SGM Do We Don'T We ...?

Although last on the agenda, first motion up was the Thrush/O'Connor offering; "That the Association believes that the paying for Reps to NZUSA Policy Workshops presents an unjustifiable drain on its finances, and recommends instead that efforts be concentrated on effectively actioning the existing policies of NZUSA as promulgated at May and August Councils." The re-ordering was necessary as first item was the election of delegates to the said workshops.

The supporters of this motion had two main arguments. Peter Thrush proposed that the workshops were soley devoted to the teaching of rudimentary technical skills, laying out leaflets being the example he used. Steve Underwood complained that the association's finances could not stand the strain of sending people to these "inessential" meetings.

Numerous speakers attacked Thrush's argument, none more impressively than President Lindy Cassidy. In the best SRC speech of the year she tore into Thrush's view of these gatherings. The aim of these meetings, she said, is to coordinate activities on a nation-wide basis. Examples she gave were campaigns on the bursaries issue and overseas students cutbacks.

Moving on to general issues she criticised the inconsistent attitude Thrush portrayed. Victoria should support NZUSA, in which case it should involve itself as fully as possible with the various activities of the association. It was pointed out by various speakers that these workshops, as methods for implementing NZUSA policy (as determined at the August and May Councils) on a national basis, were an essential part of NZUSA. If VUWSA was not prepared to do this, then it should move for withdrawal from NZUSA altogether.

Other speakers amplified some of Lindy's points. Sue Cairney pointed out that NZUSA needed a positive change, and that this motion, if passed would considerably undermine our national union at a time when it could least afford it. The Thrush position faltered under this withering attack.

This was Steve Underwood and the money men's cue to enter the fray. He and his ally, Peter Callicinos thought that in these times of economic strife the Union should conserve its funds for those things that really mattered (almost as though they had missed the first part of the meeting isn't it). Anyway the feeling of the meeting was that workshops were essential and the money argument also faltered, although Lindy pointed out that there would have to be policy decisions on cuts.

Although there was in fact about 45 min minutes of discussion on the motion, reproducing it all would be tedious. If you want to hear it all verbatum, come along yourselves. The vote was eventually taken and the motion defeated by 60—42.

Having now established that we should send delegates, the next step was to select the lucky four. After all the intense discussion it was perhaps surprising that the first two positions were uncontested as Education Officer Sue Cairney and National affairs Officer Sean Tuohy were selected. Caroline Mass of defeated Joan Shields to get the privilege to go to the Workshop on Women's Rights.

Lastly came International Affairs Officer Mike Treen, who, as he was unopposed, might have expected to be the fourth member of the group. But no! For reasons best not discussed in a family magazine like this, Treen was defeated by No Confidence. This was embarassing! After all the trouble to get Thrush's motion thrown out, we were now faced with the prospect of having no one representing us in the International Affairs Workshop. First move was to re-open nominations. Treen was renominated, and also Michael Carr-Gregg. Then came an interesting little interlude. The proposal to nominate Overseas Officer Victor Chang was mooted. There was only one drawback—he wasn't present at the meeting, and no one knew whether he would be available to go to Christchurch for the weekend. After much discussion about how to get around this detail, it was decided that people couldn't be nominated in absentia, without their written permission, so Chang's name was dropped.

Second time around Treen was more successful, and he won by 38 votes to 22 with 30 no-confidence votes.

The one thing that struck your humble correspondent was that those who had fought hardest to defeat the Thrush motion seemed to be those who voted no-confidence. Strange.

Next up was Steve Underwood who presented the 1978 budget. Well if you're into accountancy .... I'm sorry for you because I'm not and couldn't bring myself to take any notes. I'm sure it was very interesting and it certainly was necessary. Unfortunately it doesn't read too well in print. Shortly after wards a count revealed that there was no longer a quorum present, so the meeting closed, with much business still left unfinished.

Peter Beach