
the institution, and enables effective response to the challenges.” (TIASA)
265. Te Mana Ākonga expresses particular concern that Māori students would not
be represented on wānanga councils without required representational
membership. It considers Māori student representation on wānanga councils
particularly important to meeting Māori students’ pastoral needs as outlined in the
Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015.
Individual submissions
266. The two individual submissions are split in their responses to the proposal to
make council membership more flexible. One supports the proposal, stating that
flexibility is needed to ensure councils are responsive to their changing
environment. The other proposes retaining the status quo to ensure that staff and
students continue to have a voice on councils.
52
Responses to question three
Proposal
Require the Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to
govern wānanga
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to require
the Minister and councils to appoint council members capable of governing wānanga,
defined according to āhuatanga and tikanga Māori, and ensuring wānanga have
good educational and financial performance?
Responses from wānanga
267. All three wānanga broadly support the proposal to require the Minister and
councils to appoint council members with the skills to govern wānanga.
268. Awanuiārangi states that a focus on skills is vital for its council. It wants to
make it a requirement that nominees have at least a masters degree and skills in
tikanga Māori. TWoA also supports a focus on skills and capability, including
tikanga and te reo Māori, and seeks input into decisions regarding Ministerial
appointments.
“Te Mana Whakahaere would like the Crown’s proposed model to include a
requirement for all prospective members (including ministerial appointees) to
successfully complete a capability assessment. Te Mana Whakahaere would
also like ministerial appointments to be made jointly by Te Wānanga o
Aotearoa and the minister.” (TWoA)
269. TWoR emphasises the importance of its council members having particular
skills and capabilities. It states that it expects council members to have relevant
skills in education and to be competent in communicating in te reo Māori or
actively learning the language.
“The contribution of Te Wānanga o Raukawa to language revival and
revitalisation is recognised as essential to all we do and to our core purpose”
(TWoR).
Responses from key peak-body and union organisations
270. Organisations are mixed in their responses to the proposal to require the
Minister and councils to appoint council members with the skills to govern
wānanga.
271. The strongest support for the proposal came from the Aotearoa Institute,
which states that it has no objection to skill requirements being included in
legislation.
“The Aotearoa Institute sees great advantage in requiring all Council
members co-opted or appointed to demonstrate the skills required and has no
53
objection to these skills being defined in legislative changes.” (Aotearoa
Institute)
272. Both the TEU and NZCTU express support for changing the broad objectives
of wānanga governance to include reference to āhuatanga and tikanga Māori and
to ensure governance requirements are more closely aligned to the role and
purpose of wānanga. However, both organisations feel that current legislative
settings do not prevent wānanga from appointing appropriately skilled and
experienced people on councils. In addition, both organisations express concern
that the intention of the proposal is to strengthen the business and commercial
focus of wānanga.
273. Te Mana Ākonga states that the appointment of council members capable of
governing wānanga, according to āhuatanga and tikanga Māori, should already
be in place. It also expresses its disappointment that the reference in the
consultation document to ensuring that wānanga have good educational and
financial performance was not duplicated in the consultation document for
university governance, arguing that this unfairly implies poor performance on the
part of wānanga.
“Of course, Te Mana Ākonga would expect good educational and financial
performance of any learning institution, but to note that as a reason for
changes to wānanga councils suggests that good educational and financial
performance outcomes are not already being achieved or enacted at the
wānanga.” (Te Mana Ākonga)
Individual submissions
274. Both individual submissions express some support for the proposal, on the
grounds that it is important for accountability purposes and for ensuing that
qualified people are represented on wānanga councils.
“Yes, we need qualified people.” (academic staff member)
275.
One submitter suggests that council members need to be trusted more in the
running of wānanga.
“It is important to have these in place for accountability purposes; however
there needs to be more trust in the running of the wānanga, especially with
those that have the right credentials to do so.” (general staff member)
54
Responses to question four
Proposal
Clarify the duties and accountabilities of individual council members
Question
What do you consider are the advantages/disadvantages of this proposal to clarify
the duties and accountabilities of individual council members?
Responses from wānanga
276. TWoA supports the introduction of individual duties and accountabilities to
help ensure highly functioning, responsible, effective and accountable council
members. Awanuiārangi also supports the proposal
277. TWoR outlines what it regards as the most important duties of its council
members, a number of which align with those proposed in the consultation
document. It submits, that among other things, its council members must
communicate openly and honestly, contribute positively to the governance of the
wānanga and have an understanding of the philosophy of the organisation.
Responses from organisations
278. Organisations are mixed in their responses to the proposal to clarify the
duties and accountabilities of individual council members.
279. The Aotearoa Institute supports the proposal, submitting that it would be a
positive development for ensuring high standards of governance.
“The Aotearoa Institute submits that it has no objection to any legislative
changes including prescriptive expectations, sanctions and removal for nonfulfilment of duties.”(Aotearoa Institute)
280. NZCTU also supports the proposal, submitting that it is essential to ensure
that the duties and accountabilities of individual members are articulated.
281. The TEU states that it is not aware of any evidence of the need to better
define the duties and accountabilities of individual council members.
Individual submissions
282. Both individual submitters express support for the proposal, stating that it
would help ensure transparency and provide clear expectations of council
members.
“The advantages are that everything is kept above board and is seen as
transparent.” (general staff member)
55
Responses to question five
Question
Is there anything else you would like to share about wānanga governance?
Responses from wānanga
283. TWoA explains that the Crown’s review of wānanga governance coincides
with the culmination of three years of work by TWoA to review its own council
structure. It explains that this self review is still ongoing and that consultation is
taking place with external stakeholders.
284. TWoA states that once it has completed its self review and finalised its
preferred structure it would like to begin implementation. It seeks legislative
change to allow it to proceed with the transformation of its council as soon as
possible.
285. TWoR seeks to ensure that its responsiveness to the needs of its three
founding iwi is its first responsibility and that regular engagement with iwi and
hāpu is maintained. It also states that its council seeks to express kaupapa in all
that it does and is committed to the survival and well-being of Māori as a people.
286. Awanuiārangi states that if the proposed changes go ahead, it is likely to
establish stakeholder committees so that students, staff and community members
can participate in decision-making.
Responses from organisations
287. The Aotearoa Insitute expresses concern about the Kīngitangi representative
losing its position on TWoA’s council.
“The Aotearoa Institute, the Kiingitanga and the Maniapoto iwi do not consider
that the current wānanga council members, apart from the Crown members,
have the right to remove the Kiingitanga on the Council as is currently
proposed. Nor should the Crown desire its appointees to partake with the rest
of the Council in removing the representative seat of the Kiingitanga and
refuse seats for Ngati Maniapoto and the Aotearoa Institute on the council.”
(Aotearoa Institute)
288. The TEU expresses concern that the proposal to review legislative settings
for wānanga councils lacks supporting evidence and will make wānanga more
business-like.
“The TEU is concerned that overall the proposal to review legislative settings
for wānanga councils is premised on a poorly-evidenced argument that the
current representative model limits the ability of these councils to respond to
changing environments, populations, and skill and knowledge requirements”
(TEU)
“The TEU is concerned that, when assessed next to the proposals in the Draft
Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019, the other changes outlined for
wānanga councils are simply mechanisms to further push market and
business models onto the sector, at the cost of core goals for wānanga-set
out in the Education Act 1989.” (TEU)
56
289. The TEU also references a position paper it sent to the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills and Employment in October 2012 entitled “Independence,
responsible autonomy and public control: the keys to good governance in tertiary
education”, which presents a number of core principles needed to underpin
decisions about tertiary governance. It suggests that some of these principles are
reflected in the proposals, but a number of the proposals fall short of these
principles. It argues that if changes to the governance structure of wānanga occur
they must be based on these principles, as this would ensure open and
democratic processes.
Individual submissions
290. One submitter responded to this question, requesting assurances that there
will be a voice for all wānanga staff and students on wānanga councils.
57