Key Takeaways
- The chief victims advisor, Ruth Money, criticises the University of Auckland for inadequate handling of bullying, harassment, and harmful sexual‑behaviour complaints.
- An international student alleging sexual assault by chemistry professor Jonathan Sperry said the university placed the burden of proof on her and failed to hold others accountable.
- Money says the university’s policies are outdated, lack clear informal‑vs‑formal process distinctions, and require victims to do most of the investigative work.
- Policies were last reviewed in 2024, with the next review not scheduled until 2029, despite recent claims of “robust” procedures.
- A 2022 independent review of student disciplinary processes produced 70 recommendations but excluded staff‑related complaints.
- Money highlights sector‑wide power imbalances that deter timely reporting and calls for a transparent, streamlined complaint system across tertiary education.
- NZQA is collaborating with Money and other agencies to improve referral pathways, information sharing, and reduce trauma for complainants.
- The University of Auckland asserts it takes such behaviours seriously, offers support services, and maintains a whistle‑blower hotline, while acknowledging the need for continual improvement.
Overview of the Chief Victims Advisor’s Criticism
Ruth Money, the chief victims advisor, has publicly called out the University of Auckland for what she describes as poor processes in managing complaints about bullying, harassment, and harmful sexual behaviour. Speaking after the university asserted it possesses “robust policies, procedures and guidelines” to handle such matters, Money argued that an institution responsible for the safety of rangatahi, young people, and adults should exemplify best‑in‑class practices. Her review of the university’s current framework led her to conclude that the reality falls far short of that expectation, prompting her to demand urgent reforms.
The Sperry Case and the Complainant’s Experience
The criticism gained traction following a specific case involving chemistry professor Jonathan Sperry. An international student alleged that Sperry sexually assaulted her in 2019. She reported that the university’s investigation placed the onus on her to prove the assault occurred, rather than actively gathering evidence or seeking corroboration. Moreover, she felt the process failed to hold any other parties accountable, leaving her to navigate a system that seemed designed to protect the institution and the accused rather than the survivor. Money highlighted this case as emblematic of broader systemic flaws.
Assessment of Policy Adequacy and Clarity
Money contends that the university’s policies are not only outdated but also lack essential components. She pointed out that the current documents do not reference the stalking law, a significant omission given the prevalence of stalking in harassment cases. Additionally, she criticised the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes an informal versus a formal complaint process, noting that victims often must undertake extensive legwork—gathering evidence, drafting detailed accounts, and repeatedly following up—before the university will even consider their concerns. This “heavy lifting” places an unreasonable burden on survivors and discourages reporting.
Review Timeline and University Claims
The university’s bullying, harassment, and harmful sexual behaviour policies were last reviewed in 2024, with the next scheduled review set for 2029—a five‑year gap that Money views as untenable for a sector grappling with evolving legal standards and societal expectations. Despite this lengthy interval, the University of Auckland has repeatedly claimed that its policies, procedures, and guidelines are “robust.” Money argues that such assertions are inconsistent with the evidence she has gathered, suggesting that the university’s self‑assessment may be overly optimistic or disconnected from the lived experiences of complainants.
Limitations of the 2022 Independent Review
In 2022, the university commissioned an independent review of its student disciplinary procedures after a disturbing incident in which a student who had twice raped another student was permitted to continue studying. The review generated 70 recommendations aimed at improving fairness and transparency. However, Money notes that the scope of that review was confined to cases where students were the complainants; it did not address complaints involving staff members. Consequently, the reforms that emerged may not adequately protect individuals who experience misconduct from faculty or other employees, leaving a significant gap in the university’s safeguarding framework.
Sector‑Wide Barriers and Money’s Call for Reform
Beyond the University of Auckland, Money emphasises that complainants across New Zealand’s tertiary sector face unique obstacles rooted in power and control dynamics. Survivors often delay disclosure until after graduation, fearing retaliation or jeopardising their academic standing. When they finally come forward, their timeliness is sometimes questioned, undermining the credibility of their accounts. Money argues that these dynamics create a “heart‑wrenching” outcome where victims must choose between pursuing justice and completing their qualifications. She advocates for an open, transparent, and streamlined complaint process that applies uniformly across universities, polytechnics, and other tertiary providers.
NZQA’s Role in Streamlining Complaints
Recognising the fragmentation of complaint pathways, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) is working with Money and other agencies—including the Ministry of Education, Teaching Council, Education Review Office, and Tertiary Education Commission—to simplify how concerns are raised and addressed. An initial meeting held in May 2024 focused on clarifying referral routes, improving information sharing, and reducing duplicated efforts that can exacerbate trauma. NZQA’s deputy chief executive, Emily Fabling, stated that the initiative aims to minimise the risk of re‑traumatisation, address vicarious trauma among staff handling complaints, and provide clear points of contact for complainants while recognising that some specialist engagement may still be necessary depending on the issue’s nature.
University of Auckland’s Response and Support Measures
In response to the criticism, the University of Auckland issued a statement affirming that it treats sexual harassment, bullying, and similar behaviours with utmost seriousness. It highlighted the existence of a comprehensive suite of policies, procedures, and guidelines that are reviewed regularly, along with support mechanisms such as an employee assistance programme offering access to clinical psychologists and trauma‑informed practitioners. Students can avail themselves of university counselling services. The institution also pointed to its Code of Conduct, a whistle‑blower hotline allowing anonymous reporting, and policies designed to protect complainants and informants from victimisation during the investigative process. While acknowledging the need for continual improvement, the university maintains that it is committed to providing a safe environment for all members of its community.