Paul Gorman – Editor of Canterbury University’s Chronicle – 15/06/01
Article from the University of Canterbury’s Chronicle
Shame on the Government. One expects better of a Labour-led coalition, chock-full of university-educated ministers and MPs, many with degrees in the humanities and social sciences and some with qualifications from this University.
Blackmail is not a word to be used lightly and it is one that has been bandied about widely in the wake of last month’s budget. But in this case it doesn’t seem too far wide of the mark.
Last year the Government offered a 2.3% increase in its equivalent full-time student subsidy to universities if institutions would agree to hold student fees for this year. Universities grumbled, offered some resistance and then accepted after Otago University broke ranks. This year the Government’s paltry 2.6% offer for 2002 funding has been dressed-up as a 5.1% increase over 2000 funding rates. But the game has a new rule, that institutions who reject the latest offer will also lose last year’s 2.3% increase. Neither will they be allowed access to some $40 million over four years in a contestable Centres of Research Excellence fund.
This is a morally reprehensible approach from a government that has the gall to say it is right behind the creation of a knowledge society. Apparently in Government circles they prefer the word incentive to blackmail.
However, this time the country’s eight vice-chancellors are more resolute in their stance against the offer. There is a sense that enough really is enough. They also have support from the Association of University Staff and students. Ultimately, though, it will be up to each university’s council to decide whether to accept their vice-chancellor’s recommendation to turn down the offer.
Vice-chancellors are on the horns of a dilemma. It is difficult to see how a happy ending can be written, unless the funding offer is increased. If Canterbury University were to take the offer, it would be tantamount to accepting a 3% shortfall for next year on top of its 3% shortfall this year. This would equate to being about $5 million worse off in 2002 after a similar loss in 2001. Student fees would not rise, but the University, its operations and its staff would sustain serious injuries in the ensuing retrenchment. The alternative, to reject the offer, would inevitably mean a sharp increase in student fees, a drop in enrolments and then retrenchment anyway.
It seems rich that in 1999, when protesting Canterbury students forced tertiary education on to the election agenda, campaigning Labour and Alliance politicians could not get enough of this campus. Indeed, Helen Clark, then leader of the opposition, visited immediately after the Registry occupation and thanked the University and its students for helping out the opposition parties. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that these politicians are nowhere to be seen now.
It is vitally important that the management, students and staff at Canterbury maintain their harmony for the future of this institution. The Government will be looking to drive wedges into any chinks it can see. It promises to be an interesting few months.
