University of Auckland Council Backs Down (slightly) on Law, Business, and Economics Merger

We Are The University

Mon Mar 17 2025 13:00:00 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time)

External Resources

Uni council takes law school merger off the agenda – for now

Summary

The University of Auckland has delayed a crucial vote on merging its law and business faculties following backlash over plans to discuss the matter in secret. Initially, the university council, led by Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater, intended to hold a private meeting to consider the merger, sparking criticism from Law School staff, students, alumni, and legal professionals, including The Law Association of New Zealand (TLANZ). They argued the issue was of significant public interest and should be debated openly.

Freshwater has finally reversed her stance and will allow public viewing of the council discussion, which has been postponed.

The university’s senate (academic committee) already rejected the merger proposal (votes against 120 to 51 vote in favour), and a review committee failed to meaningfully support the merger, instead suggesting paths to harm reduction if it were to go through (cleverly comissioned and recieved by Freshwater who graciously intended to follow their advice). The review committee suggested modifications to make the proposal more acceptable, such as maintaining the autonomy of academic programs and preserving the Law School’s identity. However, opposition remains strong, with fears the merger could undermine the faculty’s standing as New Zealand’s top legal education institution.

Critics fear the merger could harm the Law School’s reputation and lead to the loss of experienced academics.

TLANZ and others (We Are The Univeristy included!) criticized the university’s lack of transparency and flawed consultation process, arguing that an open debate would not compromise privacy or negotiations. The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) has not ruled out legal action if the merger is approved, and major donors have reportedly expressed concerns. Critics also highlighted the lack of evidence or cost-benefit analysis supporting the merger.