New Zealand¡¯s universities must not take positions on issues that ¡°do not directly concern their role or functions¡±, under legislation introduced into the country¡¯s parliament.

Universities must also make their premises available to speakers invited by student groups or staff, irrespective of the ideas or opinions being presented.

Clauses in the , tabled in parliament on 6 April, impose new free speech obligations on tertiary institutions as well as changes to the management and governance of schools and Indigenous colleges.

Every university must draft and adopt a ¡°statement on freedom of expression¡± pledging not to limit communication by staff or students unless it ¡°is likely to be unlawful or to disrupt the ordinary activities of the university¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The statement must be consistent with the propositions that ¡°freedom of expression is critical to maintaining academic freedom¡±, and that universities should ¡°actively foster an environment where ideas can be challenged, controversial issues can be discussed and diverse opinions can be expressed¡±.

The bill imposes a duty on university councils ¡°to protect and promote academic freedom¡± and requires them to establish mechanisms for complaints that the freedom has been curtailed. University annual reports must explain how academic freedom has been upheld and outline the number and nature of complaints.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) said the ¡°nanny state¡± requirements sat uneasily with a government committed to reducing red tape and regulation.

¡°The bill will create a burdensome reporting and compliance regime universities will have to wade through, all designed to ensure Don Brash can book a room on campus next time he wants to give a seminar,¡± it said, in a reference to Massey University¡¯s eleventh-hour cancellation of a 2018 address by a former National Party leader.

¡°It¡¯s bizarre to witness the coalition government going to all this trouble to tell universities what criteria they can and can¡¯t use for room bookings,¡± said TEU secretary Sandra Grey. ¡°We hope they know these policies will cut both ways. We look forward to exposing their hypocrisy next time they try to ¡®cancel¡¯ a course¡­they think is ¡®useless¡¯ or ¡®woke¡¯.¡±

What can universities do to protect academic freedom?

The Free Speech Union welcomed the bill and its insistence on institutional neutrality. ¡°If we are to have a culture that upholds free speech, our universities must lead the way,¡± said chief executive Jonathan Ayling.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

¡°This cannot happen while universities take stances on political and cultural issues, stifling academics with dissenting views. For too long we¡¯ve seen¡­a documented ¡®culture of fear¡¯ resulting in academics self-censoring.¡±

Ayling criticised a section in the bill requiring school activities to ¡°reflect¡± traditional Indigenous knowledge, known as m¨¡tauranga M¨¡ori. ¡°Debate around the role of m¨¡tauranga M¨¡ori has faced consistent suppression,¡± he said. ¡°Open discourse and dissent on this subject [must be] protected.¡±?

Universities have been anticipating the legislation for months after a 2023 agreement between the National Party and its coalition partner, the libertarian Act Party, flagged an intention to strip government funding from tertiary institutions that failed to adopt free speech policies.

In advice to tertiary education minister Penny Simmonds, the education ministry flagged the option of using funding determinations to browbeat universities into enacting free expression policies. It that this approach could violate the minister¡¯s statutory powers.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com