Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 20, No. 7. 30th May, 1957

[Report from the Easter N.Z.U.S.A. Council meeting]

"At the International Students Conference at Ceylon last year, Australian and New Zealand delegates, although usually cooperating, on this occasion strongly disagreed on a major issue"

"Salient", 4/3/57.

The differences between us and our nearest neighbours were fully aired at the Easter N.Z.U.S.A. Council meeting. The presence of Mr. Thomas of Australia (there on a different mission, see elsewhere) was used to clear this matter up.

It would appear the major trouble was that Australia had the impression that N.Z.U.S.A. was a fairly reactionary body in its relations with Asian and African countries. Although Mr. Thomas declared that, after hearing the views of N.Z. students as presented at the Council, he was sure that basically our views are the same and N.Z.U.S.A. is reasonably liberal. Salient felt that there is no smoke . . . etc., and suspected that the delegation, led be Mr. Boag of A.U.C., was unnecessarily narrowminded.

There had been a gentlemen's agreement that Australia and New Zealand would not stand against each other for posts; early in the conference, although it was known that the Aussies keenly wanted to get on a minor committee, N.Z. opposed them. When [unclear: the major] committee came up the Supervision Committee, N.Z. felt that it was our turn to stand. Australia, however, did not want to be associated with our narrow-minded approach, and furthermore realised as the voting showed, that they had a better chance of being elected.

Accordingly, to our grievance, they also stood, and neither were elected.

The main two issues specially raised, were Algerian complaints, and attempts to get on the Supervision Committee. N.Z. took the view that Algerian complaints at attacks on University freedom, and discrimination against natives, lacked sufficient documentation. Australia maintained that full evidence was available, in a document earlier circulated, in press reports, in French admissions. In the vote, as on all occasions where there was A.N.Z disagreement. New Zealand voted with the European blec.