That which was anticipated. . .

I was very annoyed to read the SGM report by Gary Henderson and David Newton in the last Salient. According to the authors, equally important with the policy decided is the 'telling indictment of shabby student politics it proved to be.' What this phrase means, apart from the obvious fact that the authors disagreed with the motion passed, it is not easy to see.

David and Gary consider the speakers marked by imbicility, caused by prolonged heckling etc. In my opinion the image of "prolonged heckling is completely inaccurate, the number of people speaking surely wrong, and the accusation of imbicility insulting.

On the first motion, that for another NZUSA Research Officer, reasons were obvious for the meetings decision. It was felt that NZUSA was not doing enough for students to justify an increase in fees. While I disagree with this, how our reporters could miss this very clear feeling is beyond me.

Turning to abortion, the report doesn't cover any of the material discussed, apart from the fact (?) that it was "nothing new." Mysteriously, the next three, undiscussed items on the agenda were considered "of equal importance' by our reporters. What absolute rubbish!

In toto, I think the SGM report was one of the worst reports I can remember, of a meeting that, for once, involved a very large number of students in decision making. On that ground alone the SGM was a far more optimistic occasion than Gary Henderson and David Newton would have us believe.