AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY BILL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1562, 4 October 1912, Page 6

AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY BILL.

PROFESSORS, ON THE COUNCIL SECOND READING CARRIED. . The Hon. J. ALLEN (-Minister for Education) moved the second reading of tht Auckland University College Amendment Bill. He explained that the Bill was to amend the constitution of the University College. It provided for two representatives from the Professorial Boa/d sitting on the Colle"go Council, and instead of three representatives of graduates there would bo four. Mr. A. M. MYERS (Auckland East) commended the Minister for having taken up the Bill. Mr. R. M'CALLUM (Wairau) asked whether there was anything in the Bill to prevent the Professorial Board from electing two of their own number. Mr. Allen: Certainly not. Mr. M'Callum:' That surely is a weak point in the Bill? Mr. Allen: No; a good point. Mr. M'G'alluin insisted that this was a bad feature in the Bill. It was impossible for a man to be employer and employee at tho same time, and the-Council would ba hampered in. dealing with the college staff if there were sitting among them members of the staff. Mr. H. G. ELL (Christchurch South) also argued that this was a defect in tho Bill.

Mr. G. LAURENSON (Lyttolton) thought that it would be "a tremendous mistake" to put professors on the counoils, to discuss questions of annual leave and salary. Local bodies did not give that privilege to their employees. Mr. W. A, VETTCH (Wanganui) pointed out that while .the ordinary rights of citizenship were denied to Civil Servants, this Bill proposed to endow one section of Civil Servants with the functions of the Government. Mr. H. ATMORE (Nelson) thought the Bill continued "a pernicious principle." Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) agreed also that it would load to complications if members of the start' sat on the College Council; He thought it would bo well if members of the teaching staff should be allowed to sit at council meetings, but they should bo allowed to exercise only advisory functions. Tho Hon. J. ALLEN,.in reply, claimed that ho could speak with longer experience of University College Councils than any other member of the House. In Otago there- were two representatives of tho professorial staff on the council, and the council would not van- the arrangement if it had the opportunity. Honourable members had made a mistake in discussing this question from tho point of view of salary. If that argument wero sound, no member ought to sit in tho House. Who voted on the salaries of members of Parliament but the members them.salves? But lo allot salaries was not .the main function of University College Councils. They had all higher education under their review. They were dealing with the teaching and staffing of colleges, and no council was capable without Iha professors of its college of dealing with questions of teaching and staffing. H was essential to the development of our University that there should be on the governing bodies of colleges representatives of thn professorio-} staffs. There were also urgimt reasons for bringing professors into closer (ouch with mem. bers of the council; they ought to bo made to realise that they had financial responsibilities, too, in connection with their college. He hoped the Bill would not beopposed in committee. The second reading was carried on tha voices.