AUS-ASTE Amalgamation

Email from Nigel Haworth:

I have been enjoying the exchanges in the Canterbury blog. As many of you will know, I believe that the amalgamation decision should involve the widest possible participation of AUS members. The Canterbury blog is an excellent opportunity for that participation.

I must, however, respond to David Wiltshire, with whom I had a pleasant and courteous discussion when I was last in Canterbury. Subsequent to that discussion, David wrote in the blog:


'For me, however, the telling point came in the conversation with Nigel afterwards, when having given lip service to the values of a university in terms of research and the critic of society, he talked about the actual arguments that he had to use in face-to-face meetings with Michael Cullen. There was a moment of recognition when Nigel realised that he himself had come to adopt exactly the thinking of the line-managers that I was criticising. He himself was no longer representing the values that I take define a university, if a university wants to remain a good university for 800 years. If an academic, who has been too long involved in the cut-and-thrust of the tactics of union politics, himself ceases to instinctively represent university culture, how can I expect a union leader to whom this culture is alien to represent me? I cannot bring myself to swallow that pill.'

I am surprised at this interpretation of our conversation. I'm not inclined to provide an account of my last thirty years as an active academic and unionist, in which, contrary to David's suggestion, I have adhered to the 'critic and conscience' model, whilst opposing the corporatisation of our institutions. Nor will I respond in detail to the interesting suggestion that it is activity in the union, which undermines adherence to a 'university culture'. I will say that, on the contrary, one of the delights of being the AUS President is the opportunity to meet the extraordinary staff, academic and general, who make up our union and sustain our institutions, and who so obviously value that university culture.

However, members must understand the arguments that are used in the national tripartite discussion, for, if David's interpretation is accepted, they are at odds with that university culture. Let me be clear. The arguments taken into the tripartite discussion, and elsewhere, are fundamentally and consistently based on the need for a properly funded, high quality, research-based university sector, which precisely values academic freedom and the critic and conscience role. At no stage has that ground ever been ceded in any negotiation and discussion led by the AUS.

Equally, any government putting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into universities will, quite legitimately, ask what New Zealand receives in return for that, or increased, expenditure. This means, for me, that the AUS has to take seriously issues of performance and quality, which are also important for the Minister. These are important issues for discussion, within and outwith the AUS. I argue that AUS members want to work in a high quality university system. Moreover, we, AUS members, have excellent insight into what a quality system might look like in New Zealand. It is because we have such insight that we can, for example, make professional and sensible criticisms of the PBRF. What I said to David, and continue to believe, is that issues of performance and quality are vital issues for the sector, are on the Minister's agenda, and are on the AUS agenda, too. This is a debate in which we have to engage. To do so, however, in no way rejects the critic and conscience role of universities or their responsibility to conduct research free from political intervention or vetting. And to engage in this debate does not lead to the adoption of a 'line manager' mentality.

I look forward to reading the Canterbury blog over the coming weeks

Best wishes

Nigel Haworth