James Basle
How can an organisation purporting to represent students fail to take a clear stand on a major issue of concern to students — and, indeed, to the whole country?
Although the Gulf War was preceded by a five-month build-up, it appeared to catch the National Union of Students by surprise. It was well after the shooting had started before the NUS National Executive, on January 29 decided to determine its position by a referendum of student unions around the country.
Moreover, the resolution to be put to the referendum was less than sharp in presenting the alternatives. Originally passed by a University of New England (Northern Rivers Campus) student union meeting, it contained a vague commitment to "peace and disarmament" but did not pose withdrawal of Australian and US forces from the Gulf.
The referendum could only be passed or rejected, without the possibility of amendment.
NUS's wishy-washiness on this issue will come as a surprise only to those unfamiliar with its record of attempting to avoid any position that might bring it into conflict with the ALP — a stance which owes much to the influence of the National Organisation of Labor Students (NOLS) within NUS.
For example, in the lead-up to the August 1990 federal budget, NUS held out hopes of a whole set of progressive reforms to the education system. A NUS (Queensland) leaflet stated that the budget was likely to contain "the greatest watershed in student financial support since the inception of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme in 1974".
NUS claimed to expect an increase in the amount students' parents can earn before the benefit is affected, a lowering of the eligibility age for "independent" status from 25 to 21 years and an increase in the amount an Austudy recipient may earn in a year from $3000 to $5000. In reality, the budget proved a disaster for students, and "Operation Austudy" (as the NUS "campaign" was named) became Operation Flop.
The only concession NUS was able to get from the government was an increase to $4000 in the amount students could earn before Austudy would be reduced.
By most accounts, the NUS National Conference in December was a bureaucratic affair, with little talk about campaigns or policy. Much of the time was taken up by constitutional amendments put up, often unsuccessfully, by NOLS.
NOLS or its allies were elected to four out of the five office positions, continuing the political control of the union by Labor students.
The national NUS budget showed that only 10% of all expenditure in 1990 was on actual campaigns, 90% going on items like wages, air nd allowances.
According to the statement of a US senator in parliament, the general secretary of NUS in 1990, Andrew Wooldridge, who was paid $19,000 and claimed $17,690 in travel and allowances, was forced to resign on the basis of the misuse of a cheque for $4500. On December 4, Wooldridge was to face 22 charges, but failed to turn up in court; a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Only one left group, Left Alliance, participates in NUS. Its strategy of "staying in there and fighting" has proved a failure. In 1990 Left Alliance lost the only two state branches it controlled, NSW and SA. More importantly, Left Alliance has not turned NUS into a democratic or campaigning organisation.
Left Alliance has not taken up a serious political fight. Nadine Flood, the NUS(NSW) president in 1990 and Left Alliance member, stated in the NUS annual report that "1990 has been a rewarding and productive year ... the Union must continue to make real gains for students".
The problem is that NUS has not made any real gains for students. By doing so little, it has severely damaged the concept of student unionism, local and national, and opened itself to attacks by the Liberals.
Its refusal to take a strong stand against the war shows that it is still putting the interests of the ALP first.