The University of Auckland has put the brakes on a critical and controversial vote regarding the proposed merger between its law and business faculties, following significant pushback from the law profession over transparency issues.
Initially scheduled for a vote this week, the university council’s deliberation has been delayed after criticism mounted over plans to conduct discussions without public scrutiny.
Vice-Chancellor Dawn Freshwater changed direction suggesting the council should instead hold its discussions in public view. The reversal came too late to prepare updated agenda papers, pushing the vote to a yet-to-be-determined date.
Law School faculty had been vocal about their concerns regarding what they described as a “veil of secrecy” surrounding the process, not to mention the announcement on the move being made immediately prior to Christmas, at a time when it was submerged in the pre-Christmas ‘rush’.
>> Your new law job is here . . LawFuel’s Law Network
The emphasis on transparency reflects core values within the legal profession, where open deliberation on matters of public interest is considered essential.
The merger proposal has faced substantial resistance across the profession. The university’s own senate rejected the proposal by an overwhelming margin of 120 to 5. Even a university-appointed review committee couldn’t muster clear support for the plan.
Opposition extends far beyond campus boundaries. Law School academics, current students, alumni, and prominent judicial figures have all voiced concerns. Among the key opponents have been Raynor Asher KC and Jim Farmer KC.
The Law Association of New Zealand (TLANZ) has formally challenged the university’s approach to the decision-making process.
TLANZ directly contacted Chancellor Cecilia Tarrant, objecting to the proposed secret ballot on grounds that the matter holds genuine public interest.
The association dismissed the university’s justifications for excluding public participation, noting that open deliberation wouldn’t compromise privacy, interfere with negotiations, or risk improper use of information.
Legal Challenges on the Horizon
The controversy has intensified to the point where legal intervention appears increasingly likely. The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) has indicated it might pursue judicial review if the university council approves the merger.
Law School faculty members have suggested other parties are also considering legal action.
This situation resembles a 1999 precedent when the TEU’s predecessor successfully challenged a University of Waikato restructuring proposal through High Court judicial review.
Critics have raised several concrete objections to the merger. There are worries that implementing the plan could trigger a departure of experienced academics and potentially undermine the faculty’s standing as New Zealand’s premier legal education institution. Opponents have also characterized the consultation process as “problematic” and criticized the merger justification as “vague,” noting its lack of evidence or thorough analysis.
Path Forward
The university’s review committee has developed recommendations to make the proposal more palatable if it moves forward which include maintaining autonomy for both schools’ academic programs, abandoning plans to divide the Law School’s public and private law departments, and preserving the Law School’s distinct identity within the university structure.
The postponement represents a significant development in a situation that carries important implications for legal education in New Zealand.
The strong response demonstrates the deep connection between academic institutions and the legal profession.
Cost-cutting and perceived efficiencies in delivery of services are one thing. A quality legal education remains another.
