Editorial

Opinions expressed in Salient are not necessarily those of VUWSA.

The fate of, and the circumstances surrounding the motion presented at NZUSA's Winter Council which urged the Government to legalise marihuana has been well aired by now.

Had the motion been passed, an enormous amount of discussion would have ensued, all based on the premises that "students want drugs". The motion was defeated and so all the discussion which took place was based on the premise "that students don't want drugs but a sub­versive minority do". And all because Gerard Curry changed his mind.

The motion slipped through National Commission. But before the plenary session which must ratify all motions passed in individual commissions, the Lincoln delegates were led into the traditional smoke-filled room; they emerged with their total opposition to the motion tempered to support for the proposal to table it until Easter.

Victoria also changed its collective vote. But for different reasons; demonstrating the kind of schizophrenia which had previously gained Auckland the sash for the Univer­sity Most Difficult to Understand. But because their contrariness was supremely evident, it is worthwhile to examine their behaviour in some detail.

Victoria was the last delegation to speak. Gerard Curry. Orator-in-Residence seemed curiously unprepared for the debate; unprepared for the long and authoritative speeches from Messrs Jamieson and Rudman (Otago and Auckland). But by using his head, he drew on his wide debating experience and his skill for the impromptu phrase (or two or three or ad infinitum) and delivered himself of a speech.

The theme, that the freedom of the individual was sancrosant, and that this freedom should not be legislated against unless there was "good and proper" reason why it should be, was good solid, stock stuff.

Not equivocal, fully consistent with SRC policy. Then Otago moved the motion be tabled until Easter. The same motion which had failed to attract Massey a seconder when they had proposed it moments before was now almost through. And, unbelievably, Mr. Curry was sup­porting it. Victoria, he said, was committed to the motion on the table, but if it was the feeling of the meeting that it should be tabled until Easter Victoria would support it. And the reason Mr. Curry gave was that it had been discussed too superficially at the SRC meeting which gave him his mandate. And so the next day it was Mr Curry, eanestly assuring delegates there "was no hurry", who made the difference between passage and non-passage.

The validity of the attitudes of political representatives who actively differ from the line laid down by their con­stituents has been perplexing since time immemorial and will continue to be so. But when that objection is based on the quality or the quantity of the debate which gave him his direction, that representative is hardly acting in a valid manner, particularly when he maintains silence at that meeting. If Mr Curry thought it was the wrong decision, or that the decision was hastily considered he or anybody had the opportunity to say so at the meeting. He is quite entitled to disagree with the motion, at any stage, but not at the expense of ignoring the explicit direction of the SRC to vote for the passage of the motion.

The circumstances outlined give rise to several questions Mr Curry should answer.

(1) How does he define "sufficiently thorough" debate? Ten minutes? Five speakers? Ten interjections?

(2) As he obviously feels he can exercise his discretion as he supports the decisions of the SRC. let him divulge his criteria publicly for examination by that body. The SRC, if is to remain in existence must perform those functions allotted it by the SGM in June, not those allotted it by its chairman.