N.U.S. no Con

Travel services, insurance schemes, bursary increases - why should these and other tangible benefits gained by a strong university body be denied to Teacher's College Students? Why should a recognised channel through which effective political protest may be made at top Government level be closed to other tertiary students?

It seems elitist to suggest that only university students are idealistic enough to seek to make our society a better place in which to live, and it seems selfish to suggest that only university students should benefit from concessions such as the NAC 50% standby fares.

The proposed National Union of Students allows the Student Teachers' Association of New Zealand (and ultimately, perhaps, all students) to take advantage of NZUSA services, while according our national student body greater credibility in negotiations for further services and in submissions concerning political issues. Because it will, in future, represent a broader cross-section of young people, our policy in the fields of accommodation, education, welfare and all national and international political concerns may be altered slightly, (representation at national level of the N.U.S., as currently envisaged, greatly favours the current constituents of STANZ).

At the recent S.G.M. of V.U.W.S.A. this matter was very thoroughly discussed, and although there were a number of sceptics, I believe that nobody was strongly against the concept of a national body. Criticism was levelled at the planned administrative heirarchy, but it must be emphasised that the details of this which were published in the N.U.S. Proposals report considered at the S.G.M. were tentative only. At this stage the issue is one of principle, but it should be stressed that STANZ and NZUSA are both in a comparatively strong position at the moment, and a merger is viable as well as desirable Our S.G.M. of a fortnight ago had an undecisive "wait and see" result. It now appears that other constituents are definitely in favour of the proposed N.U.S., and I suggest that at the next S.G.M. to consider this, we should concur also. This should be done not just to follow suit, but also to ensure that we are not undermining what promises to be the strongest voice of socially conscious youth in New Zealand today. Alternatively, but more selfishly, we should not cut off our nose to spite our face and lose the benefits inherent in belonging to a national service organisation.

Tim Sheppard.

NZUSA Liason Officer

What Happened?

What has happened to the series on pop history? We were after all promised four episodes which is meagre as it is. Here's hopin' anyway.

Alan Jackson.

Sweet and Sour Sheppard

So Tim Sheppard, Insurance Liason Officer, Travel Officer etc. etc. is also disturbed at "suggestions of possible racial discrimination in the activities of insurance companies" made by me. How sweet of him.

Tim first told me how concerned he was in March of this year. He also told me how hard he had been working on the problem and how hard he would continue to work on it.

Last month he tried to tell me the same thing. When I enquired just what he had done he was pretty vague. Neither did the future plans sound, very inspiring. So I said to Tim (and Peter Cullen is my witness), "Fuck this, you won't do anything till some shit has been stirred!"

I wrote a letter and sent a copy to Salient. Eventually it was printed. On the same page was a letter from Tim saying "I too am concerned..." And what an exciting plan, get the President to write away for official clarification. Wow!

My guess is there's a need for more shit stirring before Tim does anything significant. Letters are okay but if somebody started spouting about whether student officers should be paid commissions for insurance sales etc, I recken we would see some real action.

Love and peace.

Paul Burns.

What the Hell

I am amused by the misdirected criticism that too little is known by Joe Student about the major and minor incidents that become important after they have happened. No doubt there is truth in the criticism, but the fault lies as much with Salient as with the executive of VUWSA.

Where the hell are your reporters? Why no interviews with errant executive members about their sins of omission? All we get is libel and apologise, libel and apologise... .Don't your ace reporters, like capitalist newspaper scholarship holding opinion pusher Cob Ramble, go to meetings read minutes, sneak looks at Prof Board and council papers, rifle the president's mail and rape his secretary? Or do they only have the time to jerk off a few smartass comments about real or imagined campus pricks? How conventional! How unrevolutionary! I bet Peter Saveloys does his homework before asking Mike McKinley and Don Carson whether they are grey or yellow! I bet he knows who supplied the tomatoes to throw at the Governor-General!

What about a bit of honest underhand revolutionary journalism? I don't mean mundane stuff like telling us joes what happens at executive or SRC meetings in factual reports, or who last saw Devon Biggs standing outside where. Christ! He has to stand ouside somewhere, doesn't he? But a few investigations about the authorship of grassroots, or Sullient. Or who put sugar in a Prominent University Personality's petrol tank. Or How Manay prickish capitalists have withdrawn financial support from the university after the PBEC thing. Or how the government intends to make farmers the richest section of the economy after cabinet ministers before the election.

Don't your men know where to find corruption? Or do they wallow in it, in their flatulent smugness, making racy political witticisms should the target present itself, thinking they are turning on the campus with their pseudo-revolutionary egotours on standby?

And whose tit are you pulling, Editor?

"Lawrence Knight"