[unclear: The] Working Party Report

NZUSA underwent some changes at [unclear: ay] Council. The position of Internation-Vice President has been scrapped, voting [unclear: rocedure] has been altered and the Nation-Overseas Students Action Committee [unclear: OSAC)] has been asked to prepare a [unclear: re-ort] for next year on becoming [unclear: autono-inus]. Much of the impetus for these [unclear: hanges] seemed to come from the Working [unclear: arty] report, although I believe many [unclear: ould] have occured anyway.

This Working Party was set up in [unclear: Feb-ary] and consisted of John Blincoe [unclear: (for-ier] NZUSA president) Doug Drever, Mike [unclear: see] and Guy Macindoe. The last two are [unclear: residents] of associations which have given [unclear: otice] of withdrawal from NZUSA.

Rather than summarising the report, which is available from Lindy Cassidy [unclear: hould] anyone wish to peruse it), I will [unclear: eport] on the issues which arose out of it.

[unclear: Must] What is Wrong?

[unclear: Basically] the report recommended various [unclear: hanges] to the voting procedures at [unclear: coun-ils], and changes in the structure of [unclear: nation-l] office. There seemed to be a feeling [unclear: round] the Council that the Working Party [unclear: ad] failed to get to the heart of the [unclear: mater]; that the dissatisfaction with NZUSA [unclear: temmed] from a lack of student [unclear: participa-ion] and involvement, rather than the [unclear: par-icular] structure of National Office, or the [unclear: rocedures] at May and August Councils.

While superficially this may seem a [unclear: trong] argument, a closer examination [unclear: hows] up its weaknesses. In essence [unclear: ZUSA] is an organisation which reflects [unclear: nd] implements students' views. NZUSA [unclear: an] only act as it is told to act by the [unclear: stu-ent] representative, it cannot ensure that [unclear: hose] representatives actually propose [unclear: iews] that reflect those of the "silent [unclear: maj-rity]". That is a problem for the [unclear: constitu-nt] associations.

NZUSA can be modified, as an [unclear: organisaion], in an attempt to make the policy [unclear: rom] councils as representative as possible [unclear: of] the attitudes expressed at those [unclear: coun-ils]. It is not possible to re-arrange the [unclear: or-anisation] to try and compensate for the [unclear: act] that the views expressed by delegates nay not reflect those of their associations.

This appears to be the nub of the [unclear: prob-em]. Students at UCSA and MUSA both of whom are making noises about with-[unclear: rawing], are attacking the wrong [unclear: organisa-ion]. If their students feel NZUSA is [unclear: mov-ng] in the wong direction, it is in a large [unclear: easure] due to their own poor [unclear: representa-ion] at Council. Most policy passed at Council is passed unanimously (with the exception of LCSA's frequent abstentions), [unclear: o] it is hard to follow the argument that [unclear: he] policies are not in tune with those expressed at Council.

The problem with LCSA and its [unclear: disatis-faction] with NZUSA had different origins [unclear: from] those with UCSA and MSU. Lincoln College is a specialist school, with a far more narrow spectrum of student attitudes [unclear: han] on any other campus in New Zealand, This is not to say that LCSA should not be [unclear: in] NZUSA. Far from it — NZUSA is considerably weakened if it does not embrace all university students. It does mean however that Lincoln students should recognise that their attitude reflects what are generally the attidues of only a small part of the other constituent associations.

Their dissatisfaction is more akin to the dissatisfaction groups within other universities feel towards their own association (as perhaps the science students at Victoria generally do not subscribe to the policies of VUWSA). I believe that Lincoln College students must become more aware of the position in which they are placed, and should re-examine their complaints with NZUSA, taking account of the principles of democracy.

How far should the 38,000 other students in NZUSA go to accommodate the wishes of 1400 Lincoln College students who have a disproportionate voting power (and no one is suggesting that that voting power should be reduced) in the interests of democracy?

It became apparent from May Council (particularly during the discussion on the Working Party report) that the other constituent associations were prepared to make large concessions to LCSA in order to try and keep them in NZUSA. Only time will tell whether the offers of compromise will be accepted in the spirit in which they were made.

The Working Party made only two important recommendations. One concerned the structure of National Office, the other was an attempt to make the policies emerging from Councils more representative of the views expressed there.

IVP at the Door

Much discussion centred around this first proposal. The structure that was finally determined upon for National Office was:

President

Full time elected with special responsibility for overseas students.

General Vice President

Full time elected with responsibility for National and International work

Education and Welfare Vice President

Full time elected

Two standing committee Coordinators

Elected by NZUSA and paid an honorarium, (the standing committees are WRAC and NOSAC)

Two Research Officers

Full time appointed with responsibility for Welfare, Education and Overseas students.

Secretary — Accountant

Full time appointed

These changes grew out of the Working Party's recommendations. The most important and obvious is the removal of the International Vice President. While there was much discussion on this point the reasons for dropping the position were mainly on a practical basis.

Basically there was a feeling that this represented a compromise that would go a long way to keeping Massey, Canterbury and Lincoln in NZUSA (although ironically Canterbury had the week before passed a motion at its SRC supporting retention of, the position — "There's just no way to stack an SRC" Mike Lee was heard to complain). The success of this measure will have to be gauged.

Ignoring the controversial nature of the actual decision, it represented a very important stage in what might be called the "Compromise Council". It was the first time that any of the ardent supporters of NZUSA had been prepared to make any major concessions to the associations which were dissatisfied with the existing form of NZUSA.

This dissatisfaction had stemmed from the belief that it is completely inappropriate for NZUSA to have policy on matters "completely outside it ambit", like international policy. Scrapping the IVP does not of course eliminate the policy, (and indeed much of it still remains on the books). However removing the officer who who was supposed to action that policy, has a simple downgrading effect in relation to the so-called relevant issues of welfare and education.

One major stumbling block (a phrase I shouldn't use. It occurred so frequently in the International Commission that it was moved, That all stumbling blocks do lie upon the table) to scrapping the IVP was that s/he has had a special responsibility for the welfare of overseas students, and the special problems they faced.

It was recognised at the outset that NOSAC would have to be strengthened to the extent that it could take over the work that had formerly fallen to the IVP; The feeling of the meeting seemed to be that eventually NOSAC will become a fraternal organisation rather than a subservient body.

The other main argument used to eliminate the IVP position was of the mundane and financial type. Before Council NZUSA appeared to be heading for a budgeted deficit of around $6000, with one less National Officer most of this money could be saved.

There were a variety of reasons why it was chosen to scrap an elected rather than an appointed position (eg. have only one Research Officer). It was believed that a Research Officer would represent a much sounder use of "scarce financial resources". A lot of NZUSA's essential work is in writing submissions, sitting on committees and so on. Fronting up on issues at the campus level can still be done by the remaining elected officers.

Also there was the important point that it was not at all clear that there would be any candidates for such a position. Absolute majority or silent majority?

Another main topic of discussion centred around the voting procedures at Council.

The Working Party believed that "much of the expressed dissatisfaction about NZUSA is in essence dissatisfaction about the policies of NZUSA and the processes by which these policies were made". One of the recommendations that they made was that all policy motions should attract two thirds of all the possible votes (ie 28 out of the possible 42).

This provision must already be met for any amendment to the constitution, and it was generally felt that to require ordinary policy to be subject to such a stringent restriction would be unnecessary. Further, it would mean that Auckland with either Canterbury or Otago would be able to block anything the rest of NZUSA wished to do. The idea of a 28 majority was pretty quickly dropped, in favour of an absolute majority, or 22 votes. A motion establishing this procedure was passed unanimously.

This still ignores one other objection: there is now no such things (in effective voting terms) as an abstention. Many constituents use abstentions to register the fact that they have no policy on a particular issue. They do not mean to actually vote against the motion. The record will still show their abstention but it will count as a negative vote.

Lincoln's case is interesting. Because LCSA belives NZUSA should not have policy on International issues it abstains on most international motions. The new absolute majority system means that it is theoretically forced to decide on all such issues. It can no longer avoid taking an active part in deciding NZUSA policy.

In fact all constituents must now make an effort to get policy on the issues expected to come up at Council. The lack of preparation which has hitherto marked many delegations' role in Council is to be actively discouraged.

Peter McLeod made the important point that the new system will ensure a more representative policy. He pointed in particular to a motion on the Middle—East, which was passed under the old system 2 to 1 with 4 abstentions. This was not a policy which necessarily reflected the views of the majority of students.

While this system looks very nice in principle it does overlook one very important point. Delegates are always supposed to vote under instruction from their SRC's; Consequently they are not open to persuasion, as they might be under other situations. The idea of trying to sway people to your own point of view to obtain a positive consensus is thus denied. The scheme seemed to work fairly well for the duration of this Council and it is to be hoped that this will continue.

One other recommendation of the Working Party which was adopted was one to have the complete voting pattern for each motion recorded and circulated with the minutes. The stated aim was to increase students' awareness of how their delegates are voting. While sensible enough in theory, the proposal fails to recognise that while minutes for Councils are freely available they are not widely available and many students do not seem interested in availing themselves of this opportunity. Be that as it may, all NZUSA can do is to make them available for those who wish to use them. It is for the constituents to seek to raise the level of awareness of their members in the workings of the national organisation.

Peter Beach