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
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 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
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.
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 submittersUniversity / 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.
· 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 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.
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.
Form submissions
41. The 1,911 form submissions from staff, students and community members read as follows: