As a current postgraduate social work student I was going to add my perspective about the ‘voting’ of students. It seemed to me to be very inconsistent with the profession’s ethical guidelines to restrict students from voting because many face significant social and economic barriers that may mean they won’t succeed in getting qualified. Surely we have an ethical obligation to welcome and include such people? Wouldn’t their perspectives be invaluable insuring that the AASW remains relevant and not a top down patronising organisation? Irrespective of their academic achievements these people have real life experience that should be heard to ensure the AASW remains inclusive.

Also as a student I have donated significant amounts of time and effort to benefit the AASW, setting up and doing work that made AASW events possible. Student members of the AASW really want the organisation to be successful. I sincerely doubt that ‘students’ as group would use their voting power to nefarious ends.

I understand that there has been concern among some students that it is very difficult to undertake the placement blocks if one has to work to support one’s self while studying, or if one has children or other dependents. There have been calls to make the placement more flexible. I would hate to think that our representative organisation would be attempting to make the problem ‘go away’ rather than finding ways to assist people to negotiate a situation that is largely created by larger socio-economic forces.

The background information is not totally accurate and creates a misleading stage for the changes. The AASW was set up principally to advance the profession, protect its members, set standards for education and practice and stand for the principles and values of the profession to the wider community. It was in its early life a federally registered Trade Union with a federated structure of a Federal Executive Council of all Branches and a Federal Executive for day to day management. The union registration was surrendered as a result of a plebiscite which led to the formation of the AASW and the Australian Social Welfare Union. Prior to its registration as a company it is not true to say that it was an unincorporated association, The Western Australian (WA) and South Australian (SA) Branches were both incorporated under there respective State laws ( it was a federation of Branches). When it was decided to become a national legal entity with a move to the ACT (which was not self governed at the time) it was refused registration as an incorporated body under the ACT ordinance and was left with the only option to become a legal entity via the company ordinance of the ACT. In doing so it there had to register separately in all jurisdictions as “foreign” company which required the disincorporation of WA and SA. This new arrangement was done on the clear understanding that Branches would retain their autonomy and authority over their functions and assets. This of course was eroded with an increased trend to reduce Branch involvement (originally each Branch provided a Director with a Nationally elected Executive). The single entity was all the go and a reduced Board all of whom were elected by the membership. The removal of capitation to Branches will complete this with Branches simply being agents of the centre with no real direct power. This was all contributed to by the decision of all State governments agreeing to a uniform company law at the federal level. Governance then became the focus which effectively meant compliance to rules external to the AASW such as the Companies Act etc. Membership, the essential reason for the AASW continued to take a back seat to corporate requirement.

Some comment on the content.

1. In a multi cultural environment the objects should not only focus on advancing ATSI social work, it needs to see social work in its broadest sense. The objectives as proposed have weakened rather than strengthened the raison d’être.
2. I was unaware that students had voting rights, certainly not during the time of my involvement.
3. With a minimum of 5 Directors, 2 of whom are non elected, gives too much authority to too few and could easily lead to poor decision making or at worst leave the way open to corruption. A quorum can be as low as 3.
4. Why restrict appointed Directors to “one of whom may be ATSI descent. These 2 positions need to go to cover deficits in the Board and should be open to the best available, not bound by ethnicity.
5. The election of the President by the Membership is part of the tradition of the AASW. If annual election to this position occurs it should be retitled Chair and Deputy Chair. Usual practice doesn’t make it the best option, tradition is important. Also, annually doesn’t aid continuity.
6. Interesting that with the current situation there doesn’t appear to be too much corporate knowledge retained.
7. Suggestions re Branches and the college effectively takes them out of the decision making frame and leaves them totally at the mercy of the Board, certainly not in accordance with the undertaking made when the AASSW became a company ( so much for the retention of corporate knowledge).
8. 6.2 makes it clear that Branches have lost any autonomy or opportunity to develop, a sad day.
9. 7,2 And if there are 5 Directors a quorum is 10.
10. Technical requirements in relation to the law need to be clearly separated out from the other changes, they have little option to be ignored.

Democracy? A joke. It was mortally weakened when optional preferential voting was abolished, and now we are expected to trust non social worker so-called experts with our membership association? We’re expected to trust an oligarchy of elected and non-elected directors to select from amongst themselves our national president?

Branch Presidents need to speak up and oppose this measure which will be the nail in the coffin of any real place for them. The Australian College of Social Workers ought to be smart enough to see that being dependent on the grace and favour of a handful of directors who will be even less accountable than they are now.

It seems this year’s election will be a battle between the regime and those of us who want more for our membership fees that to be governed and trickle fed ideological spin.