Adelaide Student Politics

Posted 27th April

All schools (subdivisions within a faculty, e.g., the School of Law exists within the Faculty of Professions) at the University of Adelaide are loosely required to have an undergraduate and postgraduate student representative. The actual duties of the student representatives differ greatly from school to school, faculty to faculty, but the term broadly means what it suggests, and usually involves sitting on some sort of committee with the aim of providing a student perspective to other voting members.

I’m a third year International Studies student. This puts me in the School of History and Politics (what a mouthful. Let’s call it H&P). In the time I’ve been at Adelaide, I have not heard anything about student representation in this manner for this school. The school in charge of the other half of my degree has had a student rep for half the time I’ve been there. What can I say; no one really bothers with these things, the position not meaning much anyway. This year, however, H&P decided it would be a good idea to solicit nominations for a student representative.

The first email sent out (on April 1st) called for expressions of interest, saying this wouldn’t be a time-consuming role, requiring at most attendance at three meetings over the course of the year. Two days later, there now appears a need to call a ballot, due to an ‘overwhelming response’. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where the fun begins.

23 students have nominated. For one position. You can guess what that means. Attached to the email with the candidate list is the nomination form. It references the SAUA. I’m sure no one but a freak like me who finds this all morbidly fascinating even knows what that is anymore (I would link the wiki, but, well, there's an explanation at the start of this). Fail H&P, fail.

But anyway, that was the most I heard about it for a while. I knew three of the names on the list, and figured I’d simply weigh up which one I thought was the clueyest and vote for them. I imagine most third years would know at least one name on the list; it’s not that big a school.

However, in the absence of stringent AUU-like election regulations, it did not take long for the university mailing lists to be accessed. Remember guys, these isn’t no message boards or candidate statements, but actual emails that were sent out to everyone in H&P. I’m quite surprised some people weren’t able to see how that would backfire. But anyway.

The first message, that hasn’t been lost in my inbox, came on the 24th of April, from K.R. I quote:

“I've got lots of ideas and want to get better, services, but first and foremost i want to alter the tutorial system to get a, better deal for students and tutors and “cut down student workload””.

Oh god. It’s a fairly ambitious platform for a three-meeting-a-year position. To K’s credit, she also tries for a bit of market research, asking students a series of questions about how they see their workload. She might find this useful.

W.W., who isn’t running, nonetheless takes the time to reply to K. He tells her that without reading, how on earth one expects to gain the level of knowledge needed to justify a degree in history or politics.

“Tertiary education is a privilege, not a right. The end result of a University education should be a well rounded, educated self, not a piece of paper and, considering how much money you're sinking into it, you should try and make the absolute most of the education you're getting a chance at attaining. If you're only here for the piece of paper, I'd say leave Uni and go work. It's cheaper, quicker and (contrary to popular opinion) wholly possible.”

H.M. (also, not running) then responds. She’s very nice, nicer than I would have been. She agrees with W.W., and says that K.R. should drop this ‘less workload’ nonsense and focus on promoting services available to assist students instead.

The last word (in this thread at least) goes to B.S.

“[This is] highly fucking annoying. So attention to further participants in this debate: If you want to talk to [K], make sure your reply is addressed only to her and not to everyone. If you just hit reply there's a chance you will get everyone's address and I will have to start signing up your and Katy's addresses for random spam.”

Bravo! Although, it kind of spoiled my fun.

Alright, new email thread. This one is started by another candidate, C.R. He talks about the (almost universally despised) unit course weightings changes in the school. He doesn’t exactly say he’s going to change them back, just, ‘address’ them. So, I can’t say he’s stupid enough to think he can derail a university course rationalization policy that’s been in the works for a few years. He says he’s happy to run on a populist ‘free pancake day’ every week. I’m puzzled. He’s clearly not stupid; he just doesn’t give any serious reasons to vote for him. Apart from all the other candidates being communists apparently (in H&P, that could count in their favour).

A friend puts her name out there in support of C.R, finishing with the ominous “I think anyone would be wise to vote for him.”

Another candidate then puts her name in the mix. R.P. ‘isn’t a political animal’….

She just…cares. She doesn’t really say I should vote for her, just for someone good. I really don’t understand why anyone would send out an email unless they actually think they can convince people through it. I mean, you send out an email, you instantly repel, what, a lot of people (so wanted to make up a statistic there). So, unless you offer solid reasons, it’s lose-lose.

Last thread.

J.D. She sounds like she’s running for VC. She wants to serve two ‘primary aims’:

1) To bridge the gap between H&P and the ‘real world’, through talking to employers etc.
2) To lift the profile of H&P (“Lets make our degrees nationally prestigious, internationally renown”).

Oh boy. This is too much. W.C. responds with “I will vote for whoever stops emailing me first”. He sends it out three times. Nice touch there.

A.M. agrees. Not enough to take his own advice though.

P.B. then sends out the only intentionally hilarious email I received today. He sets out the terms for his vote. Basically, you either have to make him laugh, or pay him. This applies retroactively: all candidates who have previously sent out unfunny messages are barred from his vote.

And that, my friends, is what has been entertaining me all day. Several points to take away from it are:

1) Never, ever, underestimate the stupidity of the people you go to uni with.
2) H&P: The SAUA died ages ago. Furthermore, did you really not expect an election? History and Politics students are rarely the shy reserved type.
3) And finally, it’s a self-regulating system! You don’t need election regulations like prohibitions on what mailing lists can and can’t be used, the voters take matters into their own hands. Apply this valuable insight as broadly, liberally, and, most importantly, recklessly as your heart desires. For that is the way of freedom.

*Ballots opened today. Go vote. Or, stay where you are and watch this and this*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eighteen students, divided into three distinct factions. Give them the opportunity to vote from among their number a leader, an underling, and various other positions, and it's no surprise that the outcome can easily be guessed long before the vote.

But every now and then, someone breaks the rules. They don't vote as expected. Actually, they not only fail to vote as expected, they vote in direct contradiction of their pre-election promises to their teammates (allegedly). Their faction gets upset at them. Who'd have guessed. Knives are sharpened, friendships are broken, insults are traded ('kingmaker for the liberal party' being one of my favourites. I mean, on a University campus, ouch!).

What could prompt a member of the left-wing of student politics to vote for a Liberal party member, who ran for a position needing financial acumen by referring to their experience in the Army Reserves? Ran against a finance student with demonstrated experience in the stock market (still off the mark when it comes to dealing with planning the Unions finances, but getting warmer nonetheless).

International students on Union board something of an unknown entity. And the fact that Fei Tang was one cannot be ignored in assessing his fate. The Internationals rarely show much enthusiasm for the whole process (see 'Attendence Issues' (July 08) for their attendence record), or much of a political interest. It probably doesn't help that they tend to have made their mark in the Chinese students association, a body which rarely mixes with non-Chinese university students, or even other clubs. To put it simply, they're not candidates one likes to see on Board, as they seem to have no constituent apart from other Chinese students. It's sometimes hard to see them as anything other than resume-boosters at their most blatant.

But quietly. Such doubts cannot be easily voiced, especially by other members of the Board. Activate and Indy-Go (i.e. the 'Left') have shown themselves willing to strike deals with the International faction (they got there first I suppose). Such a deal may safely be assumed to have been made in exchange for Lavinia's presidency. President in exchange for Vice-President.

The candidate put up by the Left and Passion wasn't fluent in English, did not convincingly answer their questions, and appeared to have plans to leave halfway through his term. John Bowers looked like Christ in comparison. With such a new Board (only three returning members), it is entirely conceivable that someone would have felt the pangs of conscience, and decided not to vote for the weak candidate they had been instructed to vote for. Loyalty to students put above loyalty to party and ideology perhaps? The Left should have seen it coming really.

The best laid plans often go to waste. Lavinia was by far the most experienced candidate for President. Despite an impressive, policy-focused speech by Mark Joyce (and an equally impressive response to some questions posed to him), he remains too much of a new face for this observer to have much opinion on him. His performance in the first Board meeting was unexpectedly competant, but it would have been a risky choice for the AUU had he been elected President.

As to the VP choice, well, factions in disarray over the decision led to what I believe to be the best outcome. Bowers may not fill me with feelings of security, at least he doesn't fill me with feelings of fear. And who better to counterbalance 'the Left' that is the current AUU Board than a Liberal Vice President.