University of Queensland staff and students [unclear: nts] attack Government legislation.

At the present time the University of Queensland Staff Association is mounting a determined campaign against a number of features of the recently passed University of Queensland Act.¹

THE following are the features of the act that are objectionable to the staff association:

• Inadequate provision for representation on the University Senate² by the staff association. (The act provides for one representative; the staff association recommended provision for three.)

• Inadequate provision for representation on the University Senate by the Professorial Board. (The act provides for the president and one other board member; the staff association recommended provision for the president and three other board members.)

• The restriction to two on the number of university teachers amongst the 10 Senators elected by convocation.³

• The restriction to three on the number of other teachers amongst the 10 Senators elected by convocation.

• The provision for direct representation on the Senate of religious bodies. (The Roman Catholic and Anglican Archbishops or their nominees, one nominee of the Queensland council of churches have seats.)

• The provision that neither of the two co-opted Senators should be university teachers.

• The provision that the appointment, by the Senate, of the Vice-Chancellor and of Deputy Vice-Chancellors should be subject to Government approval.

• The deletion of section 29 of the old act which forbids the administration of any religious test to any member or prospective member of the university.

• The deletion of section 30 of the old act which guarantees equal rights to women.

Before commenting on the above it is worthwhile to consider briefly the events leading up to the passing of the act.

Firstly the start association through its representatives made repeated efforts to see the Minister for Education in order that they might put to the Minister the association's submissions on the constitution of the Senate and discuss with him the reasons behind those submissions.

The Minister (Mr. Pizzey) refused to see the representatives of the staff association and it is clear that the association's written submissions were neither presented to the Parliament, nor considered seriously by the Minister.

Control lost

Secondly, an earlier piece of legislation brought in by Mr. Pizzey (December, 1964) deprived the university of control over its entrance standards and that piece of legislation was introduced and passed without the university being so much as informed of what was being done.

Thirdly, Mr. Pizzey has more than once recently made statements, the only interpretation of which would seem to be that he is keen to see a lowering of the pass degree standard in Queensland.

He has, for example, complained at the "over-training of graduates," and looked forward to what he calls "bread and butler" pass decrees, when the real need is to raise the standards, not to lower them.

Fourthly. Mr. Pizzey has expressed his confidence in the members of the university community in such utterances as the following:—

"It was felt that any increases in the university Senate membership should be given to people who can take a detached objective view. That is why it was important that those members be not members of the university staff association."— (Mr. Pizzey, Hansard 1965, p.1860).

No understanding

The above events make it clear that the Minister has no desire to see the university teachers play any central role in the governing body of the university; they also make it clear that the Minister has little understanding of democracy, nor of what constitutes it university education.

In the light of the above it is little wonder that the Queensland University community is worried about what the future holds for the university while Mr. Pizzey remains Minister for Education. Nor is it any wonder that these worries have made them doubly determined to press their objections to the recent act.

Returning to the points which the staff association finds objectionable in the act. There is not sufficient space for detailed comment but the following remarks need to be made.

The Senate is the governing body of the university and as such its decisions affect every aspect of university life. Yet under the act not more than five members of the teaching staff tan be Senators, out of a total Senate of 33-34 members.

This is a grossly inadequate rep[unclear: ntation] from teaching [unclear: staff] a number of the matters and objectionable by the staff association trace then objection-[unclear: stat] eness back to this point.

Responsibility

[unclear: the] universities are to remain institutions, and if informed sessions be made within [unclear: matters] affecting their per functioning, it is necessary that the responsibility of governing them should largely be placed in the hands of university staff and not of the representatives of Governments and outside bodies.

We have all become familiar in the last 30 years with what has become of universities in some oilier countries where it has been taken for granted that it is the proper function of Governments to dominate universities.

Both the Rabbins report on British universities and the Murray report on Australian universities have spoken of the importance of having proper representation of university teachers on the governing bodies of universities.

Religious men

Concerning the objection to the direct representation of religious bodies, it is important to realise that the staff association does not object to members of religious bodies serving on the Senate but only to their being entitled to Senate membership simply because they are church members. The objection to this direct representation of religious bodies comes equally from Christian and non-Christian staff association members.

Finally a comment on the last two points. While it might seem to some that the deletion of a section of the previous act, which forbade the administration of any religious test to any member or prospective member of the university and of another section which guaranteed equal rights to women, was not of much significance in our day, it is the staff association's view that the existence of such provisions is in general an excellent thing and in the local conditions their retention is a matter of more than academic interest.