March 17 and 18 saw the second meeting of the National Executive of NZUSA for 1979 Although often very tedious to sit through. National Exec meetings are always interesting, if only to see how the presidents of the 7 constituent associations perform. Back on their own home campuses they all rule the roost as it were, chair most of the meetings they attend and are used to having their opinions taken seriously. At National Exec however they are not always in this situation, for a start the meeting is chaired by the President of NZUSA, who exercised his own control and secondly each of the presidents considers that he has an opinion that is worth listening to generally more important than other's views. The result is lenghtly debates with some violent clashes.

Of all the presidents, it is those of two of the South Island campuses that most clearly fit this bill. Tony Stuart (President of Canterbury) is most reluctant to let any matter be discussed without having his say, even if he has nothing to add to the discussion. Paul Gourlie (for Otago) on the other hand seems to make a career out of needling the chairperson.

National Issues Down South

If the performance of their presidents is anything to go by, apathy has been raised to new heights in the South Island campuses. There was a motion proposed that a speaking tour be arranged for a representative of the Mangere bridge workers, to go around all the universities informing students about the present dispute there. The South Island campuses weren't too happy about this proposal. "We don't get students along to forums" one commented.

This comment would have had more value if it were not for the fact that the South Island associations don't appear to care at all about forums. Several weeks ago there was a forum at Canterbury University on NZUSA at which two of the National Officers spoke. As Canterbury at that time had a motion on its books to withdraw from NZUSA (since rescinded) one might expect such a forum to generate a measure of interest. As it happened only 7 people turned up, 6 of whom were on the Canterbury Executive. Why? Well it was quite simple really, UCSA had arranged for a rock-concert to be held at the other end of the Union Building at the same time. Funny that no-one turned up.

Someone said that, in any case, the matter wasn't relevant to students. That anyone can seriously entertain that notion with the current level of graduate unemployment is astounding. But Tony Stuart countered this argument by pointing out that these redundancies didn't affect students while they were actually at university! In the light of this complete disinterest from the South it was decided that the speaking tour would only go around the North Island.

The $9 Deal

As you should all have realised by now, Government will shortly be considering a proposal from the Education Department to increase the level of the STB by $9 per week. It was therefore put to the National Exec that NZUSA do something to ensure these proposals become a reality. In the words of Research Officer Peter Franks "We must take action now unless the whole Bursaries campaign, built up over the years, collapses under us. Unless we do something now the Government will assume there is no support for the proposal"

Following Vic policy and the spirit of NZUSA's policy on Bursaries, Andrew Tees moved, and spoke strongly for, a proposal that there should be a demonstration on the Bursaries question on 11 April. Surprisingly, considering their concern for 'student-issues', the South Island campuses v re not keen on the idea. It is true that universities like Canterbury which are out of the city, have special difficulties when it comes to demonstrations, but the impression I got was that they were not particularly keen on doing anything which might involve any real effort.

Otago's problem, Mr Gourlie explained, was that there was no-one who could stand as a figure-head for any such demonstration. "I mean can you see me standing in front of a crowd of students advocating a rise in the Bursary?" he asked. One might ask why he was president of OUSA then.

Mr Stuart informed the meeting that he had turned over the question of fighting for the bursaries increase to the Progressive Club (loosly moddled on our PSA). When asked if he didn't perhaps feel that organising an activity such as this was more properly the function of the association, he replied that he thought not, "I mean they (the Progressive Club) are into that sort of thing".

It was eventually decided that mere would nevertheless be a national day of action on Bursaries on April 11, and there will be much more information on this coming out later.

Wellington at National Executive

One expected highlight of the National Exec was the presence of the Minister of Education (Merv Wellington) for about an hour. Many people had hoped that this would be an opportuntiy to press firmly home in the mind of the Minister, student concerns about the whole bursaries issue. Sadly it was not to be.

Before Wellington arrived Gourlie had expounded his theory that NZUSA should try and grease up to the Minister, make him believe that NZUSA was on his side. As Research Officer Ian Powell pointed out at the time ".....when you try to grease up someone, there is a tendancy to slip over". That is certainly what happened on Saturday.

For his part, Wellington was unwilling to step outside official government line. Yes he has an absolute committment to education, likewise to continuing review of the level of the STB. He was unwilling to state however what the nature of this committment was, for example he would not say on what basis reviews of the level of the STB were undertaken. The only definite thing he did say was that he could not give an assurance that no decision would be taken on Student Teacher Allowances untill the report of the Commission set up to study it, had been released. By saying this he added fresh speculation that indeed the allowances are intended to be cut, possibly to finance any increases that do take place in the STB.

Fundamentally however the blame for the profitless exchange must rest with the National Executive. Wellington was plagued with some of the most idiotic questions. Tees asked about library facilities at Vic, something the Minister has no real control over whatsoever. But it was Tony Stuart who took the cake. He explained, in tedious detail, the situation at Canterbury where Union regulations were threateneing some of the catering operations down there. What he thought the Minister of Education could do about this is a good question indeed.

Canterbury cut out of the Action

Day 2 of the meeting was a Special General Meeting of NZUSA, basically a National Exec under a different name, and with correspondingly greater powers. The matter at hand was the guarantees from the constituents to STB.

The Student Travel Bureau is currently facing huge debts. The only way that these debts can be payed off is if the STB can trade its way out of its present position. As the company is presently insolvent, the cash for this trading is coming from an overdraft. In August of last year, all the constituent associations agreed to provide guarantees to the BNZ (STB's bank) guaranteeing the overdraft should the company come unstuck. In total these guarantees run to $125,000.

Since the euphoria of August Council however, things have changed and Canterbury, and possibly Massey, have refused to honour their promises to provide the guarantees. This meant that the other 5 associations who are willing to provide guarantee: are going to have to increase their liability to cover this shortfall. Understandably some of these constituents were a little upset that they were taking all the risks, while both Canterbury and Massey would eventually expect to reap some of the benefits.

As Canterbury appears quite intransigent on this point however, a compromise had to be reached. It was in the form of two motions moved by Otago. The first was to suspend all voting, moving and speaking rights on matters concerning STB from those associations which refused to underwrite their portion of the overdraft. The obvious reasoning was that if the are not prepared to accept their responsibilities it is unfair that they should have any say in how the company is run.

The second motion was that, when STB starts to make a profit, that the first $10,000 be divided amongst those constituents who did guarantee the overdraft. This had actual been amended by the Board of Directors of STB so that they will now pay a guarantee fee of 4% p.a. on the value of the guarantee, payable when the company becomes solvent With Vic's share of the guarantee likely to be around $ 20,000, this would give us $800.00 per year for the estimated four or five years until the company becomes solvent and the guarantees are no longer required.

Understandably Canterbury is unhappy about these developments, and certainly they are very severe measures, but then again so is the situation in which UCSA placed STB and thus indirectly NZUSA and through them Vic.

Peter Beach