[unclear: Laidrawal] No Olive [unclear: Br:]

[unclear: A] applaud the withdrawal ([unclear: raly]) of the racist LATOS ([unclear: Lalevement] Test for Overseas [unclear: Stut] is no indication that the [unclear: Gotolding] out the olive branch. [unclear: We] caught off-guard. We must be [unclear: rll] out to vehemently oppose any [unclear: rease] before it is too late.

[unclear: Tect] NOSAC is running a [unclear: peti] NZ Government to protest [unclear: agaustifiable] and discriminatory [unclear: feel] to demand an immediate [unclear: freele] with the view to eventual [unclear: reduce] fees to the same level paid by [unclear: Nd]students.

[unclear: The] continues as Long as [unclear: Dis] Exists.

Under the STB the hardship system was much less controversial and complex. If your parents lived in your university centre then your STB was abated by $11 per week to $19. However, you could apply for nonabatement on grounds of hardship. Also if your holiday earnings had been impaired by employment difficulties you could apply for up to $7 extra per week.

There were many flaws in this system, but because the basic level was significantly higher than the TSG, relatively fewer students were in hardship. Consequently, under the STB less than 1000 students would apply for up to $7 per week.

But instead of getting rid of the abatement Wellington in effect abated all students, thereby intensifying the means-testing, and consequently the anomalies. Whereas under the STB less than 1,000 students applied for hardship in 1979, in 1980 nearly 17,000 applied for the Supplementary Hardship Grant. This, albeit crude, comparison sums up the crass nature of the hardship component of the TAG. And what other Minister of Education could cause a 1600% increase in hardship applications in one year?