Adelaide Student Politics

Despite recent events, it would be foolish to dismiss the political ability of the Labor Right faction.

The right-wing faction of the Labor Party (which runs on its own ticket and is largely hostile to the left-wing Activate ticket) faced an electoral wipeout in the past Union Board elections. All its experienced Union Board directors who were running for reelection, David Wilkins, Simone McDonnell and Claire Wong, lost their seats, to be replaced by PULSE newcomers Andrew Anson, Daniel Bills and Ben Foxwell. Of these, only Andrew Anson appears to be a committed factionalist. All three lack experience, and in the short term are unlikely to provide a counter to the confident voices of Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Rhiannon Newman and Paris Dean.

In such a situation, it is not surprising that the faction sought to regroup. Two months after the election, it came to the attention of the Clubs Association Executive that certain high-profile members of the Labor Right were seeking to affiliate a new club, known as the Bob Hawke Appreciation Society. All new clubs must be approved by Clubs Council in order to gain affiliation.

Clubs Council meetings are usually something of a bore. The biggest challenge is usually to get a quorium of twenty club delegates, after which the group rubber-stamps whatever the executive puts in front of it. Not so the council meeting of Thursday, October 30th, which was a saga worthy of the AUU Board.

The Hawke Club’s president, the afore-mentioned AUU-Board Director Andrew Anson, gave a speech glossing over the life of Hawk, claiming that the club existed in order to honor his memory, as well as promoting ‘politics in an environment free of political wrangling’. He pointed out the Whitlam Institute in Sydney as an example of what the club aspired to.

Matt Taylor, the recently returned Clubs Association President, then opened the floor to questions, unleashing the torrent of critique.

It didn’t take long for Rhiannon Newman (AUU Board Member, Labor Club Secretary, and member of the Labor Left) to ask Andrew if this was simply a cover for another Labor Club. She also expressed theatrical disappointment that Andrew would wish to give Labor twice the representation on the Clubs Council.

Nick Grealy, the President of the Labor Club, restated Rhiannon’s objections in a more systematic manner. He claimed it was a duplicate club, that it raised issues of equality through putting multiple ‘labor voices’ on Council, and that although there had been precedent’s set in other Universities, those decisions had not proved wise. Andrew claimed in response that he wasn’t aware of any difficulties between the Whitlam Institute and the Sydney Labor Club, to which the Labor Left produced a letter from the President of the Sydney Labor Club claiming the opposite.

The letter, by Sydney University Labor Club President Rosemary Ryan, outlined concerns similar to those voiced at the meeting, additionally raising the confusion felt by many new students at choosing between the two clubs, leading to a ‘potentially hostile environment in which they compete for membership and profile’. She urged the council to ‘consider these factors’ in making its decision. Andrew tried to answer the concerns raised by Nick and Rhiannon. Dodgy note-taking on my part means I cannot recall his exact rebuttal, nonetheless, the most significant thing to remember regarding it is that it did little to convince the majority of those present.

Jake Wishart, Board member and (disgraced?) Indy-Go faction member, and President of the Greens on Campus, then took the floor. He asked Andrew ‘Do you take yourself seriously?!?’ He then said that the Hawke club had not approached the other clubs in good faith, and that if it wishes to reform itself, the Greens would be happy to support its affiliation in the future (Jake failed to specify exactly how the Hawk society could redeem itself).

James Gould (Debating delegate) asked why the Hawke Club was not able to celebrate the memory of Bob Hawke within the Labor Club, to which Andrew (by now somewhat flustered) replied: ‘We’re doing it through the Hawke Club’. In a more light-hearted question, Alan Carey (Computer Science Club delegate) put forward that ‘You said this club would be free from political ideology. How will you enforce this freedom?’ Andrew answered that this was doable by taking steps to prevent discrimination according to political beliefs within the Hawke Club.

At this point, David Wilkins (former AUU Board President, Labor Right), looking upset at the turn of mood against a club which was expected to secure affiliation, pointed out that many clubs are about debate and discussion, and that previous possible clashes of objectives had never stopped clubs being affiliated before.

A few more questions followed, after which a vote was taken. Five voted to affiliate the Hawke society (myself included), all others voted against.

After moving on to Other Business, Daniel O’Brien tendered his resignation as Clubs Treasurer in protest over the controversial decision, claiming the council had been swayed by ‘emotional displays’ against the Club rather than solid arguments. ‘I cannot be part of an institution whose values I fundamentally disagree with’. He said that it was not the constitutionally defined role of the Clubs Association to pick which Clubs it deemed worthy of existence, and in the absence of demonstrated wrongdoing, it was not right to refuse a club affiliation. His argument, in essence, while emphasizing what a ‘stupid idea’ he thought the club was, centered on the fact that all concerns raised where hypothetical, and it was impossible to discern how the Hawke Club would indeed operate until it had been given a chance. Take them at their word, and punish them legally if they falter.

As he left the hall, Matt Taylor took this as a cue to pose that the Hawke Society could receive an associate provisional association if council so chose. Many of those who had turned up to Council merely to ensure the Hawke Club did not receive affiliation had left at this point. Daniel’s dramatic resignation, coupled with the departure of many of the Labor Left voices in the hall, led the Club to receive provisional associate affiliation, with five voting against. Associate affiliation treats the Hawke Society as an outside body, and not as a student club. This affects its ability to use Clubs space, and the costs associated with participation in events such as O-Week.

Not all those who voted in the Clubs Council were political hacks. A large body of delegates present were representatives from unaffiliated clubs, unfamiliar with the constitution and looking to do the right thing free from political maneuverings. The arguments put forward by the Hawke Club in its defense did not persuade, while the Labor Club had systematic, persistently voiced concerns that were not adequately rebutted. For this reason, the Hawke Club was denied affiliation. The concerns raised by Daniel O’Brien were largely not shared by the majority of Clubs delegates. Very little of the discussion revolved around the constitutionality of denying affiliation, instead being centered on whether or not the motives of the Hawke Society were pure. Being a decidedly non-political body, it was clear that many delegates resented the mechanisms available to Clubs being used for political advantage, and sought to punish this one way or another.

Realistically speaking, the associate affiliation does little to stop the Hawke Society operating on campus. Any group is able to raise money, host events and rally membership without Clubs Association approval. In fact, given that the largest punishment the Clubs Association may pass down is disaffiliation, a lack of affiliation in the first place gives the Hawke Society an uncommon amount of freedom on campus. It will likely claim political thugs prevented its affiliation, and will continue on much as it would have if its entrance into the Clubs community had been smooth. The moral ostracizing was, like so many things that go on in student politics, largely devoid of long-term significance. Next year will show the fortunes of the Hawke Club in its unaided operation. This observer wouldn’t be surprised if the most widely attended Clubs Council in months had little real effect.

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.