NST Leader: Auku's abolition must usher in better regulation

The abolition of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (Auku) marks a welcome and significant reform, but its true impact will depend on how the government fills the resulting vacuum. Government officials are to be commended for their willingness to depart from legislation that has often restricted academic and student freedom.

From the moment Auku came into existence 55 years ago, it has been a subject of controversy, undergoing numerous amendments over the years, with the most substantial change occurring in 2012, which permitted students to participate in activities organized by political parties outside campus.

Yet, the abolition of Auku will be meaningless if its restrictive provisions are replaced merely with administrative rules. This implies that universities may need to lean more heavily on their own statutes, regulations, and governance mechanisms. While this presents an opportunity, it also presents a test of institutional maturity.

Autonomy should not be equated with the inheritance of Auku's powers through internal regulations. Universities should refrain from adopting restrictive practices under a different name. Academic freedom must be coupled with academic responsibility. Greater freedom does not equate to an absence of standards. Universities still require mechanisms to address misconduct, harassment, discrimination, and any behavior that genuinely endangers the safety and integrity of the institution.

Universities should strive to develop comprehensive policies that cover a wide range of issues, including but not limited to sexual harassment, bullying, disability discrimination, and abuse of authority by lecturers, supervisors, or administrators. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list. The policies and rules must be inclusive and apply to all individuals employed by the universities and students alike.

Importantly, these policies and rules must also address situations involving power imbalances, such as those that may arise among university administrators who often assume the roles of complainants, prosecutors, judges, and appeal authorities.

Experts have long advocated for the separation of investigation from punishment. This is primarily to prevent conflicts of interest, as exemplified by the separation of the roles of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor in legal systems. The principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done is an enduring legal principle.

The end of Auku should not signify the end of regulation but rather the beginning of better regulation that is more closely aligned with universities, more transparent, fairer, and less susceptible to abuse of power.