tip off

UQ student leaders condemn “Fresh” union as administration swoops

Prominent student leaders at the University of Queensland have backed an inquiry to uncover alleged skulduggery during this week’s union elections as the UQ administration holds talks to probe the saga threatening to blot its St Lucia campus with the stench of corruption.

An open letter uploaded to the web over the weekend and signed by 25 student leaders from groups across the campus political spectrum, condemns the ruling “Fresh” group for changing party registration rules and then secretly reserving the name of their main progressive rival, Pulse.

The impending UQU election has seen claims and counterclaims of electioneering, attempted voter fraud and misconduct,” the signatories write. “The spread of false information (including on leaflets from unidentified sources), and the allegations regarding the actions of current office bearers, makes a mockery of the approximately 45,000 students that the union represents.”

Last Thursday, the UQ Electoral Tribunal found current Fresh office bearers were not in breach of the rules — however, a former tribunal member, Graeme Orr, has since broken ranks to say that the panel was hamstrung by its limited frame of reference that prohibited an assessment over whether the changes were just.

The letter slams the union’s record keeping as inadequate and says minutes and financial statements — and the controversial changes to the regs — have been opaque and limited in their distribution. The minutes of the August 10 meeting authorising the new rules are yet to be released.

University officials are today meeting with senior UQU office bearers to conduct their own investigation into the fracas, which opposition groups have slammed as an affront to democracy.

Crikey has obtained several leaked invoices that shows thousands of dollars spending on “Fresh” — branded merchandise, including balloons and pens, were billed to the union.

Fresh presidential candidate (and current vice-president) Rohan Watt — whose name appears on the invoices — declined to comment this morning, but Fresh president Colin Finke said Watt had reimbursed the union for the purchases out of his own pocket. Under federal law, student unions are banned from using student money to pay for political expenditure.

The UQ Union constitution also specifically rules out expenditure “on any political party or religious organisation. The assets and income of the union shall be applied exclusively to the promotion of its objects,” the rules say, which rules out party-political and re-election expenditure.

The letter claims the source of specific election expenditure remains murky and unexplained.

There is currently no information publicly available as to how parties running in the student elections pay for their campaign materials. A number of anonymous and often defamatory pamphlets and leaflets have been distributed. Students have a right to know whether or not this is paid for with university money, or money earned from leasing university property,” it reads.

Voting is being held this week — if the university doesn’t call a halt to proceedings first.

6
  • 1
    Rebecca
    Posted Monday, 27 August 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article! What a complete and utter farce. University’s response so far is incredibly weak.

  • 2
    sottile6
    Posted Monday, 27 August 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Crikey for exposing this corruption. Finally the facts start to emerge!

  • 3
    Jim McDonald
    Posted Monday, 27 August 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    LNP dirty tricks neophytes in training….

  • 4
    John Bennetts
    Posted Monday, 27 August 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    This is as much about UQ as it is about UQU.

    In my time in student politics, long ago and in another state, I never saw anything quite so blatant, despite elections being intense and dirty. Nice work, Crikey - the university had a chance to respond to your earlier articles, yet they seem to have sat on their hands. This story has a long way to run.

    The University of Queensland now has little alternative but to appoint an administrator, audit the actions of the outgoing management and then call a new election. Each of these is much more draconian and more expensive than would have been the case if the university’s initial response had been effective.

  • 5
    Tim
    Posted Tuesday, 28 August 2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Check out the “Candidates Policy Statements” booklet posted on the union website: http://www.uqu.com.au/filelib/2012_UQU_Elections_Policy_Booklet.pdf

    Apparently the UQU has become a single party stalinist state… And they have the temerity to claim that they don’t waste union money…

    We aren’t interested in spending money on radical or fringe political issues or otherwise push union funds towards useless political stunts. I do not believe that UQ Union can accurately represent the political views of an entire campus, and I fear that our opposition will suck this union dry as a means to advance their own political careers if given half the chance. ” (Rohan Watt’s statement).

  • 6
    Posted Tuesday, 28 August 2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    It is ironic that conservative student union politicians seem to be engaged in precisely the activities that conservative grown up politicians sought to ban in their voluntary student union legislation. Curiously, I haven’t read reports of any outrage by those old student politics warriors Abbott and Costello.

    The University of Queensland responded very slowly and inadequately to claims of nepotism in selecting a pre-med students last year. Unfortunately the university seems to have learned nothing, even with a new vc and dvc.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...