Last week Ian Powell (NZUSA Research Officer) and [unclear: imon] Wilson (VUWSA Campaign Coordinator) ventured [unclear: to] the den of the top man in the New Zealand Univer[unclear: ty] system. NZUSA has crossed swords with the Uni[unclear: rsity] Grants Committee (UGC) on more than one oc[unclear: sion] in the past. But time, or at least issues of the ti[unclear: tes], have changed. The UGC is as worried as everyone [unclear: se] involved in education about Government spending [unclear: n] education. In the following interview with its chair[unclear: an], Dr Alan Johns, the reasons for that concern are [unclear: utlined]. Johns, it appeared, was particularly worried [unclear: bout] the probability of an on-going crisis for [unclear: univer- ties].

[unclear: he] interviewers started by asking Dr Johns to explain [unclear: te] quinquennial syste, the method by which universi[unclear: es] are funded.

[unclear: e] get an annual grant that is negotiated every five [unclear: ears]. Up til now it's been an increasing grant he [unclear: iuse] of increasing student numbers.

[unclear: I'm] sure there isn't any fat in the university system. [unclear: We] have calculated that inflationary costs have put [unclear: he] universities down about $44 million. And the [unclear: se] in rolls has been higher than we anticipated.

[unclear: id] the recent $3 million cut undermine the quinquen[unclear: al] system in any way?

[unclear: Well], when the present qiinquennium was negotiated [unclear: was] agreed that if the universities thought escalation [unclear: a] costs has made the situation critical they could ask [unclear: he] Government for more. The quid pro quo was that [unclear: the] economic situation demanded it, the Government [unclear: ould] come back and ask for a reconsideration.

[unclear: What] is your own reaction to the $3m cut?

[unclear: ur] role is to point out to Government the consequence [unclear: f] having a $3m cut this year. There's been a vast inc[unclear: case] in costs over the last four years, and the Govern[unclear: ent] had accepted the previous year that extra money [unclear: as] required. But is was obviously up to Government [unclear: o] decide whether education had to withstand a large [unclear: it] and what the university proportion of that cut [unclear: old] be.

[unclear: If] the policy is for an open university system, then we [unclear: an't] make those savings."

[unclear: r] there any possibility of a bridging grant, such as has [unclear: een] suggested by Victoria's Vice Chancellor?

[unclear: A] bridging grant would only be worthwhile if it looked [unclear: s] though the economic climate might be better in ano[unclear: her] year. At the moment I wouldn't like to forecast [unclear: hat] the situation is going to be any better in a year's [unclear: ime].

[unclear: The] Minister commented a while ago that small depart[unclear: ments] could be "rationalised". He gave the example of [unclear: Romance] languages. What is your attitude to that sug[unclear: estion] ?

[unclear: The] UGC has set up a small committee to have a look [unclear: t] this. I don't believe that there is a great deal of sa[unclear: ing] to be made, nor would it be easy. I think it be—[unclear: oves] us to look at this and see whether there are cour[unclear: es] that are really not necessary.

[unclear: Was] this committee set up on your initiative?

[unclear: Yes], and with the agreement of the Vice Chancellors.

[unclear: The] Minister commented in Parliament recently that [unclear: he] original figure, before the $3m cut, would be the [unclear: base] line for the next quinquennium. What is you y [unclear: eaction] to that?

[unclear: can't] speak for Government, as to whether they re[unclear: gard] it as a base line or not. But that is not the way [unclear: hat] we, in fact, negotiate with Treasury. We don't [unclear: ook] at the last year's figures and say that we want [unclear: unother]. 10% on that. What we do is go right back to [unclear: he] beginning. We do projections on student numbers. [unclear: We] look at the number of staff on what we hope is an [unclear: greed] staff/student ratio. Academic and non-acade[unclear: mic]. We look at the cost of heating, power, telephones ....[unclear: we] go right through all the calculations from scratch. [unclear: Right] from zero. We build up a grand total and then [unclear: we] have to negotiate with Treasury and then with Go[unclear: ernment] over how they see that total and how much [unclear: of] it they will give us.

[unclear: "I] think all savings come back to reducing the number [unclear: of] students'. The problem is, you can make quite a num[unclear: ber] of reductions without really making any savings at [unclear: all].

What is the projection for student numbers that you are working on ?

The UGC has made its own calculation. We have asked all the universities to do their own calculations. We had other people outside the system doing theirs. At least two. The Treasury do their own too. We have to sort out which is an agreeable one. It'll be a compromise.

Is there mcuh discrepancy?

Yes, there is some. Of course, when you introduce a new bursary system no-one can really foretell what effect it will have on enrolments.

Can one drawan implication from the $3m cut that too much money has been allocated to the universities?

No. I don't think in our negotiations it's ever been implied.

Do you think the $3m cut could be a precedent for future cuts?

I would hope that it wouldn't be.