Women Only

The next motion to be discussed concerned the position of the Co-ordinator of the Women's Right Action Committee of NZUSA (WRAC — for more on the WRAC read the article on page 7 of this issue). It was moved by Sarda Nana and Virginia Adams that:

That VUWSA believes that the position of NZUSA WRAC Co-ordinator should be open to women only. Supporters of the motion stressed that this was a form of positive discrimination aimed at helping women secure equality in society. Victoria Quade said that being a woman was one of the qualifications for the position. The impetus to fight comes from the experience of oppression.

There were some objections to the motion: it was argued by some that it represented a form of sexism (which was countered by the claim of positive discrimination). Another comment made was that the women's movement tended to alienate men, and that this motion would only increase this tendency. The motion was eventually put and carried approximately 60 to 40.

The meeting's pace had slowed considerably by the time they reached the seventh item on the agenda and the attendance had similarly dropped. It was moved:

That VUWSA condemns the Government's short-sighted cuts to the health system and sees this as being a planned part of its overall policy of restructuring the economy to further the interests of big business at the expense of New Zealand's welfare state. Although there was one speaker against the motion, there was little debate and, when put, the motion was passed without a dissenting voice.

The carless day regulations were next on the menu when the following motion was put:

That VUWSA sees carless days as being an unfair and inequitous system and calls for their abolition. In speaking to the motion movers Andrew Beach and Stephen A'Court said that the earless days regulations placed an unfair burden on one-car families, were easily "gotten around" and were brought in, not as a reaction to a shortage of oil, but because New Zealand could not afford to pay for the oil it needed. It was further commented that the regulations were not proving effective in reducing petrol consumption in any case.

One other motion was discussed in the meeting, being moved by Grant Gillat and Simon Wilson:

That this Association condemns the Government's use of the Remuneration Act in the Drivers' Award settlement, and views this as a direct attack on the right of workers to free wage bargaining; and further, that this Association supports the trade union movement in the action it will take to oppose this Act and its use. Both speakers stated that the Remuneration Act was an infringement on workers' only form of protest — strike action. Wilson also commented that in the past students had not shown a great deal of support for the struggles of the Trade Unions, citing as an example the use of students as scab labour in the 1951 Waterfront dispute. There were no speakers against the motion, and it was carried on a show of hands. A more detailed article on this issue appears on page 3 of this issue.

The last matter to be discussed was by Caroline Massof in General Business, concerning the 2 hour period that should be free from scheduled classes on Wednesdays from 12 to 2 to enable all students to attend SRCs. She moved the following motion:

That SRC directs the President to meet with the Vice-Chancellor regarding the two hour SRC period on Wednesday afternoon to get some assurance that we do obtain a true two hour free period, and furthermore, if no assurance is given a student sit-in be organised after the next SRC. Although the motion received fairly solid support, there was some concern for the people who by choice wished to have classes, labs or tutorials scheduled while SRCs are on. This problem, it was argued, would not be solved by sit-ins in the Vice-Chancellor's office but could be corrected by an investigation of why students choose to ignore SRCs. However the motion was decisively passed.

Jonathan Taylor