Adelaide Student Politics

Posted: 3rd of January

According to official notice, given by David Barrow, 2009 NUS President (NLS) and David Wilkins, 2009 General Secretary (Unity), NUS is to hold a special general meeting (SGM) of all national conference delegates, in order to elect the new executive for 2010. This meeting will be held on the 30th and 31st of January.

The previous conference cost every delegate (well, usually, their union) $725 (plus GST). This is on top of affiliation fees. Details of how much each delegate would cost their union for this SGM have not been publically released yet. I presume in order to limit cost, NUS has scheduled it immediately following its yearly Presidents Summit (27th to 29th), with both it and the SGM being held at the University of Sydney. Many NUS delegates would also have been attending Presidents Summit, and so may remain in Sydney for the NUS SGM.

Posted: 20th of December

The National Union of Students (NUS) National Conference began on Monday the 14th of December. It closed the following Friday. The Conference is used to elect the national executive of the organization for the coming year, as well as to debate NUS policy.

But you know all that. You’re in all likelihood reading this to find out what the hell went wrong, so I’ll just get on with it.

According to one source, on the Sunday immediately before the conference, an NUS national executive meeting saw the affiliations of two campuses remain in question. Affiliation is important, as it determines who can and cannot vote on the conference floor. Voting breakdown is important when factions vote on bloc, as they do at NUS, and all want as many of their people in positions of power within the premier student organization as possible.

Both of the disputed campuses (University of Western Sydney and Notre Dame) experienced difficulties with their NUS delegate elections which were similar to those experienced at Adelaide last year (i.e. A failed election, followed with delegate appointment). UWS is considered a left-wing campus, and Notre Dame, unsurprisingly, is right-wing. The same source claims that the Labor Unity (Labor-Right) did not want UWS brought on, and so pulled quorum for the executive meeting, meaning the issue remained unresolved when the conference started the following day.

The first sign of trouble to many of the delegates was when, on the first day of conference, no one was attending. Both of the two major factional groupings at NUS (Labor Unity, and the Labor Left Faction, National Labor Students – NLS) had the numbers, if they could control their people, to prevent quorum (50%) being reached. Without quorum, no conference is valid. The same source also claims Unity were not attending the conferences, out of concern over campus affiliations. Complicating the issue further from the earlier exec meeting is that several left-wing universities had paid money into the NUS account just prior to the conference. Members of the right are alleged to have insisted the money clear first before the delegates from these universities be allowed to vote.

This was not a problem for the AUU, which, despite presenting a cheque only on the Monday of the conference, was not required to wait until it cleared before its delegates were registered to vote.

It isn’t until the second day of the conference that quorum is finally reached for a sitting (possibly at 4am). This sees the election of the Business Committee. NUS is, from all accounts, a chaotic conference involving hundreds of delegates. So it makes sense that first thing, a committee is elected to decide when to hold meetings, on the agenda, and other points of order. This is however more than a logistical position, giving whichever faction rules the Business Committee significant ability to influence the debate on the conference floor (through the agenda), or even when/if votes are held (as occurred in this case). The Left factions had a slender majority of delegates (57% I have heard, from two left sources). However, in protest at the lack of conference the previous day, Socialist Alternative (one of the left factions) decided to boycott the vote. This meant that Unity won 4 of the 7 positions on Business Committee. Josh Rayner (Unity) was appointed Returning Officer for future elections.

Despite the election of the right, the Left still had the majority of votes. Quorum was not reached for more meetings on the Tuesday.

By Wednesday, one source has NLS convincing Unity to come back to the floor. Debate briefly resumes, and the position of an International Student Officer is created. Talk then moves to the affiliations of UNSW, Murdoch and UWS (all left campuses). A motion asking for the Business Committee to put this on the agenda is ruled down by Business Committee, who is then overruled on this motion decision by the larger Conference. There are then three motions, in very rapid succession, to affiliate each of these universities, giving their delegates voting rights. One right-wing source claims this was obviously rehearsed, as it happened so quickly it took Unity several moments to realize what was going on. This is corroborated by a left-wing delegate, who says that it wasn’t until the second motion (to affiliate the second campus) that the right reacted at all. David Wilkins (Unity, and 2009 NUS General Secretary) is reported to have screamed for all Unity delegates to exit the conference floor, so as to pull quorum. A right-wing source says Unity delegates were prevented from leaving, with one NLS member barring the door. A left-wing source disagrees with this, saying it all happened so quickly there was no way they could have reached the door in time, so there was no need to bar the Unity delegates into the conference room. A motion is then passed to close the meeting. The left breaks into a chorus of ‘Solidarity Forever’. They expect, given that with the affiliations of the three campuses their lead is even larger, to be share almost all the NUS Office Bearer positions among them and their allies. Evidently, their celebrations were premature.

Both right-wing and left-wing sources then have Unity, after some time, quickly reentering the conference room, and holding a meeting in which there are no left-wing members present. Of course, quorum requirements exist precisely to prevent this from happening. However, one right-wing source claims that as the smoking balcony is counted as part of conference floor, quorum was in fact reached. Another source claims that even if this were the case, the smoking balcony was empty regardless. The right justified this meeting by saying that Barrow had incorrectly closed the previous session, meaning the conference was still in session when they re-entered the meeting room.

Sometime during the course of these previous events an ambulance was called. Right-wing sources have this being the result of injuries sustained as they were prevented from leaving the conference floor when they rushed out in an attempt to prevent the left-campus affiliations. Another source claims that a female member of Unity was injured as Unity rushed back into the conference room floor, claiming she was trampled by her own faction who did not stop to help her. Yet another left-wing source has a girl being simply ‘shaken up’ by the proceedings, and wasn’t sure at what stage this occurred. Not having been there, I have no idea what happened, but can establish an ambulance was called. Other than that, everyone I’ve asked about it has a slightly different story.

While in this hasty Unity meeting, motions were passed affiliating several right-wing campuses, such as Notre Dame, Monash Caulfield and Edith Cowen. Motions are also allegedly passed disaffiliating some of the dodgier left campuses, some of which had nonetheless already been affiliated prior to the conference.

This finishes Wednesday, and on Thursday (Office Bearer Ballot day), all is quiet. Several people (understood to be the current President (David Barrow – NLS), Josh Rayner (in his role as returning officer) and another member of NLS) have to sign off on the campus accreditation report (which decides exactly who can and can’t vote). They can’t agree. Here, my left sources unambiguously blame Josh Rayner, who they say wouldn’t sign off on anything barring the inquorate meeting affiliations and disaffiliations. The right says Rayner did everything by the book, and furthermore says it is unlikely that the Returning Officer would have been given the power to decide who can and cannot vote. I cannot say for sure who it was that ultimately refused to compromise, but it is unambiguously clear that no agreement was reached before Friday morning, when some delegates began to leave the conference to return home. The secretariat was reportedly kept open to 3am in case of a ballot, but none occurred until the Friday morning.

NLS refused to support a Friday morning ballot. Left sources then have Unity attempting to hold a ballot in Melbourne at Trade Hall (NUS Offices), but ultimately all attempts to hold a ballot fail as so many delegates have gone home. The conference closes, with no national executive for 2010 having been elected.

Like many crisis situations, the twin seeds of dissent at this year’s NUS Conference were laid early. Moves to affiliate campuses with election problems were not successful at an executive level prior to the conference. Coupled with the right holding the majority on Business Committee (but not a majority of delegates – their positions on Business Committee being due to the Socialist Alliance voting boycott), these two factors set the stage for a contested decision.

There are many who bear no love for the National Union of Students. However, both the left and right-wing Labor sources spoken to expressed regret at the danger NUS is placed in as an institution, and the situation this leaves students in as the Government considers broad changes to their welfare situation and other educational overhauls. Needless to say, this particular conference was also a huge waste of money for many already cash-strapped student unions around the country.

One source was of the opinion that there was no plausible option other than to wind up the lobbying body. Apart from finishing off the 23-year old organization, the other options on the table are either to allow for a postal ballot (currently used to deal with casual vacancies), or to have the current executive appoint the new executive. Or (and this is very unlikely) have another national conference, soon. None of these avenues are really all that desirable. A postal ballot is preferable, but all sources agreed on the enormous difficulty this would be to conduct.

Legal advice is expected to be released to NUS on Monday. Until then, there’s nothing much to do but wait.



The hastily prepared profile picture currently being used by many Left NUS delegates on facebook to protest their situation. Carla Drakeford, Warren Roberts and James Butchers are, respectively, the left candidates for President, Indigenous Officer and Education Officer of NUS.

Several corrections to yesterdays post have been made. See here to read

For those not entirely familiar with NUS, I compiled a list of internet sources I found around this time last year you might be interested in taking a look at.

Posted: Very early on the 19th of December

This is written on events currently in progress. For this reason, it is likely to contain errors or incomplete reporting. Subscribers with more information are encouraged to point out faults or supply missing facts from this post.

When it comes to dodgy practices involving the National Union of Students (NUS), it’s all in the family at Adelaide Uni.

NUS has a yearly conference when delegates from most Australian universities gather for a week in Ballarat. While there, they debate NUS policy, and vote on who the following years NUS Office Bearers will be. This is, understandably, difficult. Especially when the Labor Left and Right both want power.

Former AUU President Josh Rayner (Student Unity - Labor Right) became nationally infamous yesterday when, in his role as Returning Officer for the NUS Office Bearer elections, he was alleged to be involved in, according to NUS President David Barrow (NLS – Labor Left), “the withholding and manipulation of the campus accreditation report”.

While a campus is affiliated to NUS until it holds a successful student referendum seeking otherwise, every campus is required to pay affiliation fees on a yearly basis. This is on top of a $725 fee for each of the delegates it sends.

Crikey reporter Andrew Crook has the dispute arising as a result of an unclear cut-off date for fees (sorry, subscriber only). Cheques arriving on Monday were ruled ineligible, making some delegates, I presume, ineligible to vote. Furthermore, Crook writes that meetings to resolve this were held in the ‘dead of night, when members from opposing factions were asleep’.

Right-wing sources at Adelaide paint a slightly different picture, saying that when faced with a Labor-Right/Liberal coalition, the Left chose to pull quorum* instead of face a vote which would see them lose (Update: Left sources entirely dispute this, saying that even with a right-wing coalition they still had the numbers, and maintain that the left never pulled quorum). This would explain the one-hour of policy debate decried in a Liberal press release. I note the alternate account does not necessarily dispute the original account published this morning by Crikey.

Haywire has a great, though factually light, interview on the whole saga, which is far more critical of both factions than I dare be at this stage. Those interviewed seem to be of the opinion that this is the end of NUS. Update: NUS Delegates have informed me that Thomas Green is a member of the right-wing independents, and that the 'journalism student' is his fiance. Not that that discredits his opinion, but for the purposes of full disclosure and all...

Adelaide’s NUS delegates were recent AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Independent, running for NUS Welfare Officer from what I understand), Hayden Tronnolone (another Independent) Sarah Anderson (NLS), Ashleigh Lustica (NLS) and Jason Virgo (also NLS). Also elected were Unity members Andrew Anson and Tim Picton. At this stage, I understand that Andrew Anson did not choose to attend. Also absent from Adelaide is outgoing State President Robert Fletcher (NLS). AUU President Fletcher O'Leary assures me that the AUU is a financial member of NUS, having paid affiliation fees ($14K approx in 2010 $9000 in 2010, plus another $5000 approx in delegate registration fees) for the coming year.

I presume this means our delegates can vote, if this is indeed the issue here. Different sources suggest this to be just the result of infighting between the Labor factions, or something to do with affiliations not being accepted, 'denying access to some from the wheels of power'. Information right now is, unfortunately, scarce.

Barrow is quoted as saying he is seeking legal advice. The morning will no doubt bring new developments. Watch this space.



*Quorum of meetings of the National Conference is the presence of a majority of elected delegates (i.e. not counting proxies) (Item 23 of schedules, NUS Constitution, Section R23 P 17). Also of note, I could not find any Constitutional contingency plans should an executive fail to be elected at the National Conference, although the Heywire interview does broach the option of postal votes. The other option is, of course, for them to be appointed by the current executive, in which case NLS has a majority.

Posted: 8th of September

SRC President: Ash Lustica (Activate)
General Secretary: Helen Chandwick (Indy-Go)
Education Officer: Sam Deere (Activate - Elected Unopposed)
Social Justice Officer: Bec Taylor (Indy-Go)
Welfare Officer: Hayden Tronnolone (Indy-Go)
Womens Officer: Sarah Anderson (Activate)
Ethno-Cultural Officer: Ramanathan Thurairajoo (Indy-Go)
Enviroment Officer: Joel Dignam (Indy-Go)
General Councillors: Dominic Mugavin (Indy-Go), Lara Ratcliff (Indy-Go), Andrew Anson (Innovate), Juan Legaspi (Innovate), Sarah Beer (Activate), Callum Deakin (Indy-Go), Ali Thompson (Indy-Go), Anna Ehmann (Activate)

NUS Delgates: Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Independent), Andrew Anson (Unity), Timothy Picton (Unity), Sarah Anderson (NLS), Ashleigh Lustica (NLS), Jason Virgo (NLS)

On Dit Editors: Connor O'Brien, Myriam Robin, Mateo Szlapek-Sewillo

Update: Hayden Tronnolone unfortunately did not make the position of NUS delegate. It was Sarah Anderson who in fact was the third NLS delegate. Appologies to both of you.

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.

Mark Joyce (Board Director, and Liberal Club VP) has written a budget response. Now is as good a time as any to mention that AdelaideStudentPolitics is happy to post any pieces written by people other than Hannah or I, provided they're not evil in nature. I will determine what is and isn't evil. Enjoy, and feel free to respond.

NUS has no reason to be boasting
By Mark Joyce

At the most recent AUU Board meeting, NUS National President, David Barrow, addressed the Directors for the whole of five minutes. The president had flown in from Melbourne as part of his national tour in which he boasted about the “future” changes to student income support that he attributed to himself and his organization in an attempt to prove the relevance of a impotent debating society.

The changes were announced as part of the less than impressive federal budget and consisted of: an increase in the parental income test for dependent students to become eligible for Youth Allowance and ABSTUDY; reducing the age of independence for such allowances from 25 to 22; extending income support to all masters by coursework programs; relaxing the personal income test to $400 per fortnight a student can earn before their income support is reduced; a new Student Start-up Scholarship of $2254; and the introduction of a Relocation Scholarship of $4000 in the first year of study and an additional $1000 for each subsequent year available to students who are unable to live in the family home.

These changes on face value appear great for students; however, as to be expected from the current government, the devil is in the detail. Closer inspection show these changes to be spin over substance, with most of the positive changes coming into effect after most current students have graduated and the negative changes coming into effect as early as the start of next year, leaving many students, particularly rural students, worse off.

The modest increase in the parental income test has the net effect of extending student support to only a further 5% of all domestic students. This takes effect in 2010. The reduction in the age that arbitrarily determines if you are independent will only be implemented gradually, with the full reduction being 22 years of age only coming into effect in 2012. This will be of no benefit to students who commence a three-year degree (such as nursing, science or commerce) immediately after finishing high school, as they will be only 21 years of age when they graduate. But well done to engineering students who turn 22 in the final days of their four-year course, from 2012 onwards that is. Likewise for masters by coursework students, if the course you are currently studying excludes you from accessing income support, the chances are you will never see it, as you will be long graduated by 2012 when the changes take effect. The relaxing of the personal income test will only take effect in 2011. Until then students can only earn $118 per week until their income support is docked.

Both the two new scholarships are anything but new, being only differently branded reincarnations of existing scholarships. The Start-up Scholarship replaces the Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarship and the Relocation Scholarship replaces the Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship. The major substantive difference in both is Centrelink will arbitrarily administer them to eligible students removing the discretion Universities had to accommodate for unfortunate students that did not meet suggested guidelines with the former scholarships. The detail now requires that to be eligible for a Start-up Scholarship a student must be receiving Youth Allowance, Austudy or ABSTUDY. All students who meet this requirement will automatically receive the scholarship. To be eligible for a Relocation Scholarship a student must now be receiving Youth Allowance or Austudy in addition to arbitrary criteria to do with location and whether a similar course is offered in the vicinity closer to home.

The biggest devil in the detail is the changes make it greatly more difficult to become eligible for Youth Allowance by making it harder to be deemed independent. The Minister’s media release provides, “students who have worked full-time for a minimum of 30 hours a week on average for at least 18 months in a two-year period since leaving school will still be considered independent – but students who have undertaken part-time work or earned over $19 532 over 18 months will not.”

The unnecessary implications of this change will be most severely felt by rural high school graduates with aspirations of commencing tertiary education. Through no fault of their own, our rural brothers and sisters often have no option but to move out of the family home to make one of their most basic rights a reality. The cost of moving to a capital city and residing near or on campus is approximately $15 000 a year. Metropolitan students incur this cost almost always by choice. With the new combined parental income test being set at $42 559, a rural family earning $45 000 is left with only $30 000 if they send ONE child to university, (such a borderline scenario could have been avoided with the discretion the preceding scholarship had). For this reason most rural students defer the commencement of their tertiary education for a year in which they work to meet the independent threshold, only becoming eligible for Youth Allowance in May of their first year at university. The changes as outlined above, will force most rural students seeking to commence university to defer their dreams for not one year, but now two years. What the NUS, the ALP and the Bradley Report failed to take into account is that in rural areas there is less people which inherently results in less jobs being available, especially for un-skilled workers seeking to work for 30 hours a week on a full time basis. Universities know students who have gap years are more likely to drop out than students that do not, after two consecutive gap years many rural high school graduates may defer university indefinitely.

Some education revolution.

Mark Joyce
Vice-President
Adelaide University Liberal Club

So, it’s been a few days since the Budget. And student groups got almost everything they asked for, and something they didn’t.

From Tuesday evening, it was made clear that the age of independence would be lowered progressively every year to 22.

Rural students didn’t miss out. From 2010 students forced to relocate for university will be able to access a $4000 relocation scholarship in their first year, and a further $1000 every year after that.

There were also a series of other policies put in place, like offering benefits to masters by coursework students (by 2012), increasing the parental income test threshold, and increasing the personal income test threshold.

Student activism sure works better with a Labor government.

Paris Dean, President of the SRC, described the budget on Left, Right and Centre on the night of its release as ‘undeniably a win for many students’. Dave Barrows (NUS President) was, on the night, similarly optimistic: ‘Thumbs up for massive education funding, thumbs up for massive student income support. 8 out of 10’.

That said, concerns have grown as more facts about the budget become known. Of particular concern is the eligibility criterion to prove independence prior to age. Previously, one could either earn 18 grand in 18 months, work 15 hours a week for two years, or work 30 hours a week for 18 months. The first two have been axed, leaving only the option of working 30 hours a week. NUS claims that students who do a gap year this year will now find themselves unable to access income support in 2010, and will be unable to defer for another 6 months. NUS has called for a grandfather clause to be extended to students doing a gap year this year, if they can't get the change in policy scrapped altogether. This change in criteria is expected to save the government $1.819 billion, and offset the cost of many of the other changes implemented with regards to student income support.

In other budget news, South Australia won’t be seeing any of the money from the Education Infrastructure Fund grants announced on Tuesday.

Posted 11th May

Budget day tomorrow! NUS and its local representatives have been pushing for a change to the age (from 25 to 21) at which students are considered independent from their parents, and are thus eligible for individualized welfare. The campaign has gotten more media coverage both nationally and in Adelaide than any I’ve seen in my time at uni, largely due to the tireless efforts of the SRC with a lot of assistance from AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey. Tomorrow we find out if the work was all for nothing or not. But first, let us recap what’s happened so far.

Firstly, there were the marriages on the lawns. They got a decent amount of press coverage, and got normal students aware of what the SRC was campaigning about. See here for Lavinia's own words on the event.

Secondly, there was the ‘Two Minute Students’ report. That has also already been covered, and has been referenced by some news sources.

The day after ‘Two Minute Students’ was released, the SRC held a sleep-out to emphasize student poverty, organized largely by SRC Welfare Officer Lauren Moulds. As a media stunt, it worked like a charm. The pouring rain probably helped showcase the dedication of those present, as 30 cold students braved the elements. It got covered here and here (as well as on ABC2 and radio).

The university then put out a statement broadly supporting the SRCs efforts (although it is silent on the SRCs specific recommendations, instead more vaguely calling for more student income support). The Advertiser picked up the story.

Meanwhile, the Australian Liberal Students Federation has been busy (well, not dormant anyway) with its own campaign to stop the return of what it sees as Compulsory Student Unionism by the back door (I'm sure most lefties on campus would agree with them on that one). I've recieved several emails over the past few days reminding me to call up a swing senator to register my outrage. As far as I can tell, the Liberal Club on campus hasn't been particularly active on this issue.

No doubt NUS will put out a briefing the minute the budget is released. Watch Tuesday’s news.

Posted 10th May

It seems that the difficulties experienced between the AUU and the OSA (Overseas Students Association) prior to the recent elections are part of a broader pattern. An article released a few days ago in the Sydney Morning Herald has the National Liaison Committee (NLC) and the National Union of Students (NUS) making no secret of their animosity. Master Shang was on campus at the OSA election last month, and David Wilkins is a former AUU President. The OSA is affiliated to the NLC, with former OSA President Dilan Moragolle now NLC State Convener

Posted 1st May

On the 5th of April, the AUU and SRC jointly released their first policy paper in three years, '2-Minute Students: A Snapshot of Student Poverty at the University of Adelaide'. The report is ‘urging the federal government to include urgent and long-awaited reforms to student income support [in the budget]’.

The report specifically calls for:

1. Aligning the threshold for [the] Parental Income Test with the value used by [the] Family Tax Benefit
2. Reducing the Age of Independence to qualify for Austudy from 25 to 21
3. Increasing the Personal Income Threshold to $400 per fortnight
4. And finally, expanding benefit eligibility for students enrolled in all masters by coursework programs

So, in a nutshell, the report aims to improve the coverage of student welfare, urging that this is necessary as it needed to make education accessible for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

The report firstly outlines the recent Marriage of Convenience student action which took place on the 25th of March. It then includes personal stories of all those who chose to give them at the same action, describing their experiences of student poverty.

Some of the saddest stories detail the personal experiences of rural students, who have no choice but to leave home to go to university, and often find it very difficult to support themselves while studying. A lot of students also decry the high costs of textbooks and other educational aids, which can often cost up to $1000 in some courses and significantly hurt the hip pocket of self-supporting students. Many also describe their frantic attempts to earn $18,000 in 18 months (one of the ways to achieve eligibility).

The paper also contains some statistical information about the number of students accessing student loans at the University of Adelaide. In 2008, 602 students sought out these interest-free loans, which are administered by the union (through Student Care) and paid for by the university.

On April 7th, the AUU, the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union) and the University of Adelaide released a joint media release stressing the need for better student income. I was impressed to see Vice Chancellor McWha lending his personal weight to it, as student income support remains a controversial issue among the wider student body. A copy of this press release is included in the report, along with a more detailed policy briefing written by the National Union of Students (NUS).

Overall, it’s a very convincing report, combining statistical with anecdotal evidence to push its agenda. From what I understand, it was compiled almost entirely by AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey. SRC President Paris Dean had no input into it. I point this only in that it’s not the first time Paris has been kept out of the loop on SRC business. The personal rift between him and Lavinia is something of an open secret, and has in the past damaged the procedural integrity of SRC operations (most visibly in the previous NDA, where he and NUS State President Robert Fletcher were not made aware of the plans for 'A Marriage of Convenience' until after almost everyone else. The fact that it was an unambiguously successful event served to make this much less of a scandal than it would otherwise have been).

Posted April 15th


*As coined by Justin Kentish

On Wednesday the 25th of March, the Student Representative Council (SRC) pulled off its first large-scale student protest. Not counting the first attempt. And yea, I know this was a while ago, but I haven’t had a chance to write it up until now.

The National Day of Action (NDA), as announced by the National Union of Students (NUS) and organized and administered by the Adelaide Uni SRC, revolved around a simple stunt: hosting a fake marriage ceremony to draw attention to one of the more bizarre arrangements surrounding student income support.

As student welfare currently stands, students are not considered independent from their parents until they are twenty-five. Three broad exemptions to this exist:

1)Earning $18,000 in eighteen months
2)Proving severe domestic difficulties with parents
3)Getting married

As such, four couples were ‘married’ in a mass ceremony on the Barr Smith lawns. Meanwhile, the SRC kids collected petitions and personal experiences of student poverty to send to Julia Guillard (who is, among other things, the Minister of Education). In about two hours, they managed to get 358 letters signed expressing support for lowering the age of independence to 22 (as well as a host of other requests, such as indexation of welfare payments to inflation, and other measures to extend the coverage), and 41 students to record personal experiences of student poverty. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young came down to the grounds to express her support, giving, along with SRC President Paris Dean, an interview to the media while she was at it.

In a message sent out to supporters, AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey wrote that ‘education is the great equaliser, but only if everyone has the same access to it’. Allowing students from poorer backgrounds to study - which is one of the governments stated goals with regards to education - is one of the main arguments for raising income support to students. The other main argument advocated by those who supported the protest is that currently, the unemployment benefit is higher than that given to students, acting as a disincentive to study.

While clearly having support from a large number of students, there has been a backlash. The facebook event board has been inundated with discussion from, what I can tell, Young Liberal members, who see this as nothing more than middle-class welfare. Indeed, the same arguments tend to surround every call for more income support for students, which no doubt reduces the effectiveness of student lobbyists like NUS. The ironic thing is that the strongest opposition to raising the levels of student welfare seem to come from students themselves. And, I was suprised and rather impressed to find, from Paul Keating (down the very bottom).

That said, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of students are undecided on the issue. Who wins the hearts and minds of the broader student population will likely depend on who is more active in getting their message out there. Although, in my humble opinion, if students are asked whether or not they want more cash while studying, those who are not politically active are unlikely to oppose.

The NDA, which was coordinated at many university campuses around the country, got the governments attention, which was the whole point. They say their response will be ‘in the budget’.

Further reading here, here and here.

The Student Representative Council is a student advocacy body, affiliated to the Union. It was created to fill the void left in general student representation after the defunding of the Students Association of the University of Adelaide (SAUA), affectionately and revealingly known as the sewer. The SRC’s mission is to ‘give a voice on student issues to government, the University and other students’, and it’s a mission that a number of students who are traditionally unaligned with student politics have been keen to accept.

“I’m incredibly happy that we’ve got a great group of people. Each one of them’s come with ideas, but they’re also really enthusiastic”, said Paris Dean, the SRC’s President (and a director on the AUU Board). This sentiment was echoed by one of the general councillors, Ashleigh Lustica. “We’re all young, we’re all fresh, and we all want to represent the students!”, she enthused. The group formulating policy and campaign plans seem enthusiastic to the point of infectiousness.

One of the hallmarks of the SAUA era was a gross mis-management of their annual half a million stipend. When cleaning the old SAUA space, unopened cartons of stickers, reams of propaganda and five pairs of passionately discarded women’s underwear were among the detritus that had to be shifted. Theoretically it will be different this time around. “We’re pretty immune to mis-managing resources because we don’t have many”, joked Paris. On a more serious note, however, the removal of honoraria and the strong, but so far amicable, competition for campaign resources should ensure that this is not a problem with the new affiliate.

Indeed, a lack of money, if anything, seems to be the problem. No councillor wanted to say too much on the projects that they were excited about for fear that they would influence the decision on what project deserved to be funded. That said, it appears that student poverty and welfare (particularly in the wake of the Bradley Review), ancillary course costs (e.g. textbooks), disability access, environmental issues and women’s safety are all on the shortlist.

Despite this positive start, there are concerns about the SRC. One of the largest is its relationship to the peak representative body for Australian students, the National Union of Students (NUS). NUS holds several National Days of Action (NDAs) on university campuses throughout the country. As the SRC is the local representative organization, there will always be a tendency for them to become involved with NUS. That said, NUS is not always a well-organized organization. The previous NDA (against university deregulation on March the 5th) was organized with only one days notice. Robert Fletcher is both the SRC’s General Secretary, and the State President of NUS. He sent out information about the NDA to the SRC mailing list, resulting in many of the office bearers coming out in support. The result was a scattered and ill-prepared display, which one student described to me as ‘anti-climactic’.

Given that NUS affiliations were decided prior to the establishment of the SRC, it is the AUU which is formally affiliated to the national body. However, it is general practice for the advocacy body to be affiliated to NUS, meaning that the SRC will have to decide upon its relationship with the national body soon. Given that most students are not aware of the difference between NUS and the SRC, the SRC presence at NUS events reflects badly upon the SRC if those events are unsuccessful.

That said, it seems that if the SRC can maintain their positive and enthusiastic tilt at a better world and remember that they are autonomous from NUS’s ill-advised decisions, they may be very successful indeed. They have already achieved several notable goals, including publishing a counter-guide to university courses, and successfully lobbying for an increase to internet and printing quotas. On the administrative side of things, the SRC is still not formally incorporated, the Constitution having been delayed pending some legal concerns.

Note: The next meeting of the SRC is this coming Monday (the 23rd), 5.30pm in Harry Medlin South (Level 4 Union House)

In the interests of archiving and accurate reminiscence, below is the article published in On Dit, as written on January 26th. If the elementary and revision-style approach is frustrating, keep in mind that this was written to be the first column the freshers saw for the year.

~~~~~

Everyone’s probably sick of hearing the basics about the AUU, so we’re going to skip the simple parts. If you want the ‘this is what the AUU is’ spiel over again (but more interesting than usual), check out adelaidestudentpolitics.blogspot.com for the details. Instead of the usual intro, here’s five of the big issues in front of the Board at the moment:

1. The National Union of Students and what this year’s proceedings say about the Board

Summer is always a busy time for student politics because it’s the time when six delegates from Adelaide University go to the annual forum of the National Union of Students – the national student advocacy body. This was very controversial at Adelaide this year because the elections for NUS delegate were cancelled and, instead of re-working the elections, or even having the Board appoint delegates from those who nominated for the position, Activate and Pulse – the two most active factions – chose six people to fill the role. Most of those who nominated originally weren’t aware of the meeting in which they could have been appointed until after it happened, and two of the appointees weren’t even on the original list of nominees. Coupled with the fact that the positions were split evenly between Pulse and Activate, this suggested the selection of delegates was about as far from fair and honest as you can get. The positions within NUS are powerful within the scope of student politics, and this forum determines the direction of many NUS policies for the year to come.

Furthermore, when two Board directors gave quotes to an ex-director for a press release on the issue (one director subsequently withdrew his comments before the press release went out), they were brought in front of the Board as having breached AUU policy, and a vote of censure against them was moved. The motion was defeated, but it was a telling response to an attempt to address the corruption within the AUU.

2. The Student Representative Council

In 2007, the Adelaide University’s student advocacy body, the SAUA, died of VSU and fiscal ignorance. The lack of an advocacy body has been keenly felt by the AUU, so there’s been a lot of work put into replacing it with a new, and obviously completely different, advocacy body. Last year’s office bearers were appointed mid-year to a body that legally didn’t exist, and then the elections for the positions were cancelled, causing some to lose faith in the prospect of an operating SRC in 2009. However, there has been a lot of progress with the SRC lately, with a constitution drafted and the successful selection of the SRC office bearers for 2009. It looks like the SRC may actually function this year, though no-one can say how well until we have the office bearers at work.

3. The Overseas Students Association

The OSA last year meandered, wandered and splonked its way through the year, earning endless ire from the Board directors at the time. The elections that were meant to be held in October were held with last-minute notice to a handful of people have been declared invalid (2008 was a good year for elections, clearly). While this is negative in itself, the AUU President, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, has been working with a group of dedicated individuals from the OSA to re-draft their constitution, so that it actually functions. If we get such a passionate and constructive group in after a supplementary election, the OSA might actually do something meaningful for overseas students this year and live up to its status as an affiliate.

4. The Vice President

In the last Board meeting, Vice President John Bowers was put on notice for his continual absences and failure to report to Board. While VPs in the AUU are congenitally underperforming, we’d at least received one written report and a recipe for chicken chowder from the previous VP at this point last year. By the time uni goes back, the Board may have decided to elect a new VP.

5. Reform?

While it’s not an immediate issue, the reform of the AUU governance structure and constitution will be a core issue this year. Constitutional reform is essential if the AUU is to ditch the history of botched operations and factional conflict that has plagued it. The cancellation of some of last years’ elections is simply the latest example of the problems this lack of reform has caused.

It is likely that in July of this year, a $250 services fee will be charged to all students at Australian universities. While all taxes are inherently bad, I can personally live with this one, as it is deferrable through the HECS system, and does not automatically go to occasionally (or frequently, depending on who you talk to) corrupt student unions. Student unions face a monopoly situation to a much greater extent than do universities, which is why at the end of the day I prefer that my university have the final responsibility for spending the money wisely. The legislation and regulatory activity proposed to accompany the fee means that I am cautiously optimistic the money shall not be wasted. If student unions are indeed best placed to provide student services, one hopes that my university will recognize that and pass some of the cash on. Deferment is the clincher though. Given this fact, I was happy to encourage people to sign a NUS petition in O’Week calling on South Australian Senator Nick Xenaphon to pass the legislation.

Predictably knowing me, a thought nagged at me by the Tuesday. International students do not have the option of deferment of their fees through HECS. They pay their fees upfront, as outlined in their offer letters, for the duration of their degree. They are frequently placed at great hardship to do so. While some international students have everything paid for by mummy and daddy back home, many do not, and are forced to work to support themselves. This leads many of them to accept living conditions that would shock most domestic students.

This has been recognized by many of our student politicians, and is an issue many of them claim to care about. Indeed, when it was believed in late 2008 that the university was about to raise international student fees, they were quick to the rescue. Their outcry led the university to quickly respond to the concerns of international students, reassuring them that the fee rises would only apply to commencing students. At this, most were pacified. After all, international students are able to make a decision as to whether to attend a university or not, with their fees clearly outlined. That international students should be aware of how much their degree will cost them is only fair.

The student services fee will, like tuition fees, be paid by international students upfront. For struggling international students who are continuing their degrees, this will be an unexpected and unwelcome fee which they will have to scrap together the money for. Admittedly, it will only form a small part of their total fees. But the principle of unexpected and unavoidable fees remains the same. The government has dodged this in the case of domestic students by making the fee deferrable (and thus, no one out of pocket because of it). This is not the case for international students. A lot of them work, and are only at uni to go to lectures or to study in the library.

I have no doubt that the student services fee will be tailored to the needs of domestic students. One needs to look no further than the food selection at the Mayo to realize that the archetypical student who is catered for is typically western. The fact that internationals rarely complain must add to this attitude.

As such, I am somewhat disappointed in our student politicians. Those who have spoken on the issue have done so only to point out that the fee will be small in comparison to what international students already pay. As far as I know, few have looked into the effect that this fee will have on the budgets of internationals. There has been no formal campaign on the part of the AUU to educate 27% of the student population on the $250 they will shortly be slogged with. Given that this fee will cause disproportionate hardship to internationals over domestics, it should be especially targeted to provide services suitable for those from overseas. This is, given the proposed legislation, the responsibility of the university, and not the AUU. And yet, given that certain student politicians despair at the fact that international students are treated as little more than revenue raisers, I would wish see them taking a wearier view towards the university charging them an extra fee.

I understand most are happy to see some money going towards non-academic services. But not all students will benefit equally. And given the lack of deferment for internationals, they will pay the most.

** In other news affecting international students, Dilan Moragolle appears to have finally accepted his own resignation as OSA President. AUU Watch will miss the always colourful Dilan, and wishes him the best in whatever he gets up to. You can read more about the saga here, here and here**

"The real issue is not that corruption was brought up in the media, it's that there was corruption." -Jake Wishart, AUU Board Director, Meeting 22nd Jan, 2009.

In the last Board meeting, a motion was put forward to censure Mark Joyce. His indiscretion was commenting for a press release that was intended to publicise the corrupt way in which this year's NUS delegates were appointed. According to Lavinia Emmett-Grey, this was against the AUU's media policy, and ought to be dealt with severely. As a result, the act of outing the corruption took on almost as much significance as the original dodgy dealings, which was never even admitted as dishonest. The argument was that Mark had taken on a responsibility to work in the best interests of the Board when he became a director, and that he had gone against that by commenting for the press release.

This raised a very interesting question about the AUU Board. Namely, do its best interests lay in clinging to the last shreds of reputation; or in exposing previous bad practice, airing the problems and then rebuilding?

Let's start with a painful fact: the students at Adelaide University don't trust the Union. This is for one of two reasons.

1. The AUU is irrelevant. The majority of students probably know it exists, but don't see what it does for them or why they should get involved. I can see where they're coming from when all they see of it is the occasional event, which they may or may not realise the AUU organised. While ignorance isn't the same as distrust, these students have to know the AUU before they can trust it.
2. The AUU is run by politically-minded factional hacks. While this is not exclusively true - I know some people who are involved in Board purely because they care - that's where the majority and the leadership base come from. While this might not be a problem in itself, it's not a secret that many board members aren't averse to following their interests at the Union's expense. Those students who know what's going on with the Board also know that corruption on Board can - and does - happen. So they don't trust it either.
   

This type of dirty dealing is also well known to the other body with a major interest in the Union's business: the University. If nothing else, the University has a non-voting representative present at every Board meeting, which is where most of the shonkiness is first aired. While this representative rarely says much, it is foolish to think that those University staff who care about the Union are ignorant about how it actually operates.

In the furor about the AUU's media policy at the last meeting, the requirement that Board directors operate in the AUU's best interest was repeatedly raised. Mark commented at one point that he believed his actions to have followed this rule. Despite the President's immediate response ("HOW IS THIS POSSIBLY IN OUR BEST INTERESTS?! To go to the Advertiser? That's absurd!"), this view has a lot of merit. It may be that an attempt to face up to the corruption of the past, deal with it and maintain an honest Board is the only way to regain the trust of those students who have been driven away from the AUU.

The first - but not the hardest - task for the AUU if they are to clean up their act on this front is to face up to the dishonesty and self-interest of the past. Taking responsibility for previous actions would create a much better atmosphere and allow the Board to move on to more important issues. It would also make it harder for directors to get away with such dishonest behaviour in the future. This would require Board directors to re-think some of their behaviour. Some of them don't seem to see how their behaviour could be seen as corrupt, or claim that it was justified by a lack of time. This is ridiculous when it also happens to deliver an advantage to their faction at the national conference, and absurd when it happens as frequently as it does now.

The potential drawback of this tack is that it would make the student community aware that there has been corruption within the Board. However, as we observed before, everyone who cares knows this already, so it wouldn't be the problem that it seems.

The other, harder task for the Board would be to maintain honest operations, free of factional priorities and with nothing other than the best interests of the AUU at heart. This would take a lot of effort - and self-restraint in some cases - and would not deliver immediate results. It would also require some of the quieter voices on board to think about what they're involved with, and to have the courage to say something when they believed that everything was not in order. If combined with other good practices, this has the potential to recreate the rapport between students and the student body and make the Union fill its place on campus, which has been sadly empty for years now.

While an effort to face and deal with corruption could lead to some bad press for the Board in the short term, it would be a worthwhile endeavour for the Board of 2009. It would go some way to clearing the slate, building an improved relationship between the Union and the students and make it a whole lot harder for anyone to mess around in the same way in the future. In the long term, it has great potential to enrich the quality of education and campus life at Adelaide and pave the way for a return to the 'golden days' of the Adelaide University Union.

My ultimate round-up of what's been happening as a result of this year's NUS appointments, so that we don't have to refer back quite so far when discussing the latest happenings:

• Mid August: Nominations for NUS were lodged. Here's the full list of nominees.
• Late August: Elections for NUS (as well as others) were cancelled.
• Late November: The NUS delegates were appointed by Board. Two of the delegates never nominated for the position, and many of those who did nominate weren't aware that the choice was being made.
• Very End of November (juuust before NUS): The exec authorised the payment of the NUS affiliation fee of $3,300, despite the fact that the exec is only constitutionally permitted to authorise payments of up to $2,000. In addition, the Board had been assured in the previous meeting that the vote on NUS delegates did not pertain to whether they would affiliate, only to who they would send as delegates if they did. 3 of the 4 exec members who voted were also NUS delegates.
• Mid December: The exec's decision to affiliate was voided on the basis that it was against policy, then passed by Board, because affiliation was still wanted. Jake Wishart and Aaron Fromm also put forward a motion that exec minutes have to be passed by board. It turned out that this was already a policy, but was generally supported anyway (the exec meeting was only a day or two before the board pack was due in, so minutes weren't submitted for want of time). Someone (Sorry, I don't have a name for who proposed this motion. Feel free to leave it in the comments) motioned for Board directors to be able to spectate at Exec meetings, and Jake put forward a motion for a conflict of interest register to be circulated at the start of every meeting and for those with a conflict not to be able to speak or vote on the issue. Both of these motions are passed too.
• Later Mid December: Ex-Board director and 2008 NUS nominee Sandy Biar released a press release to the Advertiser containing quotes from directors Mark Joyce. Aaron Fromm also gave quotes, but revoked them before the release date.
• January: Lavinia Emmett-Grey put forward a motion to condemn Mark Joyce for his comments as they were not 'in the best interests of the Board'. This lead to a wide-ranging and convoluted discussion of what counted as the 'best interests', and whether it actually broke the AUU media policy as was claimed. In the end, the media policy was redefined, though not in any way that was actually relevant to the question, and Mark was not condemned, as he appeared to have believed at the time that it was in the Board's best interests.

With the recent NUS Conference, I've been digging around to find out everything I can about the contentious national body. Here are some interesting links:

• Sydney University's SRC talks to then NSW Branch President David Barrow, who argues that NUS is in fact a big cuddly teddy bear.
• Murdoch University Guild’s student publication had a short article in it's O'Week 08 Issue (page 24)
• The Australian National University's student publication, Woroni, had a very illuminating special report on the organization published in June of this year. If you read one of these links, make it this one.
• Last but certainly not least, is what NUS itself had on its website. The site is down at the moment, but thanks to the Wayback Machine, I managed to find out what it used to say. Despite being an official source, and thus possibly biased in favour of the organization, it is nonetheless the best overview of the history of NUS I managed to find.
• The Sydney Morning Herald touched on the rise of independent representation at NUS, and the ironic situation which sometimes sees Liberals supporting farther-left independents over more moderate Labor candidates.
• Crikey takes a shot at extreme Liberals who got arrested on the first night of the 2008 conference

Needless to say, I'll add more links as I find them

*Update: The NUS website is up :). It's a better design, although the content looks almost exactly the same. Too bad they haven't announced the office holders for 09 yet*

The following is a media statement sent out to the Advertiser by Sandy Biar, who nominated for NUS when elections were going ahead. Several statements have been removed by request of those who made them. Furthermore, not all the delegates are members of the Labor party, as is stated here (Daniel Bills is not. However, he does caucus with them, so that may be a moot point). There has been some contention as to whether Board directors are at liberty to speak to the media. This will be the topic of a future post. At the time of writing, no story portraying NUS in a negative light has been published in the Advertiser or any other mainstream publication.

No Representation for Students This Christmas: Students Angered by Undemocratic Appointments

The National Union of Students is far from a representative body says Adelaide University Law Student and former delegate Aleisha Brown. "When I attended the conference in 2007 it was clear to me that it is used primarily as a Young Labor training ground, with genuine student's voices drowned out by Labor factional politics" Young Democrat Ms Brown says. "NUS is incapable of truly speaking on behalf of students"

The calls come in the wake of an exposed scam at Adelaide University where Young Labor Union Board members recently abused their majority to appoint themselves as delegates on a fully funded trip to the National Conference. The National Conference, which commences this weekend, claims to be the peak advocacy forum for student interests nationally.

The abuse of power is by no means limited to universities in SA. Nick Sowden an elected delegate from the University of Queensland points out that "UQ is charged over $88 000 to affiliate, however the emphasis of every NUSQ (the Qld branch of NUS) campaign this year has been to fight the current Liberal/Independent Union establishment at UQ." Mr Sowden believes the National Union of Students has become less about representing students and more about furthering the political careers of the student politicians who are involved.

Even though the appointments breech the NUS National Constitution (positions must be elected), National Executive members have pledged to turn a blind eye to the appointment of their factional counterparts in Adelaide. Indeed, the reason why the 6 delegate positions were not elected in the first instance (as is legally required) was due to the Directors in question changing election regulations, which were found to be in conflict with the Adelaide University Union's own constitution.

During the recent general election representatives from 6 campaign groupings were elected to the Adelaide University Union Board. In contrast, all 6 delegates representing students of Adelaide University were appointed from amongst Young Labor ranks.

Mr Sandy Biar, Young Democrat and campaigner for independent representation on campus at Adelaide University says "I think students would be deeply disappointed to know that only Labor Party views are being heard, and these delegates are claiming to speak on behalf of all students at the University"

Mark Joyce, a Young Liberal and Adelaide University Union Board Director says that "historically, Labor has always been divided, this inevitably filters down to and contributes to the highly partisan environment of student unions. Despite this precedent of disunity, the Labor factions at Adelaide have united for 'one night only' to perpetrate the exclusion of any other factional voice from the NUS conference; and hence, artificially distort the representation of Adelaide University students."

The students are calling for greater transparency and accountability, and an end to the Machiavellian politic plaguing attempts at true proportionate representation of students.

Forgive this mammoth of a post. I figured the issue deserved as little paraphrasing as possible. Or maybe I'm just a horrible reporter.

The much-anticipated December Union Board meeting was one of the most attended since the election of office bearers. Yasmin Freschi (Independent/Clubbers)was absent (overseas), as were Rhiannon Newman (Activate, at a family function) and Daniel Bills (Pulse) (interstate). Fei Tang (Passion) did not make an appearance (reason unknown). Apart from that, though, everyone was there for most of the meeting, including (surprise surprise) Sonja Jankovic (Liberals), Jianbin ‘Strong’ Jiang (Passion), and Ye Yang (Passion). The reason for the spike in attendance was clear: those concerned at the manner at which both the NUS delegates had been appointed, and at the actions taken at the subsequent Executive meeting, were mounting a challenge, which the (overwhelmingly) Labor delegates were preparing to fight.

Some questions were asked at the beginning of the meeting. Ash Brook (Independent/IndyGo) asked if Board members can attend Executive meetings. AUU Board President Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Independent/IndyGo) said that to the best of her understanding it is a close committee of Board, and thus no (There is nothing stating as such in the Rule on Committees, but it could be stated somewhere else). Soon after, by mutual agreement (helped along by procedural insistence by the Chair. i.e. Lavinia), all the interesting stuff was left to ‘Any Other Business’ at the end of the meeting, and thus Board breezed it’s way through its written concerns. Lavinia’s report was in the Board pack. She spoke briefly about it. Vice President John Bowers (Liberals) then presented a verbal report. It was extremely polite, and said absolutely nothing. From my recollection, he apologized that he had been extremely busy with his army commitments, meaning he did not have time to prepare a written report, before wishing everyone a Merry Christmas. How sweet of him.

The Board then moved onto the issue of the Oversea’s Student Association (OSA), which has been acting up again (not submitting reports, President Dilan Moragolle “not doing anything” etc). Several board members raised the question of whether it was effective to take any stronger action against the OSA, especially given that it had already been put on notice. Lavinia responded by pointing out that they had been put on notice for failing to submit two of their monthly reports, and, after being put on notice, had submitted them, and thus they had been taken off notice. Therefore, it was fine to put them on notice again, before considering stronger action (such as dis-affiliation). Strong (Passion) asked a question, and then made a comment. I didn’t quite catch it, but the mere fact that he spoke deserves a blog post all on its own. Board eventually decided to ‘express its displeasure’ in the minutes, as well as putting the OSA on notice. Again. That’ll teach them.

Board then decided to take steps to increase its involvement in the Waite and Roseworthy campuses. Andrew Anson (Pulse) somewhat pointedly remarks that ‘this is a good chance for Board directors to realize that this university doesn’t stop at North Terrace’. I have no idea what the attitude was about. Paris Dean (Activate) asks what benefits those at the other campuses have to gain from AUU Membership. Lavinia and Andrew respond by pointing to the Ambassadors card. A motion is passed for Lavinia and Andrew to address students at these campuses (the Roseworthy Proposal). The colonization begins.

AUU General Manager David Coluccio then asked that he be given permission to take up to $100,000 out of this years budget in order to fund various renovation and maintenance issues. He thinks this should be done now, while there is a surplus. Paris asked why there is a the problem with doing it out of next years reserves, as opposed to this year’s surplus. It’s a moot point, and Board approved the motion. There was some discussion on the air-conditioning, which Board has to fund. Apparently, one of the reasons Board sold commercial operations was that it would make the university responsible for structural maintenance. Given that the air-conditioners were installed by the Union, and not part of the original structure, they do not fall under the university's jurisdiction. Aaron Fromm (Independent/Clubbers) wanted the air-conditioners to be at least a 4-star energy rating in terms of energy efficiency. Those who considered him a Liberal were momentarily shocked, but recovered their composure as they realized he just wanted to save a buck.

Board was informed that the price of lockers is to double next year, to $20 for AUU members, $30 for non-members. The number of lockers is also set to increase, with repairs taking place on those which need it. Lavinia cut off various Board members who spoke out of turn on the speaking list. The look on the face of one of them in particular was priceless.

Andres Osvaldo Munoz-Lamilla (Sports Association President) turned up at 6:15 pm. That brought up to three the number of affiliate heads who attended the Board meeting (the other two being the Clubs Association VP Justin Kentish, and SRC President Paris Dean). Andres started gossiping and making faces at the back of the room. Lavinia threatened to kick him out. I think he left at this point.

Any Other Business. This was fun.

For those who haven’t read the last few entries (which I encourage you to do, trust me, they’re juicy), this is what happened so far:
Adelaide University each year sends six delegates to the National Union of Students (NUS, they'll be here when they decide getting their website up is a good idea). Elections for the NUS delegates were cancelled in August, due to procedural irregularities. By all appearances, this was the result of incompetence and dodgy legal advice rather than an intended outcome on the part of Lavinia and her Activate allies. So far, bad, but understandable. Next, at the last Board meeting, Lavinia claimed that NUS wanted a list of the delegates being sent. This was before NUS even informed the AUU of what the affiliation fee was. Lavinia then presented a list of six delegates, two of which had not even been NUS nominees when the elections were expected to go forward. Four of the people who voted in favour of this list were on it. This vote was sprung on many of those not in Pulse and Activate (the two factions whose candidates made up five out of six of the NUS positions), who were not aware it was to take place in the closing minutes of the Board meeting. This was especially brutal given that Lavinia had assured Board she would keep them informed of what was going in with NUS delegates at October meeting. Board had been assured during the November meeting by Paris that a vote on the delegates was not a vote on affiliation, giving the impression to some that there would be a vote on affiliation at some future date. And so there was, but not at Board. At the last Executive meeting, on the 28th of November, Executive approved the NUS affiliation fee, of $3300. This was in breach of the rule on Executive spending, which places a $2000 cap. As such, opposition to the way affairs have been conducted thus far was multi-faceted, and involved several issues, a fact which greatly complicated what is to follow.

Jake Wishart (Independent/IndyGo, member of the Greens), along with Aaron, put forward a motion that Executive minutes must be approved at the next meeting of Board. Lavinia suggested an amendment that In-Camera minutes be provided only by request. Apart from that, Lavinia also argued that this was already policy. Jake asked why it hadn’t happened then. Lavinia responded by saying there wasn’t enough time (note: The Board packs were sent out six days after the meeting, and I am told the deadline was only one or two days after the Exec meeting). Eventually the proposal is passed, with a slight amendment to the wording: Executive minutes shall be approved at or before the next Board meeting.

Next, there was a motion to allow Board members to be non-participatory observers at future Executive meetings. This proposal was extended to the next board meeting pending constitutionality. Lavinia expressed her displeasure at the fact that these motions had not been placed within existing policy, and had been so amateurishly formed.

Next, Jake puts forward a motion relating to conflicts of interest. The motion states that Board members must declare conflicts of interest, and not speak or vote on the issue, as is ‘industry best practice’. Lavinia again encourages Jake to place the motion within existing policy. Jake apologizes, but decides to press on with the motion anyway. It is carried.

While the first three motions were aimed at ensuring that such a debacle never occurs again, the next few deal more explicitly with the past.

The Executives approval of NUS funding then came up. There are questions, raised by Ash, as to whether Executives decision is not already void, given that they overstepped their bounds. This isn’t really answered. Lavinia says she was not aware of the cap being at $2000, having believed it to be a $5000 dollar cap. Both she, and AUU General Manager David Coluccio, apologized for their mistake (Note: Coluccio, according to a strict reading of the rule, has to approve all Executive spending, deeming it ‘necessary to the normal operation of the AUU’. He was absent from said Executive meeting).

Paris then claims that the issues are being bundled. He argues that Board is not in a position where it can refuse to fund NUS affiliation, as some of the delegates are already there, and have already paid out of their own pocket expecting to be reimbursed. As such, he claims they may sue for being misled by Board. Furthermore, he says that this would lead to a situation in which students cannot trust their own union to follow through with what it says it will.

Later, when Paris is out of the room, Mark Joyce (Independent/Clubbers/Liberal) answers his concerns by saying that he had warned the delegates that their funding to NUS was not a sure thing, and that they should be aware of the risk they are taking. Essentially, he said that a mistake by Executive does not justify a miscarriage of justice borne by students who do not have democratic representation (in a lot more words, and nowhere near as clearly). Lavinia questions his assertion to having ‘warned’ the delegates, saying he had never approached her. To be honest, I can’t see how any delegate would have taken Mark’s warning seriously, given that the President of the Board had assured them that their expenses would be paid. He maybe had more ground to stand on with the second point, but he didn’t elaborate on it. This is by far the most aggressive Mark has yet been at any meeting. He claimed Lavinia’s ‘time factor’ excuse is ridiculous, as she had time to ‘stitch up a deal’. Lavinia says there was no ‘deal’. Yea …
I’ll let you be the judge of that.

As the first point, as to whether Executives decision was void, was not followed up upon, Board then passed a motion to void the decision of the Executive. It is passed, with Lavinia, Andrew and Fletcher O’Leary (Activate, NUS Delegate) having their abstentions noted (in accordance with the Conflict of Interest motion passed earlier in the meeting).

After much discussion, the majority consensus seems to be that Board must affiliate to NUS, there being no other ethical option open to it. The challenge mounted by Jake Wishart, Aaron Fromm and the Liberals (Mark Joyce, VP John Bowers) dissolved when Jake said he believed the union should affiliate. The motion to affiliate was passed. Mark and John had their dissent noted.

You’d think that once the motion was passed, the meeting would be over. But not quite. Jake took one parting shot at Lavinia. He said (and I am paraphrasing from my notes here: ‘You had ample time to inform the Board [of the delegate vote]…You have treated this Board with contempt…and the delegates represent no students other than themselves…It is the sole fault of the Executive that we are in this position’. For a guy who ran on Lavinia’s ticket three months ago (although has admittedly been out in the cold for a while now)…wow.

Lavinia responded by describing how vague the talks she had had with NUS were. How nothing was decided upon until the last minute, and that she could not possibly be expected to inform Board of the developments of every ongoing negotiation she is involved with.

Jason Virgo then speaks. Another event worthy of its own headline. He speaks well too. He’s angry: ‘We elected an Executive; it is ridiculous to them overturn their motions just because we don’t like them’. He believed what he said, but I can’t help but think he missed the point. Executive was elected to follow the rule, which they did not do. They were not elected to do whatever they liked outside of the Constitution. I figure that if Executives decision was made automatically void, as it did not follow the rule, Jason would not have made the mistake of seeing this as a rejection of Executive's authority.

After this, Strong speaks up once more. He wants Board to put aside their political differences. How quaint. Board is generally appreciative of the fact that he has spoken, and for the most part seem glad that the meeting is nearly over.

Mark then brings up the numbers issue on Board. Basically, there are six factions on Board, each with more or less three members. Six NUS positions could thus be nicely divided up according to the wishes of the voters, as expressed via the only vote they had left open to them. It’s a good point, but one that should have been bought up at the last Board meeting when delegates were decided upon. It sure helps to spring things on Board when you want to get a dubious motion passed.

The next motion is to approve the funding for the delegates, as opposed to the costs of affiliation. It is put forward by Ash and Strong. Mark and John are against. There are six abstentions, being Fletcher, Andrew, Aaron, Jake, Lavinia, and one more person who’s name I didn’t manage to get down (let me know if you know who I’ve missed).

The meeting took nearly three hours, closing at seven forty-five pm.

Truth be told, at the end of it all, it was all somewhat anti-climactic. The crusading knights out to right the wrongs of the executive ended up being on less solid grounds than they thought. It didn’t help that when faced with the counter-arguments presented by Labor, they split into two camps. Not that that should be a surprise to anyone: how easily can a Green and the Liberals stay united? Jake’s contempt for Lavinia’s style of rule was however made vividly clear at this meeting, and is likely to have future repercussions. Furthermore, at the time of writing, it appears that The Advertiser is preparing to run a story on the alleged corruption involving NUS at Adelaide Uni. This, needless to say, is a huge embarrassment for both Lavinia and David Coluccio, even if the story portrays them in a good light.

From Presidents Report: Regarding the National Union of Students (NUS) Affiliation Fee, as approved at the AUU Executive Meeting, Fri 28th of November:

“The AUU was successful in getting a fee waiver from $54,000 down to $3300 including GST. This is a reasonable price, as the Sports Association pays $8000 per year to affiliate to its national body. Sydney University pays $70,000, and the University of Queensland has not been granted affiliation despite being willing to pay up to $30,000. Executive authorized this payment of $3,300.”

Rule of AUU enacted pursuant to Clause 18 of AUU Constitution:
Section 4.2.2:

The Executive will approve unplanned expenditure of up to $2000 deemed essential for the normal operations of the AUU by the CEO and required urgently before the next meeting of the AUU Board. Once a decision to approve expenditure is made pursuant to this power, the CEO will cause all members of Board to be informed of the Executive’s decision as soon as is practicable.

For those who can't make sense of that, $3,300 > $2000 cap on executive spending.

Needless to say, this is the third irregularity concerning NUS. The first one concerned elections for delegates being cancelled, and the second, the sudden appointment of the current delegates. I'm not sure of the timeframe in which Board is usually informed of executive decisions, but they were not informed of this decision until the 10th of December, 12 days after the meeting.

Executive consists of Daniel Bills, Fletcher O’Leary, Aaron Fromm and Yasmin Freschi (absent), as well as AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey and AUU General Manager David Coluccio (i.e. CEO, non-voting, also absent). Of these four present voting members, Fletcher O'Leary, Daniel Bills and Lavinia Emmett-Grey are also NUS delegates.

The December AUU Board meeting dealt with the fallout. Will be posted up shortly.

Update: In the end, Sydney Uni was charged $110,000 for affiliation