As has been noted elsewhere, a special general meeting of the Students' Association has been called for March 20. Two motions so far received on the agenda call for a vote of no confidence in the Executive, and a mention of approval to the University Council over the Labour Dept. business.

Both motions are directly concerned with matters raised at the last meeting of the Executive (February 28). First on the agenda came the business of Compulsory Military Training registration. This was the inevitable follow-up of the previous University Council meeting, at which it was decided to refuse the Labour Department access to the student records.

It will perhaps be enlightening if the original letter from the Labour Department is quoted.

Government is seriously concerned because a fairly large number of youths who are required to register for military training under the National Military Service Act have failed to do so. The Department is under instructions to explore every avenue in tracing the defaulters. Persons who are required to register are males who have attained or will attain the age of 20 years between 1 July, 1961, and 30 June, 1962.

It would greatly assist the Department if you could agree to the records of your University being made available for the purposes of checking whether all university students, both full-time and part-time, have carried out their obligations to register. I understand that the dates of birth of university students are contained in your records and the Department would be prepared to make an officer available to take out the necessary information provided your Council is agreeable. Although employers are obliged to ensure that any of their workers who are liable to register have done so, it is difficult to trace deliberate defaulters because many employers do not obtain birth dates of their employees.

I do not think that anyone would have sympathy with youths who fail to carry out their obligations under this legislation, and I sincerely hope that the information contained in your university records can be made available to my Department.

It is well known, of course, that the University Council declined Mr. Bockett's request. Returning to the scene of the Executive meeting, we find certain members had other thoughts. Mr. Peter O'Brien, vice-president of the Association, thought it deplorable that Council should be so recalcitrant. He moved thus:

That this Executive disagrees with the decision of the University Council regarding the provision of the names of 20-year-old male students to the Department of Labour and that the Executive considers that irrespective of its views on the principle of compulsory military training, the University Council shoud respect and co-operate with the law of New Zealand as it stands at any given time unless it has previously criticised in public the legislation concerned.

The motion was seconded by Miss J. Latham (Women's House Committee Chairman).

Executive Ponders

Members then spoke to the motion. Miss K. Clark was of the opinion that Council had acted rightly, as was Mr. Mel Stone (Publications Officer). Mr. Paul Spender (recently co-opted to the position of Capping Controller) favoured the motion on the grounds that it is a criminal offence not to enrol, and opposed the Council's decision.

At this stage of the debate Miss Latham decided to withdraw her seconding, whereupon Mr. Spender seconded.

Both Messrs. Pitchforth and Lind-Mitchell (House Committee and Social portfolios respectively) opposed the motion. Mr. Pitchforth required the Government should work in its own departments; Mr. Lind-Mitchell thought that if the Labour Department wanted information on students' births, etc., it should contact the Registrar General's Office. The demand of the Labour Department was an unnecessary one, thought Mr. Lind-Mitchell.

Mitchell Disagrees

Mr. Armour Mitchell (President) disagreed with the decision of the Council in deciding as it did. Why did the Council not oppose the bill at time of legislation, Mr. Mitchell enquired?

Mr. Brooker, whose silent absence was noticed, wished to make his views known by mail. Brooker favoured the motion.

Both Mr. Jeffcott and Miss Margaret Clark opposed the motion. It was giving the Labour Department a precedent, claimed Miss Clark; a freedom from Government interference was to be preserved.

And finally Mr. Moriarty (Secretary and one-time head reporter for this newspaper) spoke. Mr. Moriarty opposed the motion. The Executive, said Mr. Moriarty, had an obligation to the students who voted them into office—particularly the "age-group" ones. He was in favour of the Council writing to the students reminding them of their obligation to register.

President Mitchell

Mr. O'Brien then spoke to the motion.

The motion was put and Lost.

O'Brien Resigns

At this juncture of the meeting, Mr. O'Brien resigned his position on the Executive, It would be difficult, he said, to work with people who had so strongly opposed his most ardent desire. Mr. O'Brien said that he well realised the chastisement his resignation might bring. It was upon his shoulders, the wrath must descend.

Miss M. Clark (Women's Vice-President) then moved:

That this Executive upholds the decision of the University Council not to furnish information from its files to the Department of Labour and that a letter be sent to the University Council informing them of this view.

Mr. Stone seconded. The motion was put and Carried.

Adjournment

An adjournment was then called for by Mr. Mitchell. Miss M. Clark opposed the move, but vacating the chair in favour of Mr. Moriarty, Mr. Mitchell managed to convince the Executive an adjournment would be propitious.

After a suitable time (during which Mr. Mitchell had a short 'stay on' chat to Mr. O'Brien) the meeting was called to order; and to no one's amazement Mr. O'Brien withdrew his resignation. He realised the duty he had to the Executive, to see matters kept on running smoothly, therefore, and for this reason alone he would stay on—for a time.

Thus ended the first interesting item on the night's agenda. In brief recapitulation let us see who's where:

Michell, O'Brien, Brooker, Spender, all in favour of giving the Labour Dept. access to the student records.

Clark, M., Clark, K., Stone, Pitchforth, Lind-Mitchell, Jeffcott, Moriarty, against the Labour Department having access to records.

Motions of Censure

The letter that appeared in "The Dominion" was the result of a reply to another letter in the same paper, in which a correspondent wrote, deploring the activities of certain students on board the Rangitira, returning from Congress at Picton.

It transpired that Mr. Mitchell, Mr. O'Brien, Miss M. Clark, and other Executive members replied to this by stating that these students should be Mined up against a wall and shot'. Not a very pleasant thought from a pleasant enough group of Officers.

It should be noted that one of the resolutions on the cards for the forthcoming S.G.M. is a motion of no confidence in the Executive—the motion arising directly out of this matter.

The motions were then discussed and:

Motion 1 was withdrawn by Mr. Robb,

Motion 2 was carried unanimously by the whole Executive (including the letter-writers).

Motion 3 was withdrawn by Mr. Robb.

Motion 4 was seconded by Mr. Stone, was put and carried. As Mr. Mitchell pointed out, this was not the last to be heard from these matters. He hoped that certain members of the Executive (including himself) had learnt a lesson.