"The Time has Come"

Last Thursday night the biggest student meeting in the history of the University was held. Over a thousand students jammed into the three common rooms and overflowed into the hallways. For three and a half hours they listened as speakers outlined student grievances and put forward proposals for action. Then in rapid succession the meeting endorsed boycott proposals (by a majority of 599 to 320), roared through on voices a motion on NZUSA action, and endorsed an approach to the Association of University Teachers by acclamation.

"Why should we take this action, and why now?" Mike Hirschfeld, the seconder of the motion, demanded of the meeting. "Now, because we have discontent amongst us, here because the strength of students is at university, here because at University we can organise and demonstrate, petition and march. Now, because the government budget comes out in May or June and if we do not act now we will have to wait another whole year." Mr. Hirschfeld also stressed that a booklet would be produced, speakers sent to organisations, and a positive public relations system developed.

John McKinley, well-known student debater, argued that a boycott would not realise what students want. He proposed a 3-point alternative (i) that we call on the staff of the university (who have been students themselves) to support us and stand behind us in any action we take, (ii) a special edition of Salient to be distributed during a march on Parliament, (iii) political action through the Labour Party. "I have an assurance from Mr. Nordmeyer," McKinley told the meeting, "That at the first Imprest Debate in Parliament the topic will be students. " He pointed out that this would go on for a day, be broadcast and reported, and would provide all the publicity students could want. He felt that a boycott was the last piece of legitimate militant action, would place overseas students in an invidious position, and antagonise the only political parties that could help students.

"The Government will take no more interest in the Labour Party now than it has done in the past," said Dave Shand in reply. The time had arrived for action, and McKinley's ideas were additions, not alternatives. "What is the best action we can take?" he demanded. "Civil war" replied an interjector.

Students should not just sit around in the Student Union and sing militant songs on the day, Shand continued. He advocated that students give up the day to doing social work.

A student, Mr. J. Turner, proposed a series of amendments to the major motion - these were incorporated in the original motion with the consent of movers -(see SGM motions reproduced elsewhere in this issue).

Dave Preston, a student, sought an explanation on how a boycott could succeed without picketing. He advocated a demonstration and march which would embarrass the Government, particularly with Ecafe conference now in session. In 1962 there were demonstrations, he recalled, and following these some bursary anomalies at least were fixed up.

"Kinsella has said that higher education is a privilege," Tim Bertram told the meeting. "I say it is a right . . . "the rest of his remark was lost in prolonged applause.

"In the six years I've been at Universith I don't think I've seen a meeting of this size," Tony Ashenden told the meeting. "I don't doubt the validity of the issues - the question is how to deal with them. "

By now the meeting was clearly restless, and as new speakers appeared a chant of "vote, vote, vote" could be heard from sections of the room. When the vote came the room was divided into sections and section scrutineers (at least two to each section) counted the votes and announced them to the chairman. As soon as a division was called for, it was clear that only the size of the majority in favour was in doubt. Some students observed that the number of 'No' voters was greater near the doors, suggesting that dissenting students had turned up later than the proponents of the boycott.