Otago Boycotts Easter Council

Otago University withdrew its delegation to Easter Council because of the capping magazine boundary issue.

The Annual General Meeting of NZUSA has consequently been replaced by a national executive.

Easter Council, instead, took the form of the usual commissions that made recommendations concerning the various fields of activities to be acted upon by the constituents.

On 2 March 1970, the student executive of the Otago University Students' Association decided to inform the other members of NZUSA that unless agreement could be reached concerning the sales of capping magazines, Otago would not be present at Easter Council.

The text of this communication ran as follows:—"Unless formal written agreements are received by March 15, 1970, from Auckland, Massey, Victoria and Canterbury constituents guaranteeing that their Capping publications or equivalent will not repeat not be sold south of the Waitaki River, then the Otago University Students Association will withdraw its delegation from Easter Council."

Largely because of the forthright manner in which the Otago executive stated their viewpoint, and also because there is basic difference of opinions between the Students' Associations on this particular issue, not all constituents were prepared to give Otago the assurances they sought. However Canterbury did offer Otago these assurances.

On 23 March, the Otago Student Council upheld the action of its executive. At the meeting a motion was proposed calling for the executive to rescind its decision. With about 110 people voting the motion was defeated by a two thirds majoritiy. The feeling was strong that Otago was being badly treated by the other Student Associations and that NZUSA had proved itself incapable of finding a means of effecting a settlement in the interest of all concerned.

It was also clear that the majority of students at the meeting felt that the issue at stake was an important one for Otago, and that if NZUSA was unable to bring Students' Associations to agree on this matter, there was very little sense in attempting to foster co-operation in other areas of student concern. To some it seemed that there was very little point in having a national student body if it was unable to settle differences between member organizations or the ordinary day-to-day matters which confront a students' executive.

The attitude of the remaining Easter Council delegates at Auckland was one of industry and enterprise. All policy decisions now need ratification by constituent universities because of Otago's action. An earlier procedural motion, however, allowed the Council to continue with its business:—

That in order to ensure a truer representation of student opinion important political issues not previously decided by NZUSA Council or constituents individually, all presidents shall be contacted and a two thirds majority opinion obtained after they have consulted with their respective executives before a public statement may be made by NZUSA on the issue; if such support is not forthcoming, no statment shall be made.

After Easter Council, Otago Students' Association President, Errol Millar, stressed that he had just returned to New Zealand from the USA and that he had no knowledge of the facts of the capping magazine dispute.

"The whole question appears to revolve around sales of Masskerade in the Otage area 'and the resulting effects on the sales of Otago's magazine. Our capping book's sales are affected as no other university's by sales of foreign capping books. Basically, we do not make a large profit from our capping book and drastic inroads are made into the profitability of our magazine by sales of other capping books. Any competition, however minor, would be financially disastrous."

Mr Millar said that as he had not heard what his Association had to say he would not judge its action in deciding not to attend Easter Council. He said he would not know whether Otago's action was warranted until he returned to Otago. "It seems clear," said Mr Millar, "that the course of action adopted had been fairly thoroughly considered—both by the Executive and at a General Meeting."

Paul Grocott, NZUSA President, points out some of the implications of Otago's actions:—

"It will be imperative for all of us to consider the particular grievance of Otago, not only in its current context, but also for its implications on the whole development of the National Student body. It may be necessary for extraordinary measures to be taken both settle grievances where this is possible, and to ensure that the affairs of NZUSA are allowed to continue in the best interests of New Zealand students as a whole.

"Ideally, of course, a representative of the Otago students would have needed to be present for even this discussion. However, our only alternative was to make an agreement among those present, in the knowledge of Otago opinion, and in the hope that the decisions we made will be agreed upon by all constituents. If they are not, the whole future of our National Student movement will be at stake and the foundations on which our co-operative activities are based will be even more tenuous then they have been before."