With those sentiments, "Salient" is in full agreement. Certainly the number was not much above the quorum—and it's pretty disgraceful when there is so little interest in student affairs—but the walkouts were quite without excuse.

The latest incident came without warning; there had been no move to limit the time of the speaker, no suggestion that his motion was out of order. Just the sudden break-up, cutting short the right of a member of the Association to express his views.

Built for Comfort

At first, of course, it was a cosy little meeting: the numbers grew until there was a comfortable margin over the quorum; the new common room was pleasanter (if not warmer) and the meeting was in fine fettle to get under weigh.

"That in view of the removal of subsidies and the consequential rise in the cost of living, V.U.C.S.A. request N.Z.U.S.A. to make immediate application to the Government for a 10 per cent increase in all bursaries, to be retrospective to May 8."

Mover Doug Foy, on this the first motion, noted that 10 per cent had to cover not only the rise since May but rises last year too; bursaries had not changed to meet rises in general orders in 1948—and students, because they had failed to make their voices heard, had missed the gravy-train. It was time, he thought, that we hopped on board and made up some leeway. Students on bursaries were quite definitely in a bad position—and nothing had yet been done to relieve them.

The meeting agreed with him and his seconder, Neil [unclear: Graftal] it was more comfortable now and it had even been suggested that since people leaving the room could veto by taking out the quorum with them, the use of the veto except for "natural purposes," be suspended. The motion was carried and Mr. Foy, apologising for the arrangement of the agenda which returned him so soon, moved the next one too.

Violation of Charter?

A longer one this time, it asked the meeting to agree that "while in no way expressing an opinion on the aims of the Communist Party," it would call on "all students and staff to express their opposition to the Australian Government's 'Communist Party Dissolution Bill,' for several reasons. These were such as the right to police search, the retroactive operation, the dangerous possibilities of the definition of a "Communist" the method which in essence was declaring a person guilty before trial, the effects on trade union rights and Government employees, the possibility of its use in discrimination against University clubs and staffs and students, and that, in general, the Bill was "both unnecessary and dangerous to democracy." It suggests that through the High Commissioner, we call for the withdrawal of the Bill.

This one passed through not so quickly. Doug Foy, in moving it, commented that the whole question could be considered apart from the ideology involved. Many of the clauses,—the police search of homes, the onus of proof clause, the retroactive operation, and several others, were flagrant violations of the U.N. Charter of Human Rights. Throughout his speech, he waded knee deep through a flow of interjections from Mr. Cook. The Bill, he argued, was possible of too easy extension to attack trade unions, students, teachers in Universities. It was a dangerous Bill to allow in any democracy, as it was quite clearly capable, of extension to include any other group whom the Government dislike.

With this, Mr. Johansen agreed wholeheartedly when he seconded the motion. He showed how people had said "it can't happen here" when Hitler used this weapon first against Communists, and then against unions, churches and particularly the Catholic Church. From "The Rock," he showed that after all. "Communists and Catholics have been conspiring together for years" and as he said, "it is a well-known fact that when one sees a Holy name badge, on the back of the lapel will be the Hammer and Sickle."

It would be merely sticking our heads in the sand, he contended, to say it can't happen here". Mr. Holland, he argued, will most certainly follow the Australian lead in moving against unions and "Communists and fellow travellers," The chairman, vacating his post at this stage to answer an urgent phone call, was accused by Mr. Johansen of "getting his orders from Moscow."

Mr. Cook, who had been keeping his verbal hand in—so far spasmodically—now took the floor to quote from "my Bible—the London Economist." This paper had had doubts about the Bill; certainly for English conditions. But, he said, Australian conditions were different—worse enough to Justify the Bill. From another Dominion came the Canadian Commission report of 1946 on Communism, and Mr. Cook quoted from this also. Mr. Cook was proud to say that he himself was opposed to communism (for which he received his ovation) and, having quoted Mr. Churchill in passing, he moved on to detail the Canadian report. Kathleen Wilshire turned, in his hands, into something like a backfire, for his assurance that "she didn't understand about giving information" and that "she was asked to give all she had" for communism, were greeted with some misunderstanding—there was one rough comment about "red lights." Mr. Cook then moved to the safer Allan Nunn-May amid a waning flow of interjections, and finished with the assurance that communism in Australia was maybe worse than any other in any other country.

"After Mr. Fitzcook's travel talk" came Mr. Goddard. The Victorian Commission on communism, as he noted, did not confirm Mr. Cook's fears that commos were stuffing secret papers into Moscow dispatch cases.

Mr. Newenham did not agree with this, for Australia, he said, was "at war" and therefore justified in taking action of this sort: the Government was acting in accordance with the will of the people, who had elected the party to do this job. And therefore it was quite right.

White Ants Underground

"Mr McIntyre's Monthly Magazine" said Mr. Searle, says that there is no use in driving communists underground to do their work. He agreed, while Mr. M. O'Brien thought that we could not ask another country's Government to do anything at all—we were quite without right in so acting, and we should make ourselves look the "biggest fools ever."

Mr. Bollinger pointed out that, while Canada had been in this dire plight four years ago, she hadn't yet needed an anti-Communist Bill! The family tree of the O'Briens was investigated when Mr. Jenkins asked how to address or refer to the Vice-President—Secondus? he asked. But Secundus was out, and Tertius (as the chairman informed us) was Tertia—and neither Quartus nor Quintus stopped Mr. Jenkins from getting to the dire comment on Sextus.

This is not, Mr. Phillipps assures us, a bolt out of the Australian blue; we expected a reference to the reds white-anting Australian society.. to make it thoroughly patriotic.

Weight—Carried

Mr. Curtin added a great deal of weight to the discussion. He proferred a definition of democracy as a society which respects the rights of the minorities and claimed that not even the agreement of the majority made it just to attack minorities. "Once democracy loses the power to afford tolerance, then it is lost," he said. He thought, however, that we would gain nothing by the last paragraph—and it was amended out of existence by the meeting. Mr. Milburn's conversation was interrupted; Mr. Foy thought Mr. Phillipps was muddled; and the motion was carried in its amended form, 38-15.

Before getting on with the job, things were stayed by Mr. Cook, who felt that Mr. M. O'Brien should not sit as chairman when Mr. K. O'Brien was speaking—for they were, he understood, related. Mr. K. O'Brien thought this would cause too much trouble in the next year (are you going to move a lot of motions? Interjector) and Mr. M. O'Brien poohooed the very hint of doubt about the relation. Things were moving.

There was a desultory discussion on the next motion:—"That the constitution be amended by the deletion of the whole of section 24." This motion, Mr. K. O'Brien explained, referred to the powers of clubs to impose a compulsory levy on members; It forbade them to do so wlthout Exec. sanction. He thought that the section should be removed, so that clubs would not even have that right. There were minor disagreements, but when it was noted that college regulations gave adequate safeguard still, the motion went through.

Disunity On UN

"That in conformity with its support for the U.N. this Association signifies its agreement with the New Zealand Government's statements and actions in the Korean emergency". Mr. Cook and his seconder. Mr. Newenham, adopted slightly different tones. Mr, Cook sounded as though he had come to bury U.N., not to praise it—one could almost see the crepe. His seconder, however, adopted the even shorter method of reserving his reply. But their motion remained whole for as short a time as their speeches; an amendment brought in by Mr. Goddard stated that, while agreeing with the first sentiments and supporting U.N., it felt that a full meeting of the Security Council was the way to solve things, and then action could be taken adequately to cease hostilities. Mr. Goddard showed Clearly from the Charter that the "five concurring votes" of the permanent members were needed to confirm such action—they had not been achieved, and the action was not U.N. action. Under the Charter, there was power to hear all the affected parties—but this had not been done. He spoke clearly and his seconder. Mr. Gibson, thought that only by stopping hysteria could we avoid war—and genuine international discussion would stop hysteria. The question of concurring votes was assailed by Mr. M. O'Brien, who thought that the mover's knowledge of law was poor: Russia should have voted and vetoed. But Miss Pearce pointed out, the weight of International legal opinion appeared to think that the action was, in fact, illegal—the Charter could not be interpreted any other way than to mean the concurring votes of all the permanent members. And the position of China, by the same method could be considered doubtful.

Rather heatedly, Mr. Newenham accused the amenders of introducing a mere "quibble." The mover and seconder were trying to slip a fast one over but he wasn't fooled. "This so-called motion". . . . but Mr. Goddard insisted with the chairman's concurring opinion, that he disliked the words "quibble" and "so-called motion" and Mr. Newenham withdrew them (but went on thinking them, he said).

On the "quibble" he was vigorously attacked by Mr. Garrett—this was no attempt at a quibble, but an attempt to place the thing in the true spirit of the Charter he said. American action, he thought, had placed itself on dangerous ground for justification when It first moved before U.N. assent, and second took Formosa. These things were the reason why one could doubt the altruism of American action—they, not us, had raised the issue. It was silly to think that a genuine solution could be reached in the absence of Russia—and it was not yet too late for discussion to prevail.

An impassioned frontal action was launched by Mr Cook in the rearguard of the original motion, after it had been amended by Mr. Goddard's version. "Never more," he quoth. . . . "never more do I wish to hear talk of principle from these people. . . . these who fought for principle (one could hear the inverted commas round the word) over the years. Now they give themselves up to petty legal points and let their principles drop." But Mr. Garrett bitterly resented this sort of misrepresentation—it was because he and those who agreed with him were concerned about the spirit of the Charter that they thought as they did. Tempers were being worn much shorter this season.

W.F.D.... Why?

Mr. Bollinger's speech was, as we noted, cut off in the flower of its oratory. He was moving that "this meeting.....recommend to the Executive that it maintain contact with W.F.D.Y., that it follow closely the campaigns of the Federation and its affiliates, and Keep the Federation informed of the Association's policies and activities, with a view to re-affiliation at the end of one year if the relationship proves satisfactory." And he noted that W.F.D.Y. had—whether we agreed with their slant or not, taken an interest in many valuable fields. There was no reason why it shouldn't be raised again (he had fair precedent; the disaffiliators moved their motion at every General Meeting for a year or more) and he felt that we should be losing a let by getting out of touch with activities in these quite valuable fields. Their aims in the first place Were positive as well as negative. . . .

But that was where the meeting finished. Mr. Cook, not without a small hint of joy on his face, saked the chairman to consider the state of the meeting; he did, and brought it to a sudden stop. "We don't want to hear any more condemnation of Russian walkouts," said someone at the back harshly.