Adelaide Student Politics

I've taken a bit more liberty than usual, so again, consider this an editorial. It's about me, indirectly, so off course I'm finding restraint particularly difficult. Not that I usually have, or even try to have, much luck with it.

As outlined in a previous post, several Board members have aired their discontent about some aspects of Adelaide University’s NUS involvement to outside media sources.

Board members were told at a recent training day, as well as in an email sent out by AUU General Manager David Coluccio after the Sandy Biar's Media Release came to light, that they are not allowed to make comments to or conduct interviews with the media, as stated in the media policy (avaliable here).

As a part of the media, naturally I am not happy about this. Thankfully, I know better than to take directives like that at face value. And indeed, a perusal of the media policy sheds light on two interesting facets of this problem.

Firstly, ‘media’ is very broadly defined.

2.2 ‘Media’ includes but is not limited to press, radio and television.

Off course, with such a broad definition, I effectively can’t approach anyone for information but AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey, or David Coluccio. This has not been the way that political commentary about the AUU has been written in the past. On Dit has for years sought out quotes and interviews with those involved in student politics, and needless to say Board directors did not always seek permission from higher-ups in order to do so.

So far, the policy as interpreted by Lavinia and David Coluccio has been constantly flouted. But not to fear. The policy is really much more reasonable than they have suggested, this being the second interesting thing I discovered. The ‘gag’ clause in question is 4.1, which states that:

4.1 AUU staff and elected representatives may not grant interviews to the media unless the AUU President, the relevant affiliate president, or if appropriate the AUU General Manager has given authorization outlining what they may say on behalf of the AUU or affiliate…

The clause then goes on to outline how specific the authorization has to be.

It’s not the most legible clause I've had the pleasure of reading over the past few weeks. It says, in plain English, ‘AUU staff and elected representatives may not grant interviews…without authorization’. But it continues: ‘without authorization outlining what they may say on behalf of the AUU or affiliate…’ As long as they make clear that they are only speaking their individual views, there is no reason why this should prevent Board directors from speaking to the media.

Clauses 4.2 to 4.4 then outline who may speak out on behalf of the AUU. For example, one can only speak on behalf of arms of the AUU of which one is a part. These clauses are sensible ways to ensure the chain of command with official information, but not gag orders.

One could make an argument that, by definition, everything a Board director says is on behalf of the AUU. But the AUU is by definition a political organization as well as a corporate one. Political entities do not function by giving only the ruling parties the ability to speak to the media. Such a policy would mean that all checks and balances on power, resultant from the democratic backlash against bad policy, would be circumvented. Off course those in the minority are going to seek to undermine those in the majority by publicizing everything they feel is wrong. That’s a way a democracy works. Attempts which prevent them doing so treat the AUU solely as a business. The fact that Board directors are elected makes this approach, well, at best ludicrous, and at worst, an intentional attempt to prevent democratic scrutiny.

Nonetheless, my personal opinions on democracy and the free press ultimately don't matter. The Media Policy does not state that everything Board directors say should be treated as if it's on behalf of the AUU. Until it does, that critique of those who spoke out isn't valid.

Speaking to the Advertiser may not have been the smartest or most responsible thing to do. But it certainly wasn't against the rules.

Also, I am very puzzled. Did the leadership of the AUU really think no-one would bother to read the Media Policy? Lift your game guys, please, this is too easy…

*Update: Some have claimed that the Corporations Act in fact defines everything said to the media in which one is introduced as a Board Director is definitionally on behalf of the organization. I have not been able to confirm this is the case, having not had time to consult the Corporations Act*