Adelaide Student Politics

NB: I've left this article as was for it's publication in On Dit. This means that most of it is extremely confusing. Just accept that fairly much everything mentioned here has changed since and read it for fun and nostalgia.

As is common for election time, the Board is realising that they have run out of time for the electoral reforms that were so passionately talked up at the start of the year. One Board member has informed us that a lack of follow-through has left the Board in a position where it will not be possible to get the most important of the constitutional reform in place before the elections in the first week of September. Having to get constitutional amendments passed by the University Council only compounds the problem, as Council is inclined to pass nothing less than a comprehensive re-writing of the Constitution. The changes that have been successfully made are primarily minor changes to the wording to eliminate references to compulsory student unionism and the Board’s former commercial holdings. The Board’s constitutional committee hasn’t met this year, and the reform that has made it to Board at all appears to have come from conversation between Lavinia and the General Manager, David Coluccio with reference to reform proposals by Matthew Taylor, who was the Vice President of the Board last year.

It appears that the Board is “stuck in a cycle” in which they will begin their term with all sorts of good intentions to reform the way that the Board is run and see to more reasonable election rules for the year after. Inevitably, these reforms will be blocked or just not happen due to general disorganisation or higher priorities, which holds up the subsequent Board and starts the cycle again. It could be a fondly regarded tradition if the consequences weren’t so serious.

One example of the consequences is the outcome of the AUU’s negotiations with the Australian Electoral Commission, which was approached to run the student elections in the first week of September this year. The AEC reviewed the rules for student elections and found that they did not meet certain minimum standards. Because the Board has to have changes passed by University Council they were unable to deliver any rule changes until the Council meets, one week after the elections. The AEC sought legal advice on this, and were advised not to oversee Adelaide University’s student elections until these minimum standards were met. At this point, the only option was for someone from the university to assume the mantle of Returning Officer. This forces a political position upon a member of the university community, undermines the level of professionalism and introduces an unwelcome level of partisanship.

In other news, AUU Watch reported earlier this year that the National Wine Centre (NWC) was being taken to task by the Board over a number of issues. Since then the University is rumoured to have met with the NWC to express its displeasure over similar matters. The NWC made some noises at these complaints and students were told that the matters would be fixed in due course. Several months later and still nothing has been done. As a result, the Board asked the NWC to send a representative to the Board meeting on August 7th to answer the Union’s ‘please explain’. Hopefully by the time you read this column the NWC will have considered the complaints they receive at the meeting and will be on their way to working with students, rather than frustrating them.

Should have been posted around May 10th. Sorry guys!

I am shocked. I am amazed. The Board as a whole is actually coming close to impressing me. While there are still some clear indications that this is a student board with a sometimes frustrating lack of professionalism, the Board is starting to shape up and get something done!

The biggest thing (not that the delay was the Board’s fault) was to pass the funding agreement with the University! This means that the Union has $1.2 million this year to share between the affiliates and use for advocacy, education support and events to promote the ever elusive campus culture. Unless something goes horribly wrong, this agreement is expected to last for the next ten years, with negotiation each year as to the exact amount.

The schism between the Overseas Students Association (or at least, their President, Dilan Morragolle) and the rest of the Board continues. Dilan missed the Board meeting without apology, and there was no report from the OSA. They’ve also been conspicuously quiet around campus; their only event since the last Board meeting was one barbecue. The OSA has been put on notice, and the Board has voted to address the issues with advocacy at the next meeting. In the meanwhile, Union Activities Chair Simone McDonnell is organising a number of film screenings (Kenny, Crocodile Dundee and the like) with our international students in mind.

The SRC has also surpassed expectations. By the time you read this, the first meeting of the full council should have been held. Judging by Lavinia Emmett-Grey’s excited description of the enthusiasm and integrity of the candidates, this year’s SRC will be passionate, at the very least.

In a surprise move, Lavinia also brought forward some electoral reforms in what was the last meeting to get them in so that they can be instituted for this year’s accostafest...that is, student election. The first of two proposed reforms was thinstitution of a training evening for all candidates, so that they are all familiar with the roles and responsibilities that they are running for. The second is the introduction of a platform section for groups of candidates in the official election broadsheet. The first measure is an excellent idea that I wish had been instituted long ago. It should mean that new Board members are more aware of their role and responsibilities as the Board of a corporate body. The changes to the broadsheet, however, are unfair, as they give groups of candidates far more coverage than independants. The Union’s General Manager, David Coluccio, has also sought quotes from the Australian Electoral Commission on hiring an independent Returning Officer for this year’s AUU and SRC elections, as well as advice for improving the electoral system for the future.

The only other black spot on the meeting was the general relationship between the National Wine Centre (NWC) and the Union. At the start of the year, we probably all felt general relief to see that all the food outlets but Rumours were up and running, and that everything seemed generally well presented and managed.

However, it seems that this improvement hasn’t continued to other areas of the NWC’s takeover. The Clubs Association has received a number of complaints from the different clubs, ranging from a lack of bins to an inability to access rooms that have been booked to clubs having to pay to use rooms after 8pm. The Clubs Association (note: I’m on the CA executive committee, so there’s some bias here) has also had difficulties in dealing with the NWC, and an event in the Clubs Cup was cancelled as a result. The underlying issues between the NWC and student groups, however, have not been solved. Even the AUU Board meetings have been rushed as a result of the 8pm curfew on rooms in Union House. The University has apparently called NWC management to order over this, resulting in what I expect was a heated meeting on May 20.

Furthermore, questions have been raised about the NWC’s negotiating methods. Firstly, there was the suggestion that the NWC was looking to use the AUU’s membership of the TAG buying group (a group that the NWC could not access independent of the AUU, and which caused the level of acronym use in this article to become quite ridiculous) in a way that would preclude the AUU from using it for their own purposes as well. This was followed by Union President Lavinia Emmett-Grey commenting in the AUU meeting that the NWC’s tactics felt awfully like bullying. This could be seen as a weakness in that she can feel bullied in negotiations or a strength in that she feels able to tell this to the Board and spectators, including the one who will go and publish it for the rest of the uni to read.

Lavinia declared herself ‘shocked’ (apparently in a good way) that the Australian National Union of students has been so active this year, and Simone McDonnell echoed this with a mention that the NUS President (who is visiting on May 21st to meet with the Board) had been promoting student issues on Triple J. There was some concern that the Board might find it difficult to meet their NUS fees this year, but Rhiannon, who has been on the relevant committee, explained that the affiliation fees are based on each student union’s ability to pay as well as their membership.

There was also discussion of the formation of a committee of the presidents of all the faculty clubs on campus. The idea behind this is to develop an authoritative group to look at education issues around the university and take action on them. I expect it will be interesting to see how this initiative pans out, as getting clubs to do extra work can be very difficult.