Adelaide Student Politics

Posted 6th July

On the day of the last Council Meeting, a draft of the proposed new Clubs Association Constitution was mailed out to all clubs. This Constitution has been many months in the making, with input being given from both the former and current CA executive, and most of the actual drafting completed by CA General Executive Member James Moffatt.
It was made clear at the June Council that Clubs Delegates were in no way expected to vote, or even to discuss, the proposed constitution in a formal capacity at that meeting. Instead, it had been mailed out in order to facilitate input and discussion regarding what the final Constitution would contain. James said he would make himself available to hearing the thoughts of all Clubs prior to writing the final draft.

For the past two years, the Clubs Association has effectively been operating under two different constitutions (see here for an example of how). Of course, this is a breach of the Corporations Act, and so isn’t officially the case. Nonetheless, the 1985 Constitution which executive members have cited as being what they are operating under does not grant them some of the powers given in the later 1995 Contitution, which they have borrowed from when they deemed it suitable. This situation is far from ideal, and to their credit the CA have finally produced a document which they propose be officially adopted as their new constitution.

Interesting in the new document is the removal of the position of ‘Women’s Officer’. This will undoubtedly draw out dissent among many left-wing clubs, who see the position as being necessary to ensure that women are not marginalized within the Clubs hierarchy, and by having a female office bearer to whom they may go to in cases of sexual harassment. However, the position which appears to have been taken by the Clubs Executive is in favour of an ‘Equity Officer’ instead, who would work to ensure the safety and fair treatment of club members regardless of gender. Recent years have also seen it being difficult to attract Women’s Officers, with the Clubs Executive having to seek out candidates. Aside from the practical considerations however, this issue tends to break down fairly quickly into your basic pro and anti positive discrimination arguments. Given that not all clubs have overt political positions it could eventually go either way depending on who argues their case better.

Also worth noting is that the new draft document gives the CA Executive no provision to place a club on notice. This power has been used twice so far this year, against the AUES and Labor Clubs. It’s absence raises questions of how the Clubs Executive wants to deal with clubs whom it feels have broken their own Constitutions or the bounds of reasonable behaviour, aside from straight-out disaffiliation.

What I found most confusing however was the clause making all Club Members individual members of the CA, as opposed to having Clubs be the only members. This gives rise to a convoluted clause giving the CA the power to disaffiliate an individual member, as opposed to dealing with that member through their club.

It is expected that the final document will differ from the draft, once individual clubs have had their input. Nonetheless, the draft gives some guide as to what the CA Executive wish to see in the final. The battle over the Women’s Officer is likely to be fierce, but in the humble opinion of yours truly, the suggestion regarding the making of individuals members of the CA is far more crucial, as it has the potential in many ways to alter the operation and purpose of the CA in all its operations.