Posted: 26th of August
On Monday the 24th of August, the Questions Club (QUAC) held a Q&A session with student politicians representing most of the factions contesting the upcoming Union Board elections. Daniel Fawcett spoke for the Liberty ticket (Liberals), Lavinia Emmett-Grey for Indy-Go (Left Independents), Sam Deere for Activate (Labor Left), and Andrew Anson for Innovate (the former Pulse, with some differences. Labor Right). Eric Parsonage was also present, being the only independent not to run on a ticket.
Firstly, let’s introduce the characters. Daniel wants to ‘scale back the frontiers of the union’. Lavinia (who recently withdraw her candidacy for Union Board, but remains the head of IndyGo) said she couldn’t speak on behalf of a ticket of independents, but instead reeled off the record of IndyGo (i.e. her record) over the past year (namely, the book exchange on the AUU website, and constitutional reform). Sam was reluctant to speak on policy, saying he wasn’t a Board candidate (Rhiannon Newman later claimed that Activates policy has not been signed off on by all its candidates yet). The two novel ideas were from Eric Parsonage and Andrew Anson.
Eric, self-avowed technocrat that he is, calls himself a pure populist. In self-deprecating humour, he promised to ‘flip flop on the issues’ subject to student polling on any particular vote. “The technology exists to quickly receive feedback and polling on any particular vote. I plan to do so”. This left him open to much criticism throughout the session, with one audience member asking what the point was in voting for Eric at all, and the rest of the panel (particularly Daniel) making him the butt of many a snide remark.
Subject to far more criticism however was Andrew. He outlined two policies in his opening speech. One was for ‘Free Fresh Fruit’ to be offered to university students, citing lack of financial resources to be a factor in preventing students from eating well. He thus proposed an alliance with the Apple and Pear Board. It wasn’t clear to me whether this would mean the fruit was provided for free, or whether the union would pay for it. Andrew did mention some sort of sponsorship grant. Daniel asked whether students would have to show university ID to obtain the fruit. This wasn’t answered.
The other policy proposed by Andrew was for the union to spend 60% of its income over the next few years building housing for international students. He says he’s already entered into talks with developer Built Environs, who are happy to put their own money into the project as well. He sees this as providing the union with a source of income in the long-term, as well as providing increased student accommodation in the CBD. This policy was attacked on all fronts. Lavinia questioned the risk, and pointed out that the university had just announced plans to build more student accommodation (always room for more given international student numbers, retorted Andrew). Daniel thought it was as ridiculous a policy as providing fresh fruit. Eric disliked so much of the union’s money going towards a service for a minority. The potential for exploitation of international students, with the union as a partner, was also raised.
The panel was ruthless to each other, and the audience frequently highly skeptical in return. Retiring Board Director Jake Wishart (Indy-Go, technically) turned up merely to accuse the Labor Right and Left (as well as Lavinia) of gross corruption over the NUS scandal, though he had plenty of abuse for the others. Barring Sam. He likes Sam.
One issue raised by the Daniel and quickly disavowed by Andrew was the issue of remuneration of Board Directors. Andrew quickly denounced it, but the rumour persisted. In response to an Activate member claiming Andrew wished to pay Board directors in a status update, Andrew had this to say:
“Activate supposedly believes that we support paying board directors of the Adelaide University Union. Innovate does not support paying board directors of the Adelaide University Union. We support paying the President of the Adelaide University Union and paying the editors of On Dit. This shows that Activate do not have any policies of their own to talk about. They have nothing positive to say about the AUU and nothing to say about the future of the AUU. They have no ideas, no direction and no policies. Innovate does have policies to talk about, such as providing Free Fresh Fruit for students on campus and fighting for better student accommodation. Innovate has a talented ticket that will work harder, smarter for all students of the University of Adelaide and members of the AUU.”Rhiannon Newman, in answer to my request for a statement on the accusation of having no policy, says:
“As per every year, Activate will have extensive list of policies which will be out, I imagine, at the end of the week. These will have been consultative of …[all Activate members and] deal with a wide range of issues from student welfare to the AUU in general. Activate has always prided itself on being a content and policy driven ticket and will do so this year.” She also took a swipe at Andrews’s suggestions: “Activate does not support sound bite policy such as those presented as Innovate, and previously under Pulse and United Students (previous Labor Right tickets). They do not present a realistic picture of the current state of the AUU, and while potentially vote wining are rarely beneficial to the union or to students.”
If election week is as vicious and hard-fought as the Q&A was, this year might see more than banner burning.
0 comments: