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.
SRC, NUS and On Dit Results
As Printed in On Dit: The Elections Are Coming!
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.
Posted 19th July
The récent incorporation of the SRC, regardless of which constitution was passed, is good news for élections. Begun in early 2008 to replace the SAUA, the fledgling body has seen two sets of appointed office bearers. All involved within the body claim to wish for nothing more than élections to take place this year. Until a few hours ago, however, whether they would occur was uncertain.
All AUU affiliates must be approved at two Board meetings, which makes it impossible for the SRC to be formally affiliated prior the final date for notice of elections to be given (the 27th of July).
There is a way around this. The SAUA after all used to hold its own elections at the same time as the union elections, and the SRC could yet do something similar. "By adopting the AUU's Returning Officer and by approving its own election regulations, it could still have the necessary election procedures in place prior to the 27th", an involved student said.
This Saturday evening, SRC President Paris Dean called a meeting to do just that. Scheduled for Thursday the 23th of July, it is to take place at 4pm, prior to the days Board Meeting at 5.30. 53 pages worth of élection régulations are to be passed at this meeting. That said, it seems to draw heavily from the AUU régulations (by no means light in themselves).
If this works, the first elected SRC (ever) will in a few months be assuming their rôles. Good news folks, barring any last-minute complications.
What am I saying, clearly I've learnt nothing from last years early optimism.
Watch and wait.
Posted 18th July
An SRC constitution was (finally) approved on Thursday the 16th of July. Given that it was an incorporation, this took place not at a council meeting but an Inaugural General Meeting (IGM). All présent were able to vote, including the five observors (three of whom were current Board members). More on this later.
Two constitutions were presented to the meeting, which had the task of choosing between them. The first, referred to as the ‘1 staple’ constitution, was the one approved by the AUU Board, with a change in the membership clause such that only Council members were members of the SRC. This constitution had the support of AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey.
The second, called the ‘2 staple’ (inventive with names aren’t they), was supported by SRC President Paris Dean and SRC General Secretary Robert Fletcher. It was based on the one approved by the AUU Board, but had more significant altérations. The biggest of thèse were in regards to membership, and how the constitution could be amended.
Unlike the 1-staple, the 2-staple had an opt-in system of membership. This thus got around the légal requirements while still keeping membership fairly open. All interested students being members, this also gave général students the ability to call a général meeting of members (by pétition from the elected voting members or a significant number of students). These meetings would have the power to overturn décisions made by the voting members.
One argument made against maintianing a more open membership was the time and effort it would involve. Both Robert Fletcher and Sam Deere (SRC Education Officer) aruged that this was overblown. The AUU currently maintains an opt-in membership system. The other (in my opinion much stronger) argument made against it was the possibilities it opened for stacking (at a général member as opposed to voting member level, despite the much higher number of students required). The ability of général members to overturn the décisions of Council was argued to make stacking particularly désirable for those who wish to waste the SRCs time and direction (the example given was of a right-wing group forcing the SRC to run anti-abortion campaigns by stacking out a général members meeting). Rob countered that the notice provisions would make stacking very difficult. In response, Lavinia Emmett-Grey and Rhiannon Newman pressed the point that as seasoned student politicians, they saw ample opportunity for stacking.
Part of the 1-staple constitution (which only had limited membership) was for there to be a mailing list to which students could sign up to remain inforled of SRC campaigns. Paris Dean and Rob Fletcher were unhappy with this, as the Association Incorporation Act entitles members to certain rights which would have added an additional level of accountability not achieved through membership to a mère mailing list.
The other way that the two constitutions differed was with regards to amending the constitution. The one supported by Lavinia had the option of amending with a four-fifth majority of filled voting positions. The one brought forward by Robert Fletcher also had this, as well as a clause for a referendum that could be called by either an absolute majority of Council, or by a pétition from 400 students.
This change from the original was argued as necessary as the 1-staple’s provision to changing the constitution was practically impossible (if the difficulties with reaching quorum this year are anything to go by), even if the whole Council was in agreement.
The feedback of the AUU Board was specifically against referendums as a way to change the constitution. Fletcher O’Leary made this point very strongly, and argued that the low threshold for a pétition (400 students) could be used by those against the SRC or AUU to continually bleed it of money (referendums being, after all, expensive).
SRC General Councilor Eric Parsonage (who wasn't happy with either of the two proposed models) made the suggestion that a général meeting of students (300 or 1% of the student population, whichever is greater) could amend the constitution with an absolute majority, thus getting around the cost of running a referendum.
The first difficulty with the 2-staple was that only three copies were brought to the meeting. Furthermore, it hadn’t been presented to those assembled prior to the meeting (unlike it’s rival, which had been distributed by email). This gave many who hadn’t seen it before very little time to become very familiar with it. Needless to say, this irked some, especially as it contained significant altérations. Distrust towards Rob Fletcher already running high (it isn’t the first time he presented Policy to the SRC with what was seen as insufficient warning and reading time), this did nothing to help his case.
The 2-staple was put to a vote at 9 :10 (three hours after the meeting started), and failed to get up. The 1-Staple was then approved, with Eric Parsonages proposal as to constitutional change as an amendment.
As outlined at the start of this post, this all took place at an IGM, at which all attendents could vote. SRC President Paris Dean was judicious enough to inform those présent of this, as many of the observors were unaware of this fact. That said, given that général students will now not be official members of the SRC (and are thus deprived of some of the protections that come with membership), I cannot but express regret at the manner in which this meeting came about. General students were not informed on how to attend, nor given any prior information from the SRC about the two constitutions on offer (neither, it is worth noting, were some office bearers). The constitution of the SRC, the activism body of the AUU, was thus decided by a mixture of appointed office bearers, and observors lucky enough to be in on the information flow. Paris Dean, Jason Virgo, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Fletcher O’Leary and Rhiannon Newman were the only voters who had been in any way elected. Given this fact, it is a pity information abot the IGM was not more widely distributed to interested parties. Communicating with the student body beyond élection week is always difficult, and it appears the SRC has already fallen into the same trap. Sure having more people there makes it more difficult to reach an agreement. It remains the right thing to do.
Newly appointed Public Officer Hayden Tronnolone has his work cut out for him.
Posted 15th July
SRC elections are, like all others, less than two months out, so now seems as good a time as any to write what I know to have been going on in the SRC (up to two weeks ago anyway, when being out of the country has halted my already sketchy knowledge of the proceedings).
The activism of term 1 has long since died down, to give way to the necessary legal framework required before the next elections. Several members have, after lucklustre attendence to meetings, resigned, highlighting the difficulties of assessing suitable candidates by interview/appointment. Several vacancies exist, and as far as I am aware no steps have been taken to fill them. The silver lining to this cloud is that the lower number of members bring quorum to a more easily achievable level.
The June 1st SRC meeting saw a division take place over whether the AUU Board or the SRC should be responsible for appointing delegates to university committees. On the SRC side, General Secretary Rob Fletcher distributed a report recommending that the SRC be responsible, as this was an old SAUA duty that had been relegated to the AUU Board in the short term, and should now be returned. Non-voting but sitting SRC member (and AUU President) Lavinia Emmett-Grey argued that since the attendance of a student representative to university committees was a key performance indicator of the unions funding agreement with the university (and thus its fulfilment a requisite for the unions funding), it should be the union who should be ultimately responsible. Complicating the issue was the fact that the SRC was still not incorporated at the time. This also affected the desirability of several of the other recommendations made by Rob, such as lobbying for all students to have access to university council minutes (Lavinia was concerned about the SRC entering into formal negotiations prior to incorporation). Eventually, a motion stating the first recommendation be adopted was lost (4 for; 6 against). The second was carried.
Despite the initial aversion to the in-camera clause in the standing orders, the SRC has twice (at the meetings I’ve attended) gone in-camera in order to discuss something regarding ‘university committees’. This may have something to bear on the previous issue, but as it was in-camera it is, by definition, known only to members of the SRC.
SRC meetings were cancelled for a few weeks due to exams. That is, until July 2nd, on the last Thursday of the exam period, when a special meeting was called by SRC member Ashleigh Lustica in order to incorporate the SRC in what was argued to be the last possible chance before elections. Due to legal concerns over who can legally and practically be a ‘member’ of the SRC, incorporation has been delayed several times. Eventually a course of action was suggested whereby only the elected representatives were SRC ‘members’, but some disagreed with this, presumably fearing disenfranchisement of the wider student body. As of July 1st, several SRC members had given their apologies to this last-minute meeting, meaning it was uncertain whether quorum would be reached.
Currently, I do not know if the SRC has been incorporated yet or not. Unless it is before the elections in around two months, this will be the third year SRC representatives are (factionally as opposed to democratically) appointed by the AUU Board. The first year was unavoidable, as the SRC was created mid-year. Last year, elections were cancelled due to a legal ruling that there was no way to hold legally valid elections prior to incorporation. In order for the SRC to be respected by the student body as their legitimate representatives, it is crucial that incorporation goes ahead.
Over the past few days, several SRC members attended EdCon, NUS’s national education conference.
The Short Version:
• Resignations leave two empty positions on the SRC, including one on the executive.
• Ability Officer Natalie Wade is elected to SRC executive
• General Secretary Rob Fletcher’s proposed standing orders are deferred to the next meeting.
• Robs most-used phrase: This is ridiculous
There is a fine line between student politics and student activism. The SRC, while it’s become known as ‘the political arm of the union’, is in fact the activist arm. However, no matter how united ideologically united a group of people are, it’s only a matter of time until an internal politics develops. The SRC meeting of the 7th of May made this vividly clear.
The meeting began with AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey (who is a non-voting member of the SRC) asking SRC President Paris Dean to contact those who have been repeatedly absent. No issues there.
Education Officer Sam Deere, Ability Officer Natalie Wade, and General Secretary Robert Fletcher report to the SRC on the various university committees and boards they have attended. Something interesting to come out of Academic Board was that the university is discussing the removal of specialist mathematics as a prerequisite for electrical engineering. This is intended to encourage women into engineering. Given that high-level maths is however a requirement for most engineering courses, this would necessitate holding a summer bridging course for those who haven’t completed specialist maths, in a similar vein to what is currently done for economics (except, economics doesn’t require anywhere near the same level of mathematical knowledge).
The agenda then moved onto resignations. Two resignations have been received. Therefore is currently no policy for filling these positions, so a motion outlining the procedure must be passed. This is left to a latter meeting to be drafted. These resignations however do leave a space on the SRC executive. Helen Chandwick (General Councillor) and Natalie Wade have both nominated. Helen is absent, so Rob (who’s acting as returning officer) doesn’t allow speeches. The vote goes to Natalie.
Welfare Officer Lauren Moulds then distributes a report about the student poverty actions recently completed. It came out in the discussion following this that the university would not allow the sleep-out to go on without a guard present, and a forty-page security assessment. SRC complied, but in the end the guard did not show up. Lauren was congratulated by Ashleigh Lustica (General Councillor). Paris then informs the SRC that he has received a phone call from Anglicare. They currently put out information sheets for financially disadvantaged groups on how to save money. After seeing the student poverty actions in local media, they have decided to compile one targeted at students.
As the SRC is a new body, much of its policy governing procedure has still to be written. Five days prior to this meeting, Rob Fletcher had sent out draft Standing Orders to the SRC. These Standing Orders are then put to the SRC, who have severe misgivings.
Firstly, an amendment is moved by Rob, seconded by Paris, to require indigenous recognition at the start of every SRC meeting. This is passed with no contention, in stark contrast to when the issue was raised at an AUU Board level (the benefits of appointment).
Issue number 1. With Officer Reports, Rob has written the orders to require submission 48 hours prior to the meeting. Lauren is worried that there is no provision for verbal reports, and no recognition that circumstances can change in 48 hours. Rob argues that giving council time to consider reports enables it to make better decisions. Furthermore, standing orders can be suspended in emergencies, but this should not be the norm. Issue resolved, somewhat. But there is more to come.
Issue number 2. General Councillor Hayden Tronnolone disagrees with the provision to go in-camera. He doesn’t think it’s a good idea for the SRC to have the ability to do so, no doubt fearing its abuse, and doesn’t think the SRC will have reason to.
Rob answers that it should not occur unless absolutely necessary. He points to the protections in the standing orders, such as having to declare what is to be discussed in the motion. He claims it will be necessary in the case of legal advice, employment issues, or individual harassment. Rob thinks there will be significant difficulties if the SRC has no capacity to go in-camera.
Lavinia then comments, saying the most likely case this will be used in is harassment. ‘There are some things are not appropriate to be discussed and minuted openly’, as they would leave the body open to defamation charges.
Rob reiterates: the SRC can only go in-camera on specific issues, not for the whole meeting. Hayden questions how often the SRC will deal with these types of issues.
General Councillor Eric Parsonage then puts a motion that the ability to move in-camera is suspended for the duration of this term, as ‘we weren’t elected, so we have no democratic mandate. We should be more directly accountable’. Rob disagrees. ‘That argument doesn’t hold up…harassment issues could come up in this term’.
Sam attempts reconciliation. ‘It doesn’t need to be considered in the context of a democratic mandate’. He says that the SRC won’t go in-camera on issues which affect the wider student body, and thinks in-camera provisions are important for internal transparency, as otherwise, things will be bought up behind closed doors with some councillors possibly being kept out of the loop. Sam points out that it has to be a very specific motion, which requires a 2/3 majority.
The discussion then takes a turn I didn’t expect when Natalie says she doesn’t want her portfolio to be diminished by her not being able to discuss sensitive issues relating to disabled students with the rest of the council. Jason Virgo (Queer Officer) adds that his portfolio could also require in-camera protection. Which is a broader interpretation of in-camera than normally allowed.
But moving on. Discussion being more or less exhausted on that aspect of the standing orders, a question is then raised regarding a clause which prevents a copy of in-camera minutes being disclosed to non-voting members (currently, this means the AUU President). Most councillors find it needlessly obscure. Hayden asks if individual councillors can divulge in-camera minutes. Paris answers: No. Hayden asks if council can take action against a member for doing so. Paris again answers in the negative, but points out that the councillor would have broken the law. Hmm, getting ideas Hayden? Soon Rob withdraws the clause (this is one he doesn’t seem to want to spend much time defending).
Most specific points of concern having been addressed, Paris invites general comments on the standing orders.
Lavinia is the first to speak. She begins by reminding everyone that the SRC is a democratic body. As such, the standing orders which govern its processes are important, as they are ‘essentially your ability to speak’. Although they were received five days before the meeting, she claims that no one was aware they were even being drafted. Most of the SRC has no experience with political organizations. As such, council should have been made aware of what was going on, and some consultation process should have been in place. As it is, ‘no consultation took place other than that between the general secretary (Rob) and the president (Paris)’.
Rob answers by stating once more that regulations only need to be sent out five days before a meeting. He also claims that he told Lavinia he planned to draft standing orders six months ago on the previous SRC (to cries of ‘but that wasn’t us!’). Rob thinks that if people had issues with the standing orders, they could have raised them before this meeting.
Ashleigh then makes her displeasure clear. ‘We were shoved aside. It’s not enough for Lavinia to know, we have to as well’.
Lauren Moulds doesn’t think the council has had enough time to consider. ‘I don’t study law, I have no idea what half of this is. It’s a powerful document, one we haven’t had the time to seriously consider’.
General Councilor Sarah Anderson agrees. She doesn’t want to pass the standing orders tonight.
Eric puts a motion that the adoption of the standing orders is deferred until the next meeting. To which Paris replies that it has to be a procedural motion. No procedural is put.
Rob speaks again. ‘I would like to make council aware that no one emailed me with questions about this. Not once was it raised with me in the past 5 days’.
Lavinia suggests that if council does defer, Rob can provide it with examples of the documents he drew inspiration from, as this would be ‘empowering to council’. Rob doesn’t look pleased. Lavinia continues on. ‘These regulations are being used to control debate’. She points out that many councillors are unaware of their rights with respect to standing orders, and that it isn’t fair to ask them to adopt them before everything is explained. Ashleigh concurs, saying that in future years, more explanation will be required for new councillors. She also says that Rob needed to invite consultation, as ‘we didn’t even know who to get in touch with’.
Rob is happy to explain whatever is necessary. ‘What I’ve proposed is very standard. I wouldn’t have thought this would be so controversial. You’ve had five days, and tonight, to have your concerns addressed’. Lauren and Sarah both respond by saying they needed more guidance as to who to approach.
Sam, again, tries to reconcile the different camps. He suggests a glossary of terms that need clarification at the start might make people more understanding of what they are reading. Rob is happy with the amendment.
Jason then speaks up in Rob’s defence. ‘Let’s not place blame here. This is fairly standard terminology…it’s not that hard to give Paris or Rob a call. Natalie makes the same point more forcefully. ‘Don’t be so pathetic as to say you didn’t know who to contact. While it would have been ideal for Rob to invite feedback, it’s obvious that you go to your president or whoever sent the email with questions’.
Hayden speaks. ‘I’m glad Rob drew these up, as I sure as hell wouldn’t have’. He thinks that if the issues have been talked out, the SRC should just vote. Sarah still thinks they need more time.
Natalie leaves. Council is down to it’s corium of 11 members.
Sarah has issues with the agenda being set by the General Secretary. She thinks it should be set by the executive or president, and just sent out by the secretary. Did I say Rob didn’t look happy before? Well, imagine his face now. ‘The standing orders proposed say that I have to consult with everyone on council. This is more democratic as opposed to less consultation with a smaller body, and more democratic than most standing order for similar institutions,’ he says. Sarah thinks the seat of power should be the executive or president, not the general secretary. Jason says this is common to most committees he has sat on. Rob says that seeing as the Gen Secs role is administration, and the agenda is administration, he doesn’t see what the problem is. ‘If I don’t put something that was requested on the agenda, make an issue out of it in the meeting’.
Lavinia wants the President to be in the clause. She fears that if the President and Gen Sec are from different factions in future years, the President would effectively be locked out of the agenda formation. Rob says that while the President isn’t specifically mentioned in the clause, it does say he has to consult with every member, which by definition includes the president. Lavinia says the President should nonetheless have a role in producing the agenda, as it gives him the ability to set the direction of the body.
Rob says that the executive can alter the order of the agenda, as can the meeting. ‘Withdrawn, I don’t care anymore’, says Lavinia.
Rob doesn’t let the issue go. ‘I completely disagree. My role is admin. This is admin. Furthermore, I have to consult with everyone. If you’re not happy with the order, you have the ability to reorder. This is ridiculous’.
Sam suggests defining the terms ‘responsibility’ and consultation’, as they imply the general secretary has more power than is actual.
Women’s Officer Mel Huddleston then comments that she feels Rob is getting unnecessarily defensive. ‘I think it needs to be clarified that we’re not targeting you Rob… You keep saying ‘me’, or ‘my’. It’s not about you, but the role of general secretary. It’s to avoid problems in the future.’
Rob says he doesn’t see what the issue is. Lavinia says the issue is that he knows the rules for getting around standing orders, and most councillors don’t. She would like to see everything explicitly written in the rules. Lauren puts a procedural to defer the vote on the motion. It’s passed by narrowly won.
Lavinia then suggests that, as an action item, Rob can send out his 3 favourite examples of standing orders. Rob flatly refuses. ‘NO! That’s ridiculous! This has taken multiple months... I’m not gonna send out my 3 favourites. I wouldn’t really even know which I’ve referenced,’ he says.
The meeting closes a few grants and minutes later.
Needless to say, many councillors remained uneasy about the adoption of standing orders, despite, in my opinion, Rob having given decent defences for many of the concerning aspects. Paris seems to take his role as an impartial chair rather seriously. He hardly said anything apart from clarifying legal points. By far the most ironic thing I found about this whole debacle is that the SRC still doesn’t actually exist. Tweaking the constitution has now taken close to six months.
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 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)
The Big Issues of '09 (that we can see from this end)
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.
Editorial: On Constitutions and Alliances
What follows is an extremely critical account of the AUU Board. Given that fact, consider it an editorial, and treat it with a grain of salt.
The Board Committee Meeting of the 13th of November took place right in the middle of the exam period. Nonetheless, thirteen of the eighteen elected board members were present. Missing were all of Passion (international students faction), and the Liberals, being Sonja Jankovic and recently-elected Board VP John Bowers (studying? An apology would have been nice).
Opening business concerned the financial member numbers. Membership is to stay at $20 next year, with a target of 3000 members. Mark Joyce raised his concerns as to whether students would join in Semester 1, knowing that by Semester 2 they would be forced to pay for student services anyway (See Money Money Money). Not a bad question, but naturally, one scoffed at by Board President Lavinia Emmett-Grey and AUU General Manager David Coluccio. Truly, when will Mark learn that he’s not welcome on Board? He should just stop coming, after all, the Internationals and Liberals certainly got the message. Democratically elected, like that matters for anything.
But enough fooling around. The purpose of the meeting was to approve the new SRC constitution. Complaints about the language and content had been forwarded to Paris Dean (current SRC President, Activate), who worked systematically through the objections. Most of them were thoroughly boring, and I won’t abuse your patience by going into detail here, see the Board minutes if you care (when they’re eventually released, they’ll be here)
There were only three objections I can struggle to make of interest for the general reader. One concerned the rural officer. Many of the officer positions on SRC (Queer officer, Women’s Officer etc) are filled by one who ‘identifies’ as a member of that minority, as evidenced by a statutory declaration. A guy running for women’s officer would have to sign a piece of paper saying he identifies as a women. This tends to discourage those who would run for shits and giggles. However, a spirited discussion arose when discussing how to limit who can run for ‘rural’ officer. Oh yes, Board can’t decide on who is a women, or who is disabled, that would be discriminatory. But arbitrarily limit the rural position to those who have lived in the country for however months in the past three years, that Board can certainly do. I don’t care about the rural officer position, and I doubt you do either. However, the hypocrisy of Board amused me.
The next issue of contention was that of whether the SRC should be able to pay honoraria. All agreed that the financial situation of the SRC right now ruled this out, but many of those in the factions wanted to leave the option open for future years. Yasmin Freschi (Independent) was strongly opposed to this, feeling that the SRC should be run on a strictly volunteer basis. I haven’t spoken to her about this, but no doubt she feared a return to the days when people ran for the SAUA merely because it was a cushy job.
The final, and biggest, disagreement in Board concerned whether the SRC Constitution should explicitly recognize the native Aboriginal tribe who existed on the land before the University. Aaron Fromm (Independent) led the charge on this, arguing that this was a polarizing issue, and as such, native title should be recognized as a policy of the SRC, as opposed to being prominently displayed in the Constitution. He claimed that the SRC should be representative of student views, and not the political leanings of those who held the majority on Board. Lavinia responded by saying that recognizing the Aboriginal ‘owners’ was standard procedure, and would single the AUU out if it failed to include it in its constitutions. Furthermore, she said this was an issue that the Vice Chancellor was very passionate about, and that this was further reason why it must be included. She disputed Aaron's statement that it was a polarizing issue, saying that most Australians had no problem with it. Also, she said it would be ‘racist’ not to include it. Not that she was calling Aaron a racist, but, well, moving on. A caricatured discussion on the issue followed. Mark Joyce asked how singling out one group was an advancement of ‘equality’. Rhiannon Newman (Activate/Labor Left) responded to this by explaining positive discrimination. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Left consider Mark stupid. He hasn’t shown signs of it getting to him, yet. But back to the Aboriginals. This issue was so poker hot that they left it to the end. When they got back to it, Paris Dean (Activate) suggested that agreement would not be forthcoming, so they went straight to a vote. The motion to give Aboriginal recognition was passed, with Yasmin, Mark and and Aaron asking to have their dissent noted.
In the closing issues, Lavinia dropped a bomb on the Board. She claimed that NUS wanted a list of the chosen delegates to represent Adelaide Uni by tomorrow, and that as such, it had to be decided now. This was the responsibility of Board, as elections had been cancelled due to legal irregularities earlier in the year (see No Elections?!). Lavinia produced a list of six names (Robert Fletcher, Fletcher O’Leary, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Simone McDonnell, Andrew Anson and Daniel Bills). Paris at this point reminded those gathered that this was not a vote on whether or not the Union would seek NUS affiliation, that being dependent on costs which NUS had yet to release. Gobsmacked, the independents on Board watched as Pulse and Activate voted for the list. And is it any surprise that the two ‘rival’ factions were in perfect agreement, having received three delegates apiece? Of those ‘voted’ (I’ll call it democratic when those who had a personal interest abstain from the vote) on a free holiday, Fletcher O’Leary and Daniel Bills had not even expressed an interest in being NUS delegates prior to the election being cancelled. Calling the whole thing dodgy is an understatement. In a stroke, Lavinia and her Activate friends, as well as the Pulse faction, have shown that despite being largely fresh-faced, they are still capable of following in their factional-hack predecessors footsteps. Ironic, this time last year David Wilkins was in a lot of trouble for such behavior. Not being accountable with Board was what got him sacked. If a just standard were applied, Lavinia would be in hot water now. No doubt she let those in her faction know what had happened, and it is highly possible that the NUS deadline sprung on her just like she said it did. The fault lies in the list presented. It represented those who, by banding together, held the balance of power, not those who were elected. But as long as noone's watching, why not?
Oh, and this is as much the absentee's fault as it is the factionalists by the way. If everyone elected even bothered just to show up, such stunts would never suceed.
Major apologies for the bad writing and potential inaccuracy of my article. I wrote it on my plane to Melbourne, and I'm giving up valuable sleep to post it as a placeholder until I can deliver something more detailed (probably Wednesday or Thursday or so). If you have questions, comments or problems with some of my facts, PLEASE let me know in the comments!
Have you noticed an unusual amount of anger and frustration emanating from student politicians this week just gone? If so, it's probably because the elections for the Student Representative Council, National Union of Students delegates and Student Media – everything except AUU Board – have been cancelled.
Back in the Union’s ancient history, pre-VSU that is, there was the Student Association of Adelaide Uni (the SAUA). They were basically the same body as the SRC is aiming to be when it grows up; although I expect everyone involved is hoping that the SRC will be more functional. The SAUA was where all the technical allowances for elections sat, so when the SAUA was disbanded, all elections other than those for AUU Board became invalid. Last year the people running the AUU were ignorant – wilfully or otherwise – of this, so the elections went ahead. However, this year a complaint was lodged by David Wilkins, ex-President and policy leader for the Pulse (Labor Right) faction.
This complaint revolved around the way that the SRC was brought into being. To create a committee like the SRC, a rule must be passed twice at separate sittings through the AUU Board and then once through University Council. The rule to create the SRC went through Board in September ’07 and April ’08, but it never cleared the final hurdle: University Council. In what Lavinia Emmett-Gray, AUU President, described as ‘a bullying tactic’, UC refused any such rule unless it was accompanied by complete constitutional reform which the Board did not have – or make – time for. This left the election in a tenuous position which was revealed fully when David lodged a complaint about their illegality.
As an attempt to plaster over these problems so that the elections could go ahead almost as planned, Lavinia put forth a piece of policy that would separate the two elections. The idea was to run them with different returning officers and slightly different rules, but still side by side. In response, David lodged another complaint on the basis that only positions specified in the constitution or rules can be elected. The election tribunal ruled in David’s favour. As a result, the SRC, NUS and Student Media positions for the coming year can only be filled by appointment.
In essence, this is an ideological dispute. On one hand, Lavinia and her friends in Labor Left believe that these positions should be elected, even if that requires creative interpretation of the rules. They see election as the only way to fairly fill the positions. Conversely, Pulse believes that the people who fill these roles deserve to be there legitimately, even if that means that they have to be appointed by Board this year.
Of course, there’s also plenty of personal politics that’s had a hand in this situation. I’ll try to explain that well in my more thorough coverage, but you can probably guess most of how it went.
SRC President, Returning Officer #2 and Transparency
The Board meeting on August 7th saw yet another election take place (could this be a record for a single year of Board?). After Ellen Ketteridge’s resignation, the position of Student Representation Council President was wide open and letting in the breeze. David Wilkins and Paris Dean were both nominated for the position. Unsurprisingly, Paris – who has done substantial work with the SRC this year and made his intentions to run for their President next year very clear – is now SRC President.
The general SRC elections were also very topical during that meeting. As a result of the current election rules, the elections for everything but the AUU Board (that is, SRC reps, National Union of Students reps, Student Radio Directors and the On Dit editors) will be held separately from the Board elections. While this won’t affect the election process much for most students (there will be two boxes for the ballot papers and the like, but nothing major), it means that there will need to be two returning officers to oversee the election. The AUU has been (amazingly, unexpectedly and belatedly) fortunate in securing the services of a former AEC employee to oversee the Board election, but this left the SRC and other elections bereft of an R.O. Lavinia proposed to the Board that they pass a motion to instate James Moffatt, a Music student at Adelaide Uni (and a friend of mine), as the R.O. A couple of Board directors protested on the basis that it was unlikely that James would have the time, the understanding or the confidence to execute the role properly. Despite this, the desperate need for a returning officer to ensure an operating SRC and membership for the NUS led to James being appointed to the position with a small majority of votes.
A more ongoing issue that was raised is the level of transparency within the AUU. Directors are meant to keep quiet on all the important upcoming issues. This is to keep them free of outside influence and capable of making decisions in the Board’s best interests. For a start, in the context of the AUU Board this seems a little naïve – most of the people seeking to affect Directors’ votes to suit another (factional) agenda are already on the Board and have full access to all that information. Members of the Board from all the factions made their issues with this idea quite clear, pointing out that students can only get information about what’s happening in the AUU through a 2-4 week out of date column that only covers issues that have already been discussed at Board. It was suggested that if students actually care, they would come to the Board meetings and get involved, but this was argued down on the basis that most students would have to put ridiculous amounts of time just finding out when and where the meetings would be. Even then, only Board members know what’s on the agenda before the meeting starts. In essence, this leads to a system where plenty of people know what’s going on – all the people who are already cosy with our student politicians. It’s still difficult for anyone who’s not already involved with student politics to find out anything about what’s really going on.
The Funding Agreement and an Array of Acronyms
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.
The OSA, the SRC and any other business
The meeting on April 10 was certainly a lot livelier than most meetings, largely due to Dilan Moragolle, Board Member and President of the Overseas Students’ Association (OSA). Dilan appears to be concerned that the SRC’s International Officer will take over all advocacy for international students (seeing as that’s their job), making the OSA redundant as an advocacy body.
To give some background, the Student Representative Council (SRC) has been formed to replace the old Students’ Association. The SRC will have 9 representative officers:
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Officer
- The Educational Officer
- The Environmental Officer
- The International Officer
- The Postgraduate Officer
- The Queer Officer
- The Satellite Campus Officer
- The Welfare Officer
- The Women’s Officer
The Environmental Officer, the Education Officer and the Welfare Officer can be any student who is willing to join the Union; the other officers must be members of the group that they represent (That is, the Women’s Officer must identify as a woman, the Postgraduate Officer must be studying at a postgrad level, etc).
Taking this into account, Dilan’s concerns about the OSA’s continued validity seem fair enough. What confuses me is that Dilan appears to see this as an attempt to ruthlessly destroy the OSA, rather than a way of ensuring dedicated advocacy for overseas students (something that the OSA appears not to be committed to providing this year, as is covered below). To prevent this from happening, he put forward a motion that the International Students Officer would have to be chosen from the OSA’s executive committee, rather than by general election as all SRC reps will be from 2009 onwards.
As I see it, the OSA has functions besides advocacy, including a socialisation aspect in introducing international students to Australia, making the OSA necessary as an affiliate. In fact, Simone McDonnell told the Board that Dilan had said that the OSA would not be budgeting for advocacy at all this year, preferring to run events for international students instead. So in essence the OSA will continue on doing exactly what it is doing, while the SRC would take over advocacy (…next year, probably. This year appears to be primarily devoted to house keeping). The fact that this concern about advocacy has only surfaced now that it threatens Dilan’s authority has also led to suggestions that Dilan is actually worried about his power far more than the actual provision of advocacy.
At times, Dilan appears to simply be erratic, the best example being that he voted against his own motion in the end, leaving Ellen Ketteridge’s sympathy vote the only one in favour of the motion (Paris Dean, Justin Kentish and Matthew Taylor abstained from the vote). Dilan also seemed to have difficulty communicating with the rest of the board, and frequently resorted to yelling at anyone who disagreed with them, or accusing them of lying.
Possibly as a result of Dilan’s vocal approach to the evening, Lavinia was very strict with the standing orders…most of the time. Dilan was forced to observe the limits on the number of times a director could speak and the duration of speeches, as were most of the other Board members. Rhiannon Newman, on the other hand, appeared to be a law unto herself, and interrupted whenever she felt like it, for as long as she wanted to without the Chair doing anything about it. If Lavinia is going to enforce these rules properly (which I hope she does – it was nice to get through business at a decent pace), she ought to apply them to everyone, including friends.
The other major piece of business that was passed at the meeting was the so-called ‘Barratt Clause’, which made it so that the President can claim their honoraria in fortnightly instalments after they have served that fortnight, or in a lump sum at the end of their term. This makes it much harder for any president to take their honoraria without earning it from now on.