On Identifying the Enemy

I want to reply to the letter written by Guru Nathan K. and signed by some other overseas students.

First of all, I would like to point out a few inaccuracies. The letter states "we pay the same amount of tuition fees but get nothing substantial in return" The Students' Association does not receive the money paid for tuition fees—I only wish we did. Rather, the Students Association receives $37.00—$2.00 of which goes as a levy to NZUSA. Does the letter imply that those overseas students who are dissatisfied with NZUSA's performance will not pay the whole $37 to VUWSA or just the $2.00 to NZUSA?

Personally I deplore the tactics of an individual or group, who instead of using open debate at SRC's forums etc. would rather write a threatening, childish, unsubstantiated and incorrect letter, which is a direct insult not only to James Movick himself, but also to the overseas and local students who fought so hard for him to stay in the country.

Why do I say this? Though the opening paragraph of the letter is is directed at an attack against the immigration authorities who with Gill and the National Government are the real enemies of overseas students, the rest of the letter is directed at NZUSA's failure to keep James in the country.

A great deal of time and money was put into trying to appeal against the Minister of Immigration's decision through the Courts; now that James has left that battle still continues.

At present an appeal is being made to gain funds to continue the legal struggle. NZUSA also prepared numerous leaflets, arranged a speaking tour of James around the country and generally tried to win support for James' case. Though the VUW Council did not at first support James, after an SRC motion and a deputation to see the Vice-Chancellor a special emergency meeting was held which overturned this decision and supported James.

The overseas students at Victoria also called a meeting to try and gain the support of both local and overseas students by distributing leaflets. The author of the letter. Guru Nathan K.'s sole contribution to the meeting was that if the battle was not won he would withdraw his $37. At no stage did he help in any other aspect of the the campaign by either joining the pickets or by helping to organise activities.

Though we have lost the first stage of this campaign NZUSA is obliged to continue the Struggle to win equal rights for overseas students. It is an important principle, and one which I personally am prepared to continue to fight for. To say that NZUSA has not got off its "bureaucratic arse" and done nothing is completely erroneous.

Besides the James Movick campaign, what else does NZUSA do for overseas students?

In 1975 after pressure by NZUSA the Education Advisory Committee (EAC) was set up to hear immigration appeals by overseas students. This concession, won by NZUSA for overseas students was of direct benefit to those who wished to stay longer in the country.

A representative from NZUSA sits on that Committee spends a great deal of time researching and preparing a case for those who are appealing. It is estimated that NZUSA spends twice as much time on overseas students' cases than on individual bursary cases.

Last year NZUSA gave $1550 directly to the National Overseas Students Action Committee (NOSAC), which is a body directly reponsible for overseas students. This does not count donations and hidden subsidies given by the individual Students' Associations.

Guru's letter stinks of inverted racism, e.g. "liberal pakehas" and does the work of the national government by dividing overseas students from local students. It is a letter which deliberately directs the attack away from the main enemy to organisations which are genuinely trying to work in the interests of all students, both local and overseas.

Finally, that letter was not written in support of James Movick or overseas students but rather in support of a particular person's own sectional, selfish and racist attitudes.