Canterbury

Canterbury was the first to indicate it was pulling out of NZUSA, making the formal announcement at August Council last year. Anti-NZUSA feeling was running very high at Canterbury at the time and it was probably a significant factor in current President Mike Lee's electoral success. Lee stood on a platform of secession (among other things) and began his term in office this year apparently fully intending to carry through the proposal.

He has taken very little part in debates at National Exec, and in fact until recently would only be drawn into discussion if directly addressed or if the subject directly concerned his campus. Quite simply, he has seemed to be not interested.

The actual reasons why Canterbury should feel so strongly have not been clear. There are long standing doubts about the commercial direction NZUSA has been heading, differences of policy and methods of auctioning them (Canterbury, like Lincoln, tends to be opposed to demonstrations as a means of political expression) but these are probably not the significant factors.

There is also the feeling that the needs of the South Island are largely ignored. But this again is hard to pin down to specifics, apart from an obvious dissatisfaction with Victoria's present monopoly on National Office positions. Yet there was a time when Cantabrians used to run NZUSA and there is no reason to believe it might not happen again.

Distrust of the leadership is a big factor, possibly the biggest. Lee was quoted on radio earlier in the year saying that "National Office is dominated by trendy Maoist lefties" and it often seems as if a fear that NZUSA has been taken over by secret forces bent on manipulating the organisation to serve their own ends is the guiding inspiration behind Canterbury's position.

However of late Lee seems to be shifting his ground, or having it shifted under him. Last year's Canterbury President Nigel Petrie, a major advocate of secession when he was in office, is reported to have changed his mind and now favours staying in. Petrie still has a lot of influence at Canterbury, especially over Lee, and he is by no means alone in holding this view, both on the exec and among students generally.

Lee continues to make strong statements when it suits him, and no one will criticise that, but he is becoming prepared to listen to answers. He took as much offence as anyone else over the unprincipled nature of Stephanie Dale's resignation letter and even led the demand for an explanation. That in itself shows a significant turnaround.

Most importantly, when Guest put his motion of no confidence in Sacksen on April 1st it was Lee who seconded it proforma (the technical way of allowing the mover to speak without necessarily showing support from the seconder). He listened to Guest's argument, which was basically that Sacksen is responsible for NZUSA's "lack of success everywhere" and displays a style of leadership which NZUSA cannot afford in the present crisis, and promptly withdrew his seconding. Three months ago he would probably have been in like a shot.

Sacksen's approach to the whole matter of secession has been the subject of considerable debate at National Exec. She has consistently arged that National Office cannot go down and coerce Canterbury and Lincoln to stay in the organisation, that in effect it must be a decision taken independently on each campus. This meant very little was actually done about the problem. It looked for a while as if the two constituents would just drift out with nobody saying anything from within NZUSA and they themselves not being quite aware of what was happening.

It is partly in reaction to this that Andrew Guest has been so vociferous in his condemnation of Sacksen.

Now, with Canterbury and Lincoln both showing signs of looking for ways themselves to stay in it is difficult to say whose attitude has been the more fruitful; Sacksen has been correct in recognising Canterbury's displeasure with National Office and herself in particular as a good reason why she must keep a low profile, but if Guest has succeeded it is almost by default: everybody, it appears, has reacted against the extremity of his criticisms and the narrowness of his approach.

To date Lee's actual proposals for change have not always originated at Canterbury and display a degree of confusion. On a suggestion from Otago President Andrew Guest he moved recently that National Exec meet every month, instead of the usual six weeks. There is a widespread fear which Lee shares that National Office is not being held accountable enough to National Exec and because of this tends to go its own way. More frequent meetings are seen as a way of overcoming this.

Victoria opposed the motion, President Lindy Cassidy saying that it will make NZUSA even more bureaucratic while there is no guarantee that accountibility will improve at all. Lee remained adamant yet commented on another issue in the same meeting., "I don't think I should have to come up to National Exec to supervise".

Canterbury shares with Otago the idea that major structural changes are needed in NZUSA. Its proposals, which have not yet been clearly formulated, will go before May Council and should be widely debated there.