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.

The PM and "Fat"

How do you react to the Prime Minister's comment on Budget night that there is still "fat" in the university system ?

I'm sure there isn't fat in the university system. We have calculated that inflationary costs have put the universities down about $44 million. And the rise in rolls have been higher than we anticipated.

The Budget also stated that universities represent an area where significant savings can be made. How do you react to that?

If the policy is for an open university system, we can't make those savings. But if there are to be increasing restrictions on courses.....They would have to make such restrictions to tailor the expenditure to the amount of income, by cutting back on activities.

"If it (open entry) means that a student can go to a tertiary institution of his/her choice and take the choice of his/her own choice, then we don't have open entry."

Do you think that is now the thrust of the Government's policy? To end the open entry system?

I don't.....1 don't know. They certainly want to save money in the education field. I think their policy is that people have the right to go to university but [unclear: tha] they can't necessarily take the course of their choice. That is what I would interpret at the present time.

Aside from course entry restrictions, what else could be involved in further savings?

I think all savings come back to reducing the number of students. The problem is, you can make quite a number of reductions without really making any savings at all. While you keep the same bumber of buildings going, for example, you still have the same overheads. So once you've tightened your belt as much as you can, then you've got to start almost closing down a building or two before you start saving anything.

Could that be an argument that private overseas students don't cost the taxpayer very much?

Yes; within certain limits you can always take a few more students. Some areas, like Accountancy, are already stretched to the limit. They couldn't take any more. Similarly if you start cutting back you don't save much money.

On the question of open entry, do you think there is any potential conflict between National Party policy and practice ?

It is a matter of how you interpret "open entry". If it means that a student can go to a tertiary institution of his choice and take the course of his choice, then we don't have open entry. But if they have to take their second or third choice of courses, if that's the interpretation, then we have it. But the "openness" has certainly declined.

"Once you've tightened your belt as much as you can, then you've got to start almost closing down a building or two before you start saving anything."

Do you think the university libraries are likely to be in for a critical time?

Well, the index we used in costing books has moved from 100 to 290 since 1974. Nearly a threefold increase. We would hope that this can be alleviated in the amount of money going to libraries, but of course the individual universities have the choice as to how much they put into this area out of their total clock allocation. There is no doubt that nothing like the anticipated volume of books has gone into the libraries. And there have been cubacks in the numbers of periodicals as well.

The Minister has said the $3m cut is to be made in the salary area. Can you envisage possible changes to the tenure system ?

The individual university councils are the employers. I know some of the universities are looking at this. You are thinking of how they might reduce staff?

Yes.

Well there are ways of doing this. People retiring early perhaps, or moving sideways. Certainly with the more static roll numbers there will be less opportunity for the recruitment of younger staff. The people vital to the life of the university.

"Real Problems" with the TSG

With the new TSG system, there have been significant changes to the entitlement. What is your reaction to those changes?

We are concerned about the new system, particularly how it is administered. Potentially there are real problems, notably with the distribution of students between the universities.

What will the administrative implications be for the universities?

Well, we would want some fairly rapid decisions. We can't see that students will go to Otago, Lincoln or Canterbury on the off-chance that they are going to get extra money once they are down there. This may involve a great deal more pre-enrolment.

Do you think the liaison officers will be happy with the new system? Will it mean a change in their responsibilities?

Not a change, I think. But a great deal more work than they have had to do in the past.

"There is no doubt that nothing like the anticipated volume of books has gone into the libraries."

How do you see the future for universities?

Well, it's a little early to say. We would hope [unclear: the] in our negotiations we can obtain as reasonable a quinquinnial grant as possible. Again, all we can say is that if we have further decreases in real terms, these are going to be the consequences.