Adelaide Student Politics

Posted: 16th of August, written about a month before.

The Constitution has been passed by Board, the SRC is finally incorporated, and we look set for the first fully functional, fully legal election since VSU shook everything up.

This year’s election will be held in week 6 this semester (31 August-4th September), and will be to elect our AUU Board Directors, SRC Representatives, Student Media teams, NUS delegates and to vote on a new constitution for the AUU! The problems from last year have been solved by the incorporation of the SRC (rushed through a bit last minute, but actually put through, which is a definite improvement), so we’ll actually be able to have a democratic election for the SRC, NUS, On Dit and Student Radio rather than having them chosen for us.

The big change this year, though, will be the Constitution. Over the last year, the Board’s constitutional committee has worked together a new constitution that will give some structure to a post-VSU Union. They’ve been strongly encouraged by the President, Lavinia, and by some uncommon factional unity (at least on the topic of whether we need reform – they disagree a lot on what should be in the document), and have finally come up with something that can be put to students with a reasonable chance of being successful.

However, don’t be fooled into thinking that means it will be simple. When you go to the ballots in September, you won’t be voting on one referendum question, but on four. The first, simple question will be whether you agree to implement the constitution that has been drafted. This constitution is mostly administrative. It takes care of the loose ends caused by VSU and the ragged edges left by past administrations. Every faction is, or claims to be, united in their belief that the basic constitution should be passed.

The interesting, controversial bits will be presented in the form of three separate referenda questions, which each faction will have its own stance on. The first of these questions concerns whether by-elections should be removed in favour of a more direct system, by which the 19th person elected receives the empty position. This would be a MUCH cheaper way of filling positions. While some Board members argued that it could lead to a rigged system, most arguments sounded more like conspiracy theories than actual possibility.

These theories were strengthened (but only slightly) by the second referendum question: whether Board should be able to sack individuals who did not cleave to the standards expected of an AUU Board director. If the question passes, such a move would still require the approval of ¾ of Board (an absolute majority), but could still be possible in the event of a gross misdemeanour or by pissing off most of the powerful factions. Generally speaking, the agreement of most of Board is very hard to come by, so a sacking is unlikely to occur in any but the most extreme circumstances.

Finally, and most controversially, there is the question of whether the Board should continue to operate with 18 members or drop some of the excess baggage and bring the number down. Because of compromises made in discussion and the fact that these extra referendum questions were added late in the piece, the decision is between 18 and 16, rather than a more substantial change, but it still makes a difference.

This referendum will make some interesting, and hopefully very positive, changes to the way Board runs. Please, take the minute to think about the ramifications of these questions, and vote according to what you believe is best, rather than what you’re told as you stumble over the line.