For purposes of simplicity, NZUSA can be regarded as having four separate levels; as far as membership goes, it consists of every university student in the country; at the policy making level it has a council which meets twice yearly (in the May and August vacations) of elected delegates from the seven constituent associations (Auckland, Waikato, Massey, Victoria, Canterbury, Lincoln, Canterbury and Otago) who spend four days in earnest debate; at the representative level it has three full-time elected officers (Chris Gosling—President, Grant Liddell - Education and; Welfare Vice-President and Jim Brown - General Vice - President), and two part-time elected officers (Lamorna Rogers - Co-ordinator of the Women's Rights Rights Action Committee (WRAC) and Choong Tet Sieu - Co-ordinator of the National Overseas Students' Action Committee (NOSAC) as well as several appointed staff; two research officers (Peter Franks and Ian Powell), a Secretary-Accountant (Dianne Short) and two typists.

On the whole National Executives have never been quite sure what their powers and responsibilities are and are not. They generally delve too far into matters which should be more properly left to the NZUSA Councils. Being comprised of the Presidents of the constituent associations, they tend to try to represent the interests of their individual campuses rather than operating as an administrative body for NZUSA. This attitude was clearly revealed at the first National Executive Meeting of 1979 held in Wellington on 13 and 14 February.

The reason the meeting ran over two days rather than the usual one, was that on the second day, the Executive was due to meet the University Grants Committee (which controls the money spent on Universities) to discuss NZUSA's submission on the financing of universities over the next five years - as this is the basis on which money is doled out to the universities. However as the press (as we in Salient like to style ourselves!) were excluded from the meeting and the submission itself is confidential, this report can only deal with the first part of the meeting. Nevertheless this was not without its moments.

A Mountain of Reports

The first ten or so items in the agenda were a variety of reports. They came from the three National Officers, from NZUSA's observer to the Council of the Australian Union of Students (AUS) attended in Januaury by President Chris Gosling, the delegates to the Conference of the Asian Students Association attended in December of 1978 by Grant Liddell and 1978 VUWSA President Lindy Cassidy (reports on both these conferences will be appearing in Salient over the next few weeks), reports from the constituents of activities on their campuses and even then there were a few more. In all over fifteen reports were presented, and of these only two or three generated any discussions, however it took about five hours to get through them all.

One of the more important points to arise out of the reports was the matter of the South African Scholar. Students may remember the furore late last year when government imposed a ban on the South African Scholar speaking on political topics while in New Zealand. As the group which has organised the scholarship NZUSA fought vigoursly against the restriction. It arose however out of Jim Brown's report that communications between here and South Africa were not as good as we had hoped, and the person selected for the scholarship did not have the equivalent of UE and thus was ineligible for the scholarship. Therefore the campaign to restore speaking rights to the scholar lost some of its frenzied nature and is now proceeding a more sober, but no less determined, level.

It is hard to place any blame on anyone for this error, for NZUSA's contacts among the liberation groups in Africa suffers from a 9,000 mile seperation, so it is very difficult to sometimes get all the information necessary.

The Southern Africa Scholarship Trust Board has however selected the Scholar for 1980 and work is now starting to ensure that there are no problems for him. It is to be hoped that, not only will the scholar arrive, but by the time he does, the speaking ban will have been lifted. In New Zealand we have very little contact with events in Africa, particularly the liberation movements in Southern Africa and the scholar if allowed to speak publically about the developments there, will do something to bridge that gap.

Money

This insignificant, five letter word, sums up the major problem which faces NZUSA. It is also one of the areas in which it is most proper that National Executive work. While it is all very well for Council to set a budget, National Executive must ensure this budget is followed, and is given certain powers constitutionally to take remedial action when it is not followed.

It may not however alter budgetary allocations nor create special items of expenditure. In financial matters its role is more of the watch-dog variety. This is something members should realise, most notably Mr Gourlie, who wanted the budgettary allocation for travel expenses to National Executive meetings increased so that he could fly full fare from Otago rather than at the 50% Standby rate that the other presidents travel at.

While there are very good reasons why shouldn't pay full fare at least part of the way (because of the few flights out of Dunedin each day) it is not a decision that National Executive is empowered to make.

After some aimless discussion, Gosling made a belated ruling on the matter, and business proceeded. Like many of the matters discussed, debate wandered and meandered as various people, notably Tees and Stuart, insisted on making comments at every point of the discussions, on the whole to very little purpose. Some of the blame for this must undoubtably fall on Gosling's head. He seemed reluctant to make strong decision when they were called for, and even more reluctant to close discussion on any topic even when it was apparent that further debate was unnecessary. While it was his first Executive in the chair, his lack of leadership in the meeting prolonged many debates quite unnecessarily.

Reports from Foreign Parts

The reports from the delegates to ASA and AUS wil not be mentioned here, but it is worth mentioning that debate on each of the reports lasted well over an hour. It is not quite clear why this should be, many of the matters discussed are really the province of Council. One interesting aside occurred out of the recommendation from the delegates to ASA, namely that "NZUSA officially opproach the All China Student Federation and other legitimate representative student organisation to apply to become members of ASA".

Stuart voted against this motion on the ground that he felt his members would not like it. In saying this he revealed two misunderstandings. Firstly, he does not sit on the National Executive as a representative of UCSA, but rather as a representative of Council. Secondly inviting someone to apply for membership is very different from giving them membership. All this motion suggested was that China be invited to submit an application for membership. After such an application were received would be the time to discuss whether NZUSA thought it a good idea that China be admitted. Stuart's attitude seemed to be that he thought we shouldn't even try to discover whether China ought to be admitted. A curious attitude indeed as he gave no reasons (other than the "folks back home") for it.

Stuart's concern for opinions of the "folks back home" illustrates the great page 5 problem of National Executive. Because it has gradually assumed more and more power it has found itself now in the position where the decisions it makes affect the whole position of NZUSA, consequently they feel answerable to their members. If National Executive were to keep more to its brief of the administration of NZUSA between Councils these problems would not be so acute.

The Student Travel Bureau

The Student Travel Bureau (STB) is a travel company wholly owned by NZUSA, and although it has its own Board of Directors, much time is spent in National Executive meetings discussing STB.

In this meeting, the discussions over STB covered three main topics. Firstly there was a question of $168 debt that NZUSA had to STB. While this is a minor enough debt, and resolved in the course of the meeting, one interesting point which did emerge was that STB was witholding a debt of around $2000 it owed NZUSA until the $168 [unclear: debt t] was paid. This is apparently not an isolated case and it shows an interesting attitude on the part of STB towards its owners.

The next item which came up for discussion was a debt that NZUSA owes AUSTS (the travel company of the Australian Union of Students). The proposal was that STB would assume liability for this debt, and would repay it from the $2 surcharge on the International Student identity Cards (ISICs). This surcharge was placed on the ISICs by the International Student Travel Committee (IS (ISTC) last last year in order for STB to repay a debt of some $60,000 owed to AUSTS. The reason for transferring the debt was simply that there was no way NZUSA could have repaid it while STB could easily do so out of the surcharge. When the debt is payed off completely the $2 surcharge will be removed and the price of the cards will revert to its original $3.

For some reason Tony Stuart was unhappy about this proposal. He thought that STB might call in the debt from NZUSA. Stephen Underwood (one-time Treasurer of VUWSA and on the Board to STB) replied that he thought this unlikely. In view of the fact that NZUSA could sack the Board if they tried such a manoevre tends to support Underwood's view. But Stuart was allowed to ramble on unchecked. In part his opposition to the proposal was due to the fact that it tied NZUSA to supporting the ISIC card, rather than trying to introduce the alternative travel card which UCSA has been lobbying for over the past few months.

The benefits of such a move are unclear to everyone but UCSA, who are wisely keeping the tremendous advantages that this proposal would bring to themselves. As Rod Carr from OUSA said in an earlier meeting when Canterbury brought up their proposal, "what they are trying to do is pull STB apart and put it together using an alternative travel card and somehow losing $100,000 worth of debts in the process". Not surprisingly Canterbury have not found a great deal of support for the proposal.

Some of the constituent presidents seemed to be getting a little annoyed with Stuart's ramblings. In part this is due to Canterbury's refusal to honour the guarantees of STB's debts as they promised at August Council 1978. These guarantees (totalling $125,000) which provide surety against STB over-draft, an overdraft which is necessary if STB is to trade its way out of its debts. Gourlie asked rather pointedly how UCSA could even discuss the matter of taking over the debt by STB when they refused to provide the guarantees needed by STB if it was going to indeed trade its way into a profitable position.

Our very own Andrew Tees.

The third bit of financial business discussed was a hopelessly proctracted discussion over the sharing of costs of the office (which NZUSA and STB share). It took about half an hour before the meeting realised that STB had not refused to pay the sum NZUSA had claimed from it, but was merely disputing it. As only Dianne Short among the NZUSA contingent, seemed to have the slightest idea about what was going on, it was finally agreed to form another of NZUSA's famous sub-committees to look into it. It was certainly apparent from the contusion in the minds of those present that if the National Executive as a whole tried to resolve the question the meeting would still be going on now. So ended the first day.

Although it was intended that the second day be wholly given over to dialogue with the UGC, the amount of unfinished business (which included at that time a discussion of the submissions themselves) the National Executive continued its deliberations in the morning (as the meeting with the UGC was not until the afternoon).

Student Unemployment

The one memorable part of the second session was the discussion of student unemployment. Those who read the small articles in our local papers may have noticed a battle of press statements on the subject between Stuart, Grant Liddell and our very own Andrew Tees. It all started at the end of last year when Liddell put out a press statement quoting the number of students unemployed or on special work during the holidays.

This quite upset Mr Stuart who countered with his own press statement, claiming firstly that Liddell's figures were incortect and secondly that his inference that the number of students employed under the Student Community Service Programme (SCSP) showed that the private sector was unable to provide jobs for students was likewise untrue. Tees then chimed in, supporting Liddell's views and eventually the Evening Post was running an extra section to accomodate all the statements these worthy gentlemen made

Unfortunately I was out of the room when this matter first came up, and apparently there was quite a display of fireworks when Liddell rather heatedly attacked Stuart's claims. When I did return they were discussing what they should do to ensure that SCSP continue next year.

Stuart seemed concerned that the National Office press statements were attacking the Labour Department (who administer the scheme). Liddell, Jim Brown and Peter Franks were amongst the large group that tried to explain to him that comments on the worsening economic climate are references to the Government's handling of the economy and not on the Labour Department's handling of the SCSP.

Whether Stuart understood this or not is hard to say, but he did appear to back down a little, finishing up this rather pointless debate by saying that he wanted assurances that NZUSA would not attack the Labour Department. When Liddell said "Insure you....." he sat back satisfied. A strange end to what seemed a debtate based more on ignorance of one party than any real disagreement.

This was a hard National Executive to write up. Partly because so many things of little importance were discussed, but mainly because no-one seemd to have any real idea of what they were about.

It is a little unfair to single Chris Gosling, out for special mention, but his position in the chair made his lack of direction more apparent. He appeared not to have planned the meeting with sufficient care.

While it sounds autocratic, the President should make an assessment in advance, or at least during a meeting such as this of what is important and what is not. If Chris had clarified more in his own mind what he thought NZUSA should have done, the whole executive would have had something to work on, and business would have been more efficiently and better decided.

These comments also apply in large measure to many of the constituent presidents. We can hope that in future all involved with National Executive will be better prepared. Certainly for the next meeting, where the whole question of STB will be discussed, some greater leadership will be necessary if the matter is to be resolved.

Peter Beach