We Are The University

Submission to the Education and Workforce Committee regarding the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

Java Grant

Wed Jun 11 2025 12:00:00 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Education Amendment Bill (No 2).

As a PhD researcher examining the future of Universities in Aotearoa, I am distressed by the introduction of a very American framework inappropriate for the context of New Zealand.

I urge the rejection of this prescriptive free speech model that is being forced through by a minority libertarian party with no regard to the holistic impacts on not only our universities but the culture and cohesion of New Zealand society. The minister's preferred model threatens to import harmful foreign polarization, undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well as the very institutional autonomy which enables the university to act as the critic and conscience of society. This policy creates unnecessary risks for New Zealand’s social cohesion and our universities’ scholarly rigour.

The proposed model is highly prescriptive and risks introducing distracting U.S.-style polarization and "deplatforming" debates. This diverts crucial resources away from core educational activities and fuels division on campus which New Zealand has until now largely avoided. Our existing framework, particularly the NZ Bill of Rights Act, already provides a balanced approach to free speech that coexists with safety and non-discrimination obligations. It is also unclear why politicians advocating for less regulation would introduce such strict controls when it was well known that universities themselves were developing their own evidence-informed policy on free speech.

The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service released in 2024 their New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment report. One of the key mechanisms they note that foreign interests interfere in our universities is via student organisations which they support, monitor and even direct. The inflexibility of the proposed prescriptive model of free speech enforcement in our universities opens opportunity for foreign interests seeking to disrupt New Zealand’s values and stable political environment by introducing ideas inappropriate to New Zealand’s context, lacking academic rigour, and appropriating the intellectual capital of our world-renowned institutions. Instead, the lack of prior consultation with academic staff and students (as noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement, Sec 4) is demonstrative of populist rhetoric, not useful and considered policy. Consequently this bill exacerbates New Zealand's vulnerability to foreign interests for the benefit of a minority party's grandstanding.

The top-down imposition of rigid free speech rules fundamentally conflicts with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and severely undermines the autonomy of universities to manage their own campuses and academic environments according to their specific missions and values, a core aspect of academic freedom and their roles as critic and conscience.

Creating an environment perceived as polarized or unsafe for minority groups is an economic concern. Risking New Zealand's reputation as a welcoming destination for international students and staff in order to replicate the United States is not only redundant, but a shameful cultural cringe at our own success. Given the sector's significant reliance on international student funding (Regulatory Impact Statement Sec 4), this poses a tangible economic threat. Furthermore, social cohesion within our institutions and wider society could be undermined, as evidenced by the negative experiences in other jurisdictions like the UK where similar legislation was paused due to costs and potential harms.

Additionally the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) explicitly highlights key risks ignored or downplayed in the Cabinet Paper:

The use of rare, isolated incidents like the Massey University's disrupted hosting of Don Brash (referenced in RIS Sec 2) is inadequate justification for systemic, heavy-handed regulation. Existing mechanisms, as demonstrated in cases like Dr. Siouxsie Wiles' harassment (RIS Sec 2), are capable of addressing genuine issues without importing foreign models.

International precedent demonstrates the problems: The UK government paused similar legislation due to concerns about costs, bureaucratic burden, and potential harm to vulnerable groups (Cabinet Paper Sec 7). Australia adopted a voluntary, principles-based Model Code (RIS Sec 4), avoiding the pitfalls of prescription.

Recommendation

As a researcher researching demographics on university campuses who engage in contentious activism and research, I have observed a strong grass-roots organisation style which is vulnerable to interference by external entities. This bill empowers that exact form of interference and I recommend this bill be rejected in its current prescriptive form. Instead I recommend adopting a principles-based approach as previously advised by the Ministry of Education; emphasising the importance of free academic expression alongside the responsibilities to ensure safety, uphold Te Tiriti obligations, and foster inclusive environments, allowing institutions flexibility in implementation.

New Zealand's education system is an excellent model of balance, successfully upholding academic freedom while fostering inclusive and safe learning environments under existing frameworks. The proposed bill is a disproportionate solution to marginal problems, risking importing harmful foreign polarization, undermining Te Tiriti o Waitangi and university autonomy, creating economic vulnerabilities, and damaging social cohesion.

I strongly urge the Education and Workforce Select Committee to prioritize New Zealand's unique context, academic integrity, and social well-being by rejecting the prescriptive approach of the bill and adopting the balanced, principles-based recommendations outlined above.