Like so many of my generation, I was the first person in my family to go to university.  In one way or another, though, universities have played a big part in my life.  I was an undergraduate at Victoria and Auckland Universities, then a postgraduate student at Balliol College, Oxford, then later a Fellow and law don at Worcester College, Oxford, a Visiting Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, a Council member of La Trobe University, Melbourne, and finally Vice-Chancellor of Waikato University, back in my own country.

That long acquaintance with those august institutions has reinforced in me the belief – virtually a given in democratic countries  – that universities are centrally important to the new thinking, and the challenge to the existing order, that are essential characteristics of free societies.

It is no accident that universities are one of the first targets of repressive tyrants across the world.  Universities, in other words, are not only exemplars and champions of the freedom to think – their own academic freedom must always be defended because it is always on the line.

As was famously said, perhaps by Thomas Jefferson, though precisely by whom is often disputed, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.  Whoever first said it matters little; the warning is plain enough.  Universities everywhere must always be quick to recognise the attempts made by dictators and even, on occasion, democratic governments, to shackle those who dare to think outside the approved parameters.

In a democratic country like New Zealand, universities do not on the whole face direct challenges of that kind.  But they must always be alert to new challenges, which can sometimes come in unfamiliar guises.

The threat today is not so much from direct and deliberate assaults from governments, or even from the private sector, though it must not be assumed that these are things of the past.  The modern threat arises from the growing and central role that universities are increasingly invited, even required, to assume, as virtually instruments of government, in promoting economic development.

It is argued across the political spectrum and from all parts of the economy that our economic future increasingly depends on the research effort undertaken by our universities and on their role in producing graduates with the skills needed to promote economic growth.  Any supposed failures in these respects are severely lambasted by ministers and others.

This view of their role is in some respects congenial to the universities, since it affirms their value to society and appears to guarantee at least an approximation of adequate funding.  But the argument comes with an unstated but potentially damaging downside – that this is what universities are essentially about and that it is only if they meet those expectations that they will be supported and funded.

The danger then is that universities will find themselves compelled to follow particular paths to particular outcomes or, in other words, to give priority to what government demands of them.  They might then be tempted – so as to maintain continued public support and funding – to go along with the inviting but dangerous assumption that their only true value is as instruments of economic development.  They would thereby seem to accept a barely recognised but increasingly damaging constraint on their freedom to pursue knowledge for its own sake – and we would have significantly misread our own intellectual history.

The great seminal idea that has underpinned the whole concept of human progress since the Renaissance is that knowledge is unlimited, that the search for knowledge can be undertaken by anyone (and not just by the rich and powerful), and that it usually involves a voyage into uncharted waters.  Some of the greatest advances in human history have come about, unexpectedly, as a result of enquiring minds.

If universities were to limit themselves only to those voyages whose destinations were identified in advance, this would mean not only a significant constraint on academic freedom but would close the door on some of the most exciting and rewarding contributions that universities are able to make across the board to the total well-being of our society.

Here’s my suggested New Year’s resolution.  If we want universities to “think for New Zealand”, let us insist that they have the freedom to do so.

Bryan Gould

6 January 2017

As he prepared to take over from John Key as Prime Minister, Bill English made a candid – and disarming – admission.  He felt that there was an important part of his new responsibilities where his knowledge was deficient and he needed to learn fast.  The deficiency was, he felt, in international relations.

His admission was a welcome sign of humility and a refreshing change from the hubris of his predecessor.  So, it is somewhat surprising that, so early in his premiership, he appears to have authorised a foreign policy initiative that could not help but be controversial.

New Zealand’s joint sponsorship of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s decision to promote new Israeli settlements in the disputed territories occupied by Israel following their victory in the Six-Day War in 1967 was bound to create repercussions.

It was President Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who were the main targets of Israeli anger – they had failed for the first time to use the US veto to protect the Israeli position and did so on the stated ground that they feared that any other decision would jeopardise what is often described as the “two-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli dispute – but it is not surprising that New Zealand’s role, too, did not pass unnoticed.

It is not my intention to venture into what is an extremely complex issue.  But what is, I think, worth noting about the New Zealand action on this occasion  is what it tells us, if we are lucky, about the readiness of Bill English and his new government to think for themselves and to act accordingly.

New Zealand successfully promoted our candidature for Security Council membership on the ground that we were beholden to no one, and that we would look at each issue on its merits.  The decision to promote the resolution concerning the Israeli settlements was a signal that we remain true to those undertakings.

It is also of course a reaffirmation of our belief in the importance and value of the United Nations (pace President-elect Trump) and of our respect for international law.  The resolution we sponsored was remarkable only for the fact that it was passed, when its many predecessors had always fallen victim to the use of the American veto.

Its terms have been supported by the great majority of UN members and are confirmed by most international lawyers.  But, from a New Zealand viewpoint, its significance goes beyond the detail of the particular issue, important though it is, because it augurs well for our readiness to stick to our guns and to face down, when appropriate,  disapproval from our friends as well as our (hopefully few) enemies.

What we need, however, is not just a promising start but a consistent and steadfast determination to stand up for what we think is right and not to be bullied.  The challenges to this stance will, after all, keep on coming.

And, sure enough, the next one is already upon us – this time in the field of international trade rather than politics.  But this time, the omens are not so promising.

There is every reason, it seems, to take seriously the complaints of our domestic steel industry that they are being seriously disadvantaged by Chinese dumping of steel in our market, at a price below, by virtue of export subsidies, the domestic Chinese price; many other countries have had cause to make similar complaints.

Our government’s predictable and legitimate response was to launch an inquiry as a prelude to action being taken by the World Trade Organisation – but that response was immediately met by a Chinese warning of trade retaliation.

The government – Bill English’s new government – has now produced legislation to extend the conditions that must be met in order to prove dumping, in an apparent attempt to water down the protections that our steel industry is entitled to expect.  That legislation, which the Opposition has declined to support, is for the time being stalemated in the commerce select committee.

What we need now, in the face of threats from a powerful friend, is more of the spirit shown at the United Nations, and less of the cravenness shown by the Key government over, for example, the Saudi sheep deal.  The new government has more to do if it is to earn its spurs.

Bryan Gould

31 December 2016

As he prepared to take over from John Key as Prime Minister, Bill English made a candid – and disarming – admission.  He felt that there was an important part of his new responsibilities where his knowledge was deficient and he needed to learn fast.  The deficiency was, he felt, in international relations.

His admission was a welcome sign of humility and a refreshing change from the hubris of his predecessor.  So, it is somewhat surprising that, so early in his premiership, he appears to have authorised a foreign policy initiative that could not help but be controversial.

New Zealand’s joint sponsorship of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s decision to promote new Israeli settlements in the disputed territories occupied by Israel following their victory in the Six-Day War in 1967 was bound to create repercussions.

It was President Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who were the main targets of Israeli anger – they had failed for the first time to use the US veto to protect the Israeli position and did so on the stated ground that they feared that any other decision would jeopardise what is often described as the “two-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli dispute – but it is not surprising that New Zealand’s role, too, did not pass unnoticed.

It is not my intention to venture into what is an extremely complex issue.  But what is, I think, worth noting about the New Zealand action on this occasion  is what it tells us, if we are lucky, about the readiness of Bill English and his new government to think for themselves and to act accordingly.

New Zealand successfully promoted our candidature for Security Council membership on the ground that we were beholden to no one, and that we would look at each issue on its merits.  The decision to promote the resolution concerning the Israeli settlements was a signal that we remain true to those undertakings.

It is also of course a reaffirmation of our belief in the importance and value of the United Nations (pace President-elect Trump) and of our respect for international law.  The resolution we sponsored was remarkable only for the fact that it was passed, when its many predecessors had always fallen victim to the use of the American veto.

Its terms have been supported by the great majority of UN members and are confirmed by most international lawyers.  But, from a New Zealand viewpoint, its significance goes beyond the detail of the particular issue, important though it is, because it augurs well for our readiness to stick to our guns and to face down, when appropriate,  disapproval from our friends as well as our (hopefully few) enemies.

What we need, however, is not just a promising start but a consistent and steadfast determination to stand up for what we think is right and not to be bullied.  The challenges to this stance will, after all, keep on coming.

And, sure enough, the next one is already upon us – this time in the field of international trade rather than politics.  But this time, the omens are not so promising.

There is every reason, it seems, to take seriously the complaints of our domestic steel industry that they are being seriously disadvantaged by Chinese dumping of steel in our market, at a price below, by virtue of export subsidies, the domestic Chinese price; many other countries have had cause to make similar complaints.

Our government’s predictable and legitimate response was to launch an inquiry as a prelude to action being taken by the World Trade Organisation – but that response was immediately met by a Chinese warning of trade retaliation.

The government – Bill English’s new government – has now produced legislation to extend the conditions that must be met in order to prove dumping, in an apparent attempt to water down the protections that our steel industry is entitled to expect.  That legislation, which the Opposition has declined to support, is for the time being stalemated in the commerce select committee.

What we need now, in the face of threats from a powerful friend, is more of the spirit shown at the United Nations, and less of the cravenness shown by the Key government over, for example, the Saudi sheep deal.  The new government has more to do if it is to earn its spurs.

Bryan Gould

31 December 2016

As he prepared to take over from John Key as Prime Minister, Bill English made a candid – and disarming – admission.  He felt that there was an important part of his new responsibilities where his knowledge was deficient and he needed to learn fast.  The deficiency was, he felt, in international relations.

His admission was a welcome sign of humility and a refreshing change from the hubris of his predecessor.  So, it is somewhat surprising that, so early in his premiership, he appears to have authorised a foreign policy initiative that could not help but be controversial.

New Zealand’s joint sponsorship of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s decision to promote new Israeli settlements in the disputed territories occupied by Israel following their victory in the Six-Day War in 1967 was bound to create repercussions.

It was President Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who were the main targets of Israeli anger – they had failed for the first time to use the US veto to protect the Israeli position and did so on the stated ground that they feared that any other decision would jeopardise what is often described as the “two-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli dispute – but it is not surprising that New Zealand’s role, too, did not pass unnoticed.

It is not my intention to venture into what is an extremely complex issue.  But what is, I think, worth noting about the New Zealand action on this occasion  is what it tells us, if we are lucky, about the readiness of Bill English and his new government to think for themselves and to act accordingly.

New Zealand successfully promoted our candidature for Security Council membership on the ground that we were beholden to no one, and that we would look at each issue on its merits.  The decision to promote the resolution concerning the Israeli settlements was a signal that we remain true to those undertakings.

It is also of course a reaffirmation of our belief in the importance and value of the United Nations (pace President-elect Trump) and of our respect for international law.  The resolution we sponsored was remarkable only for the fact that it was passed, when its many predecessors had always fallen victim to the use of the American veto.

Its terms have been supported by the great majority of UN members and are confirmed by most international lawyers.  But, from a New Zealand viewpoint, its significance goes beyond the detail of the particular issue, important though it is, because it augurs well for our readiness to stick to our guns and to face down, when appropriate,  disapproval from our friends as well as our (hopefully few) enemies.

What we need, however, is not just a promising start but a consistent and steadfast determination to stand up for what we think is right and not to be bullied.  The challenges to this stance will, after all, keep on coming.

And, sure enough, the next one is already upon us – this time in the field of international trade rather than politics.  But this time, the omens are not so promising.

There is every reason, it seems, to take seriously the complaints of our domestic steel industry that they are being seriously disadvantaged by Chinese dumping of steel in our market, at a price below, by virtue of export subsidies, the domestic Chinese price; many other countries have had cause to make similar complaints.

Our government’s predictable and legitimate response was to launch an inquiry as a prelude to action being taken by the World Trade Organisation – but that response was immediately met by a Chinese warning of trade retaliation.

The government – Bill English’s new government – has now produced legislation to extend the conditions that must be met in order to prove dumping, in an apparent attempt to water down the protections that our steel industry is entitled to expect.  That legislation, which the Opposition has declined to support, is for the time being stalemated in the commerce select committee.

What we need now, in the face of threats from a powerful friend, is more of the spirit shown at the United Nations, and less of the cravenness shown by the Key government over, for example, the Saudi sheep deal.  The new government has more to do if it is to earn its spurs.

Bryan Gould

31 December 2016

When my friend, Gary Ware, and I left Tauranga Primary School in 1951 to go on to what was then Tauranga College, it was an open question as to which of us would be the smallest boy in the school.  We have both grown a bit since then – and it is one of the pleasing things for me about coming back to the Bay of Plenty to find that I can pick up with old friends, and even more pleasing to find that we still have much in common.

Today, Gary is the motive force behind the Tauranga College Reunion Committee, and has helped to keep many former pupils in touch with each other.  Even more importantly, he and his wife Marlene have been active in promoting a range of good causes – Amnesty International, for example – and they have also been leading members of Closing the Gap, a voluntary body with a strong local branch in Tauranga, dedicated to raising awareness of, and adopting measures to counter, the growing divide between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in our society.

As Christmas approaches, it is perhaps more important than at any other time to remind ourselves that too many of our fellow-citizens will not enjoy the festive season in the way that most of us take for granted.  The unacceptable aspect of the “gap” that causes concern to many of us is that – on one side of that gap – there are far too many families (and children in particular) living in poverty, and that in a country that is blessed in so many ways, as we are, this is inexcusable.

An American friend once told me that her relatives could not understand why she had come to live in New Zealand and that she had explained her decision by saying that “in New Zealand, there is enough for everybody”.  And so there is; people – and children – go without, only because we do not care enough to make sure that there is enough for them.

The “gap” might seem to occur for reasons we can do nothing about, a consequence of inexorable economic forces, but that would be a mistake.  People are left behind, without the resources to bring up their families at a decent level, because we are too selfish to be bothered.

Christmas is not of course just an opportunity to have a good time.  For many, it is a time to recognise and proclaim the Christian message.  Even for the non-religious, like me, it is a time to reflect on the strength and meaning of Jesus Christ’s central injunction to “love thy neighbour”.

We may not, in every case at any rate, feel like “loving” our neighbours, but what Jesus meant (if I may presume to interpret him) is that we should be kind to each other, that we should think of others, that we should be generous in our dealings with each other, that we should not ignore the need for our help when we see it.

Concern about the rising level of poverty in our country is not, in other words, a sterile matter of economic statistics, or forces that we cannot influence.  It is about how we treat each other.  It is about ensuring that, as a society, we organise ourselves so that everyone has enough and that those who cannot provide for themselves are not left destitute and their children are not left to suffer.

Some will offer an excuse for inaction – we don’t have the time or resources, they will say, to help every waif or stray.  But that is what we have a government for – to act in our name, and in a democracy we can make it clear to government what it is that we expect of them.

And what better time than Christmas, to heed Jesus’s message, both in our own personal interactions with each other and in the actions and policies that are undertaken in our name?

Closing the gap is a goal we should all set ourselves – individually and collectively.  The gap –as Gary Ware and I both agree – is a blot on our fair country.  It will continue and grow only if we let it.

Bryan Gould

18 December 2016