Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 13. June 11 1979

Reform the Association? — Interview with Michael Carr—gregg

Reform the Association?

Interview with Michael Carr—gregg.

As part of Salient's ever-present drive to obtain a representation of the various views on the state of the Students' Association, Peter Beach conducted this interview with Michael Carr-Gregg — a former member of the Executive and an outspoken advocate of reform to the Association. If, by chance, you find that Mr Carr-Gregg's views conflict with your own, please don't hesitate to let us know, As part of our desire to represent the views of students, we'll be more than happy to print them.

Salient: I'd like to start by talking about the [ unclear: leaflets] that were distributed prior to the Special General Meeting on May 23. It was rumoured (and I don't want to go into the truth or otherwise of that rumour) that you were involved with the leaflets. What function did you think the leaflets would have?

Carr-Gregg: I saw those leaflets as legitimate publicity for the meeting. I thought people should be made aware of the way we saw things, and I'm aware that that's not the same way you saw them. I don't see anything wrong with those leaflets. I've seen far worse leaflets printed.

Are you thinking of any leaflets in particular?

Well no. Not any in particular.

Do you think that the leaflets were proper in their tactics?

Well they used, as Andrew put it in his interview, poetic licence. The leaflets tried to hit at the raw emotions of the students. They tried to get people along to the meeting. And I think they were successful. People came along to the meeting because they wanted to hear what the issue was.

You talked about publicising the issue as you saw it. The issue, as those who moved the motion saw it was one of the competence of the President. In neither of the two leaflets that I saw was the competence of the President mentioned. The leaflets concentrated on the suspected motives of those who were moving the motion.

I have worked under Andrew and received nothing but co-operation from him in Cultural Affairs and I sincerely believe that the reason for the motion of no confidence was simply that people were not willing to work under Andrew. They had gone into their jobs with preconceived ideas of him.

There was talk of rolling Andrew when he was first elected. I recall it. I can't comment on the truth of the allegation made at the SGM that Jonathan Scott had claimed that the knives would be out, but I would say that that was a fairly rough idea of what was going on. People were very upset that Andrew was elected.

I am not disputing that there were people who were supporting other candidates. But I wonder if you could tell me who these Exec members with preconceived

ideas are. By using innuendo and lumping on the whole Exec and consequently on the whole association.

I don't think any purpose would be served by naming them. I'd like to think that the new Executive, when elected, will have learnt a lesson and that they will get together and operate as an efficient administrative body. Afterall the Executive is merely an administrative body.

The reason that I asked that question was not that I wanted a black list of Executive members. But there have been a lot of allegations that people have obstructed Andrew and have had preconceived ideas about htm on a political basis. And quite frankly what I know of the members of the Executive, I would have to say that their politics is basically middle of the road, looking at them as a group.

That's your opinion. From what I saw, and I must say that I haven't seen you at too many Exec meetings, which is legitimate, you have a job to do, there was this obstruction. Perhaps it wasn't politics as much as personalities. There were people on the Executive who just could not get along on a personal level with Andrew. I don't think it was so much politics, although in my opinion that was a factor, but the big factor was personalities.

They didn't like the way Andrew was running the show, and they were using Lindy Cassidy, who I admit was a very competent President as a yard stick against which to measure Andrew. But she had two years to learn the job, she had Steve Underwood who'd been there for god knows how long to help her and give her support. Andrew on the other hand was brand new to the job, didn't know anything about it. You have to grow into a job like that. I don't think people realise that. I don't believe that he got the support of the Executive. The people who perhaps could have helped him, who had experience, I believe did not give their all to him.

Photo of Andrew Tees

"You can't expect htm to perjorm as well as Lindy Cassidy."

But how about considering him now, half way through the year. Do you think that he's performed as well as you'd expect someone to perform half way through their term of office?

You can't expect him to perform as well as Lindy Cassidy did, you've got to give him a chance to grow into the job. I think he has done remarkably well, particularly in some fields. In some areas he's done far better than any other president.

Where in particular?

Well in my field. Cultural Affairs, the support that he gave us right from the beginning was quite incredible. He was the major force behind the promotion of the Arts Festival. He was the one who got the review going, and it was only through his persistent nagging of people that they got themselves together and got something done.

But I understand that he lost the support of the Executive because he was believed to be incompetent.

You have to look at why the Executive regard him as incompetent. They for example would put forward the argument that he can't lead, that he doesn't know the correct procedures. This may well be true, but it is not my experience, although I'm not on every committee that Andrew is on. In my experience neither of the criticisms is valid.

Are you saying that those members of the Executive who believe Tees to be in-competent are misguided?

No - I would not question their right to express that opinion. However I find it hard to believe that he is supremely efficient for me and hopeless for other Exec members.

The PSA were also attacked in the leaflets. What do you see as the function of an organisation like the PSA? Do you think that it has a function at all?

As former Cultural Affairs Officer, I would like to put it on record that we gave PSA a very large grant. I believe that the PSA is one of the most valuable and politically active clubs on campus. They have shown that they are willing to get out and do something. And I think that they have a right to be there, as Andrew said, just like any other club. And that's all there is to it. They are a very valuable club.

But I don't believe they should be allowed to dominate SRC, which is fundamentally what I believe they are doing. When the PSA want a motion to go through, they turn up to the meeting and, well it's not really stacking, but they're there and the other people aren't. Now although you can argue that the other people who aren't there don't give a damn, but many of them in actual fact have other committments. I just can't accept that they should make policy for 6000 students.

What sort of policies do you feel the PSA is trying to dominate the Association into adopting. I presume that you aren't referring the SRC policy on education. Bursaries and assessment.

I have very strong views on international matters. I think it is a great pity that the average student can't see beyond his own narrow little borders. But I think you've got to accept that he is concerned at the moment about the state of his pocket. I think it's sad that they can't see that things; happening overseas will eventually affect them. But I think that we have to represent that point of view. And I don't think that we do at present.

But what sort of policy is it that the PSA is responsible for pushing through SRC?

Well international policy, things like that. May be their stand on abortion. I think you could find quite a few people who wouldn't agree with their abortion policy.

How does the PSA actually dominate the Association?

It has got a number of very eloquent speakers who can put their points forcefully and influence a meeting very strongly Those people who do turn up to SRC are Interested anyway and are therefore able to be persuaded by their arguments. However they don't get the chance to hear the other side.

You 've accused the PSA of being particularly vociferous in the opposition to Tees. Why?

Well they attacked him over his proposal to abolish international and abortion policy, for my broadcast on Radio Windy of using The general impression that I've got is that the PSA is not very happy with Andrew. They haven't given him any support. They haven't helped him. They haven't said, look Andrew you're doing this wrong, why don't you do this? They just say you're doing this wrong and this and this. They don't make any constructive suggestions. This is particularly serious because there are members of the PSA who have had experience in this area.

What about the allegation that Salient has conducted a smear campaign against Tees?

I refer you to the cover of Salient the week after he was elected.

Well that was in September last year. [ unclear: W] about more recently?

Well I believe that the Salient people we not very happy about the election of [ unclear: Te] and it has broken a long line of politicall active presidents.

Could you give an example of this [ unclear: smess] campaign?

You're asking for specifics. To do that would have to go through all the Salient this year. I would say however that I [ unclear: do] think that Salient has been offering [ unclear: constive] criticism to Andrew. They have [ unclear: new] publicised any of the good things that [ unclear: he] done.

However one other point that I [ unclear: would] like to make was that you accused the people who put out the leaflets and me for my broadcast on Radio Windy of [ unclear: uti] [ unclear: smear] tactics. And we open Salient [ unclear: next] week and we find ourselves called [ unclear: fascist] Well who's using smear tactics?

Anyway the SGM showed that [ unclear: people] aren't happy with the present set-up, [ unclear: the] things are badly amiss.

You mean the structure of the [ unclear: Association] rather than the particular people [ unclear: "runb] it?

Yes. Not enough people know what the Executive is supposed to do. I don't think that most members of the Association realise what the function of the Assiation is. I think that there is a distinct [ unclear: is] of communication between the [ unclear: Associatation] and its members. And it's very [ unclear: distressir]

I mean just look at the size of our SR People are not turning up, and you've [ unclear: go-to] look at the reasons why they are not turning up. I mean if you go to the [ unclear: quac] and ask someone why they don't go to SRC, they'll reply that they don't want waste their time listening to all that [ unclear: intes] national crap. Now that's lamentable but it's the situation. Regardless of [ unclear: when] ther it's accurate or not, that's the impression that they have got of the meetings.

Now I think that a challenge has been thrown out to the new SRC [ unclear: Co-ordinaton] to change the situation. I think that man of these people who have been called Maoists and a lot of the members of the PSA have genuinely got the interests of the students at heart, but they've gone about it the wrong way, They should actually try to show students that they [ unclear: as] concerned. And it's got to be done [ unclear: soon] because we've got this Education Fight [ unclear: back] campaign to do. I think the timing of this vote of no confidence was very unfortunate, it has upset the Association and it now has to regroup and get on with the bissiness at hand.

What do you think is the relationship between the campaign and the internal political difficulties within VUWSA?

I would like to see the problem of trying to present a unified front to Government as well as resolving the internal conflict, would be done if the various groups were to communicate more with each other, particularly with the President, he is our spokesman and he was elected to repress us. The PSA should use its experience in the protest area to help the Association by helping the President. The President has been given an overwhelming vote of confidence by the members of the Association and the PSA should reconcile itself to that fact and start to work with him.

Finally can I ask you if you thought it was proper, if they had [ unclear: gra ve doub ts] about the President's competence, for the executive to call the SGM?

If they felt strongly, it was their responsibility to the Students' Association to do so.