Campus Reaction

SGM reaction to Victoria's proposal was that it was worth serious consideration. However, this contrasted sharply with the number of campuses willing to become involved financially. Auckland, Canterbury, Lincoln and Massey all have strong policy which would, at present, keep them out of such a venture.

Simon Mortlock, Canterbury's lawyer, claimed the proposal was "far superior to the proposal of STB's board" to inject new share capital (see above article). It would be fair to say STB's board agreed with this appraisal.

However, the suggestion also came from Canterbury that the cost of winding up STB was, in a strictly legal sense, far less than Victoria's proposal — a total of $130,000, contrasted with at least $200,000. This suggestion was rejected out of hand by other delegates, however. It would have meant regarding STB staff holiday pay and redundancy payments, for example, as any other debt — likely to be settled at 10 or 20 cents in the dollar. The suggestion was also unacceptable in the light of the re-affirmation by NZUSA, at an SGM earlier this month, that it would "meet the debts of Student Travel Bureau as at 30 May 1981."

Another pleasing aspect of the discussion was the sensible approach taken towards the proposal by campuses which were not interested in being financially involved themselves. Auckland's Bob Lack expressed his association's opposition to itself or NZUSA owning shares in the new company, but added that AUSA would not get in the way of other campuses which might.

In fact, the key motion of the meeting resulted from such an attitude. Moved by Canterbury and Waikato, and passed unanimously, was the motion: "That NZUSA authorise those constituents interested in the Rennie Proposal to enter into negotiations with the Bank and other creditors of STB, on their own behalf, with a view to the formation of a new student travel bureau."

Basically, this motion represented an endorsement of Victoria's proposal and, in effect, an undertaking on the part of all constituents not to unduly hinder the establishment of such a venture.

Three successful motions followed; the first giving the board of STB the power to unanimously decide to accept any such proposal; the second resolving to immediately decide the future of STB if a proposal was not forthcoming by 25 May (putting a time limit on the potential shareholders); and, in the event of it being needed, the President is to prepare a report to May Council on the costs and related effects of the cessation of trading of STB.