This article was written by Sankalp Behara. Sankalp Behara is affiliated with Together Again and ran on their ticket in the SRC elections. Any opinions expressed in this article are theirs and theirs alone, and are not representative of the views of any groups that they belong to, such as Gamamari.
If you’d asked me a month ago what I assumed the first in-person SRC meeting would’ve been like after years of online ones, I would have told you it would be absolute carnage – like that one scene from Mean Girls level of chaos. After all, stupol has never been known for its decorum and UNSW student politicians were never really an exception. However, considering the shocking lack of airborne chairs, possibly thanks to the new amended charter, I’d say the meeting was a relative success.
The new charter, which was formally instituted over the summer break, involves several changes to the procedure of the meetings and the role of office-bearers. We will not covering the full extent of the changes to the charter, but some notable changes include:
- Allowing student journalists (hey, that’s us!) the ability to ask questions at the end of meetings
- Reports from office-bearers and councillors being necessary for their attendance in meetings to be counted, which resulted in a 100% submission of reports for the first time in the history of the SRC
- If motions did not have any dissidents, the motion would be considered as being passed with unanimous support without needing any other speakers
Unsurprisingly, as is often the case with the SRC proceedings, this change wasn’t without its controversy. Jamie Tyers (Education Officer, Left Action) objected to the change in motion voting as he believed that this stifled discussion around motions and that it was essential that even motions with seemingly unanimous support have discussions to iron out the intricacies and debate hidden premises. He also took umbrage with what he believed was Diya Sengupta (President, 365) ramming through changes in the charter without discussing with the rest of the SRC. Sengupta retorted that the details of the change in motion had already been passed in a motion last year and that he and his faction had already had a chance to raise any issues with it. She also stated that, given several emails had been sent to council members regarding the changes and the charter already had passed through the other boards, this meeting would be proceeding with the new charter, and any further changes would be discussed after the meeting. Tyers unhappily commented “That’s pretty nuts but anyway”. That elicited some heckles from the crowd, including Sengupta telling him that “It’s almost like responding to emails is part of your job” and Ren Woodward (Queer Officer, Indie) stating “You could’ve literally just read the document”.
Motions
After that brief kerfuffle, the meeting officially started. The first motion of the night, moved by Conroy Blood (Disabilities Officer, Left Action) and seconded by Jamie, called for the SRC to support the People’s Enquiry into University Restrictions on Free Speech on Palestine. Blood stated that there has been significant repression of free speech on campus against those who have been critical of Israel and the genocide in Gaza, and that the SRC should support it by encouraging people to make submissions to the parliamentary enquiry, and post the report on its platforms when the report gets published. With the new rules regarding motions without dissent, this motion passed unanimously with no other speakers.
The second motion of the night was moved by Tyers, which pushed for the SRC to officially endorse a return to semesters by the SRC, and oppose the trimester system. Tyers spoke to the motion stating that the trimester system was an attack on UNSW students and staff, and that condensing a term’s worth of content into trimesters puts undue duress on staff and students alike. He also emphasised that he wanted the minutes of the meeting that Sengupta had with the team advising on the changes in Academic Calendar to be made public.
Joseph Bellia (Councillor A, 365) posed consideration for people who genuinely like trimesters and might have chosen UNSW explicitly for this offering. Tyers responds that UNSW students had given the SRC a mandate to be a left-wing activist organisation, and therefore the SRC should take a firm stand against the neo-liberal attack on student rights that is the trimester system. He also brought up a survey that was supposedly held after the changes in trimester which showed a whopping 90% of the student populace disagreed with the shift to trimesters. I’m unsure exactly which survey they are referring to, and a contact on the Academic Calendar Steering Committee denied the existence of any such survey existing, but the point still stands that the trimester system was, and continues to be, an extremely unpopular system.
Avasa Bajracharya (Councillor B, Left Action) also spoke to the motion, stating that the pressure the trimester model puts on students has caused student satisfaction rates to drop, resulting in UNSW being one of the lowest in satisfaction rates in the country. Akash Nagarajan (GenSec, Together Again) also agreed, although highlighted that having a firm idea of the transition towards a semester system which records better satisfaction rates and puts less pressure on students and staff alike, would be just as important. Unsurprisingly, the motion was carried with everyone voting for the motion, except for Sengupta who abstained because the motion explicitly involves her.
EDITING
Motion three of the night was also moved by Blood which stated that the SRC endorses the bill put forward by Senator Mehreen Faruqi that would make universities cut ties with weapons manufacturers, fossil fuel companies and the gambling industry. Blood argued our fees should not be invested into vices or things actively contributing to the degradation of the planet, and hence, the SRC should get on board with divesting from these industries. The motion passes automatically.
The fourth motion was moved by Emma Terry (Environment Officer, Left Action) and seconded by Jacob Mulholland (Councillor A, Left Action). The motion stated that the SRC opposes the recent attacks on trans rights – everywhere, but also specifically mentioning the recent legislation passed by Crisafulli government in Queensland that blocked access to puberty blockers for minors under the guise of protecting children. Terry argued that the Liberal government has used culture war and rise in far-right ideologies to suppress the rights of trans people and that the SRC should defend trans rights by supporting activist groups such as Community Action for Rainbow Rights (CARR) in their efforts to oppose the far-right’s attacks on trans rights. She also stated that we can not trust the Labor party and the legal system in protecting these rights because the ALP had already capitulated to the Liberal’s calls for an enquiry, and offered no real opposition to the legislation.
As mentioned, the press was able to question speakers regarding their motions so I was able to ask the mover, Emma Terry, about if any concrete actions were being done in UNSW to protect trans people on campus, especially trans women who tend to be disproportionately affected by transmisogyny. After all, this is the UNSW Student Representative Council and not Macquarie Street. As much as broader societal events definitely have an impact on students on campus, I would like to know that there are also things actually being done on-campus to protect the communities that the SRC talks about protecting. Terry responds with a rather confusing platitude about how we need to organise on- and off-campus against these oppressive laws – which I don’t entirely disagree with, political will is largely shaped by political and civil organisation, but rather deftly avoids answering the question of if there were any measures the SRC was taking to protect our trans students. I believe that the role of a student journalist is to provide checks and balances to the elected officials and that is what we are here to accomplish.
Alyss Cachia (Queer Officer, Indie) proposed an amendment to the motion that would specify more activist groups the SRC should support such as Pride in Protest, Trans Justice Project and collaborate with inter-state activist groups, which was accepted by Terry.
Blood questioned the inclusion of CARR as a prominent queer rights organisation when he believed that they hadn’t done anything of note in recent years, and in fact avoided campaigning for the recent Equality Bill that was passed through parliament. This sent a ripple of unhappiness through the other members of Left Action with Terry defending CARR’s track record stating that CARR’s rallies were some of the biggest contributors to marriage equality in Australia, and that the Equality Bill was a “piss poor bill that should have failed”.
Luke Cox (Councillor A, Together Again) was the next to speak on the motion, coming out the gate emphasising that although he supported the general thrust of the motion, he and his faction will be abstaining because of the organisations that were listed. He claimed that Pride in Protest had constantly threatened to out closeted politicians, possibly endangering them, and that CARR was simply a front for the Socialist Alternative to sell more Red Flags (SAlt’s newspaper). Owen (SAlt) retorted stating that the ALP had constantly been weak on LGBT rights and organisations like CARR and Pride in Protest have pushed Labor to be stronger on queer rights – for instance, he points to CARR’s opposition to the provisions in the Religious Discrimination Bill which he purported that Labor and Greens hadn’t come out against. Terry also voiced her disapproval of Cox’s implications stating that Labor had capitulated on the trans rights front by launching yet another pointless inquiry to not alienate conservative voters, but still seem like they’re doing something.
After the heckling from SAlt’s side of the room had somewhat calmed down, a Noise correspondent asked Cox what grassroots action have he and his party taken part in and/or planning to take part in? He replies that he believes in working class-based community engagement and engaging union workers and community groups to provide safer spaces for LGBTQIA+ people. He specifically points to his upbringing in Western Sydney, as a queer man himself, stating that activist groups and their emphasis on protesting had made little in-roads with Western Sydney, and that grassroots community engagement through unions such as the SDA were chief in promoting LGBTQ rights there. The mention of SDA, one of the most powerful and socially conservative unions in Australia, draws giggles and groans alike from the crowd. Personally, if I were attacking an organisation like Pride in Protest for harmful actions they have taken in the past, I would not bring up my involvement with the union which the Guardian once described as the “one of the last great barriers to same sex marriage within the labour movement”. Nevertheless, Cox emphasised that the reactionary de Bruyn-era SDA was a thing of the past and that the renewed union he was a part of had strong grassroots support for LGBT rights. The motion passes along party lines with Together Again abstaining and everyone else voting for the motion.
The next motion was moved by Louisa Chen and seconded by Tyers. The motion was to oppose the Trump presidency and condemn the rise of the far-right. She points out that the Democrats in America, and likewise Labor in Australia, have done a pretty poor job of standing up against Trumpian politics and the rise of far-right nationalism everywhere. Ethan Lim’s proxy (Ethno-cultural Officer, Edge) requested an amendment to the motion specifying an opposition to intrusion of far-right hate on campus. His amendment helped alleviate some concerns that Alexandra Egan (Councillor B, Revive) and a reader of Noise were having about the relevance of American politics on UNSW SRC. However, in further defence of her motion, Chen argued that American politics has a profound impact on local politics, and has inspired conservatives in Australia and around the world to pull back on protections for vulnerable groups. Moreover, marginalised students feel the effects of things like the rise in transphobic attacks and the SRC needs to prove to them that it is willing to protect them. Blood asks Chen whether Socialist Alternative is going to organise politically to keep Dutton and his buddies out of government. Chen responds by saying the way that they fight against the far-right is through protesting, and that SAlt is campaigning with the Victorian Socialists in Victoria.
Personally, I never quite got SAlt’s disinterest in political organisation, when there is clearly a demand for their brand of left-wing politics. In fact, in the recent Werribee by-election, Victorian Socialists garnered a respectable 7.1% of the first-preference vote, just falling short of the Greens candidate by less than 200 votes. So I asked Chen about it – why did SAlt only organise politically in Victoria, and if there was a reason they didn’t care as much about organising elsewhere politically. Slightly irrelevant? Sure. A little rude? Maybe. But I still do believe it’s a perfectly valid question. However, it seems my question rubbed our friends over at Noise the wrong way. In their instagram story covering the SRC meeting, Noise implied that I was unable to remain independent and unbiased, and in their article on the meeting, they questioned my conflicts-of-interest.
The thing is, though, I have always been public about my COIs. It was the first thing I declared when I joined Gamamari as a vollie, and it is my tagline on every article I’ve written with Gamamari. I have never been shy about being a member of Labor either. However, despite what Noise has been implying, I have never let that cloud my judgement or stop me from calling out Labor or Together Again when I believed I needed to. Moreover, Gamamari has a wide range of editors with a wide range of political views who will not hesitate to call out anything that seems too partisan. I also would hesitate to throw accusations of bias if I were Noise when a majority of my writers, including the SRC correspondent, Billy Moran, were on the same ticket as the SRC President and Noise co-founder. In summary, politics gets pretty ugly be it among student politicians or student journalists – but I would not throw stones from glass houses.
Now that that’s out of the way, the motion passes without any opposition.
Motion six of the night was moved by Terry again asking the SRC to support the Environmental Collective’s campaign to cut ties with the fossil fuel industry. She states that we must cut the research ties that UNSW has with fossil fuel companies, and instead invest more into renewable energy and climate science projects. She wanted the SRC and, specifically, the specific collectives, to publicise the campaign and sign the open letter to the university. Motion passes without any dissent.
The next motion of the night was moved and seconded by the Queer Officers, Cachia and Woodward, urging the council to endorse the campaign to disarm the NSW police. Cachia, as the mover, reminded the council about the tragic killings of Jesse Baird and Luke Davies, and how repeated enquiries into the NSW Police Department have shown rampant homophobia and transphobia within the organisation. She also points out the staggering levels of deaths of Indigenous persons in police custody. She said she believed that Australia should follow the trend across the globe of disarming the police, as there is no proven link between armed police officers and a reduction in crime.
Cox speaks against the motion saying that most students and people do not like the idea of disarming the police. He specifically points out the campaign to remove police officers from Mardi Gras by Pride in Protest, the organisation behind this campaign, and pointed out that he didn’t see the point in wanting to exclude them from the parade. Woodward also speaks to the motion. They state that the police endanger queer communities, especially queer communities, pointing at the aggressive behaviour of the police officers towards Mardi Gras attendees.
I asked about the failure of the campaigns at the Mardi Gras board to bar Police Officers from marching at Mardi Gras, and whether that represented that the overall community wasn’t as partial to these motions as one would assume. Cachia responded that the Mardi Gras meeting was a pretty privileged group – a membership would set you back 50 quid – and thus, not very representative of the general population’s views. To be fair, the aforementioned motions did fail by a very slim margin, and a study conducted by Just.Equal Australia did show that a third of LGBT Australians, especially trans and younger people who are more likely to be victims of police aggression, are outright opposed to any police presence at pride. However, the same study did show that 64% of queer Australians supported the inclusion of police at pride, suggesting that there is little consensus among the community on the issue.
Anais Williamson (Councillor A, Left Action) speaks next for the motion. In typical SAlt fashion, she brings an ideological tilt to the conversation, talking about how disarmament allows us to oppose the right of the police to brutalise people, and that the activist SRC should campaign against police brutalisation. She points to the failure of police to protect protestors, and how they have a tendency to brutalise the protestors they sometimes are supposed to be protecting.
You Wei, as the proxy for Lin, acknowledges the historic and contemporary harms that the police have had, but urged that law enforcement should be equipped to fight against offensive personnel and protect themselves in emergency situations – specifically bringing up the 2024 Bondi Junction stabbings in which the threat was neutralised by a lone police officer with her gun. Cachia berates him for this saying that it was insane to be able to put aside the long, sordid histories of abuse for the possibility that the police operate usefully sometimes. The study on the effectiveness of police militarisation leaves a lot to be desired, with many studies finding conclusions that their funders want them to. However, one thing is clear, arming the police puts more marginalised, vulnerable people at risk, but it also raises confidence for the general public in their own, and their communities, safety. Which they deem to be more important, we leave you, dear reader, to make up your mind. The motion passes, albeit with a noticeably slimmer margin than previous motions.
Motion eight of the night was moved by Dan Gulic (Councillor B, Together Again) and seconded by Nagarajan calling for UNSW to allow digital access to student IDs for students. He brings up the benefits of digital student IDs, such as allowing students to prove that they’re students on public transport, even if they do not have their physical card on them. He also talked about how it had been successfully implemented in USyd. Sengupta says that the implementation of digital IDs will not happen within the year, but passing the motion will allow the process to get started. The motion passes unanimously without much fanfare.
Here we get to the most confusing and frustrating point of the night. Everyone was exhausted and tired – probably most of all me, who was on hour 14 of my workday – and things were getting a little muddled. The last motion of the night was in regards to the SRC getting a say in the transition away from the current academic calendar to the new one. The mover, Nagarajan, states that the SRC needs to get a seat at the actual table where the decisions get made. He argues that focus groups are not the most reliable method to gauge the temperature of the student body, and that there should be an elected member necessarily present at the negotiating table to advocate for the SRC’s position. He also points out that the NTEU, the union that represents a significant portion of the staff at UNSW, had not been consulted. Brendan Tate (Welfare Officer, Left Action) proposes an amendment to bind the representative to an anti-trimester position and held accountable to the SRC through distributing minutes from these meetings to the SRC. Blood objects to this amendment saying that binding the representative to a position only serves to antagonise the university management, while being redundant because the elected representative was highly likely to hold pro-semester beliefs anyway. Nagarajan agrees, prompting jeers from the SAlt side of the room – someone yells “Classic Greens-Labor alliance”.
For some context regarding the seeming internal tensions in the Left Action faction, especially between Disabilities Officer Conroy Blood and the others in his faction, like Labor Right-affiliated parties like Together Again or 2024 Revive, Left Action occasionally puts forward candidates not from SAlt, as long as they are somewhat leftist. For instance, last year they ran current President, Diya Sengupta, as part of an agreement between SAlt and NLS which Sengupta was formerly a part of, and Brydie Zorz, their current Indigenous Officer ran with Labor Right-affiliated Revive last year. One such candidate was Conroy Blood, a Greens councillor for the Canterbury-Bankstown council, who holds slightly different beliefs to the majority-SAlt Left Action faction. However, SAlt has an extremely anti-authoritarian streak which means a like distrust towards anyone even slightly sympathetic to compromise – including the Greens, who are probably the most similar ideologically to SAlt (outside Victoria). What was that one parable about leftist infighting again?
I ask Tate what happens if the new survey comes out with a significant population preferring the modified trimester system over semesters. He says that it does not matter as the SRC was elected on the promise to end trimesters. Fair enough, but I do feel like the overwhelming support for semesters from every single faction on the SRC, risks creating a blindspot for supporting students who actually like the trimester system and might have chosen UNSW primarily for it. Tate goes on to emphasise that university management does not care about student or staff interests, and that they must be oppositional to management to ensure students’ voices are heard.
Blood realises that the wording of the motion calls for a new position to be created and elected from the student body, which Nagarajan corroborates was his intention. The SAlt faction realising the implication of the motion emphatically changes their stance on the motion, stating that the representative should just be Sengupta who already has regular meetings with the Academic Calendar board. In light of this Nagarajan retracts his motion, and Tate’s amendment becomes the official motion.
Hence the new motion is “The SRC president is bound to an anti-trimester position. The SRC will publish their pro-semester stance, work with the NTEU and the minutes of the meetings will be taken and circulated to the members of the SRC”. Tyers speaks for the motion stating that this just is the natural progression of the earlier motion which passed without any opposition, and it will reinforce the SRC’s already established pro-semester position. Tate also speaks to the motion stating that the university management does not have our best interests at heart unless it helps to pad their own bottom line, restating that the SRC should have a hostile attitude to management. The motion, despite all the arguments minutes prior, passes without any opposition, and Sengupta makes a comment about anyone who disagreed with binding the representative to a position, should have also dissented earlier for the motion that bound the SRC to a pro-semester position.
With that being the final motion of the night, we finally had the end in sight. We just had the reports to go through.
Reports
President Sengupta talked about the success of O week and launch week. She also highlighted the various initiatives that were being done by the various collectives. She was incredibly pleased with the collaboration between the ethnocultural and international student collectives in achieving the $1000 grant for cultural clubs on campus. She also brought up the Women’s Collective picnic, and the Queer Collective’s protests for Mardi Gras. She also spotlighted her work with Egan on delivering stress-less kits to the Port Macquarie campus and that universal short-extensions were in discussion with management.
Tyers, as the Education Officer, talks about his effort, the campaign for changes to the academic calendar, and the recent launch of the campaign to get UNSW to end ties with weapons companies. He also highlighted the success in connecting with students through stalls outside the library. Lastly, he emphasises his team’s involvement in building LGBT rallies and protests in the lead up to Mardi Gras.
Tate’s report is up next, as the Welfare Officer. He talks about the importance of being an activist SRC because that was what the student population gave them the mandate for, and echoed Tyers on SAlt’s protests in support of LGBT rights and against weapons companies on campus. Blood questions Tate about the motion that was passed at the last meeting regarding support for striking Woolworths workers, which Tate defends by stating that the strike ended before his team could give any meaningful support to the strikers. Bellia also questions Tate on any updates regarding the affordable meal scheme that made a large part of Tate’s campaign promises. Tate concedes that there were no updates regarding that front either.
The Ethno-cultural officer’s proxy talks about the success in establishing the ethno-international fund for cultural clubs, and their efforts to refurbish the Ethno-cultural Collective space.
The Queer Officers’ had their report read next. Cachia and Woodward talked about building up the Queer Collective – both literally, by refurbishing the QueerCo space, and figuratively, by recruiting over 70 new members at O week. They also talked about their work in supporting protests by giving out water at street rallies. I lobbed the earlier question regarding concrete actions being done to protect trans students on campus, and thankfully, they had a better response. Cachia and Woodward talked about their work in establishing QueerCo as a point of contact as an intermediary between queer students and the university management. Moreover, QueerCo has initiated efforts to create support networks such as clothing drives for trans students, and to initiate mutual aid through the collective.
Ellena Cheers-Flavell (Women’s Officer, 365) talks about the women’s picnic, and how it was a collaboration between several female-centred clubs like Women-in-STEM, Women-in-Politics, Sapphic Society, etc. She also highlighted that she was in contact with the Conduct Team to strengthen the process of dealing with perpetrators of gender-based violence.
Blood reads his report next, highlighting the first Disabilities Collective meeting. He highlights the need to increase attendance at subsequent meetings, so he was working with Sengupta to get posters in ELS spaces and get emails out to disabled students. Blood also spoke about his role in reviewing study spaces and their impacts on students with sensory needs, and his push to get compulsory ELS training for all staff members.
Sam Lewis (Councillor B, Left Action) is the only councillor to speak on his report, stating that EdCo has been getting a lot of positive response for its anti-racist demonstrations and petitions, to which Blood questions the efficacy of petitions, suggesting that SAlt just wants to farm phone numbers for phone banking purposes. This question enrages the SAlt faction, with accusations about Blood being a Trump fanboy, and Tyers defends stating that there was nothing wrong with wanting to build a protest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to build a protest, my guy, but it is a little shady to not inform people signing your petition what their phone numbers are going to be used for.
Concluding Thoughts
In concluding thoughts, Tyers notes that although he agrees with the primarily in-person shift to debate in the charter, he was still apprehensive about the rules surrounding motions without any dissidents. He maintains that it is crucial for clarification and expansion to be able to understand the full breadth of the motion. Considering what went down with the final motion of the night, in which everyone had a different understanding of how the motion was to be implemented, I am inclined to agree. Probably a discussion that was supposed to be happening while the charter was being implemented, instead of after it had already been passed, but better late than never I guess. There was a lot of ideological dialogue in the SRC, but this has always been a mainstay of SRC meeting discussions.
I have always maintained that the real work that the SRC does is not in the ideological motions that they pass in the meetings but the work that they do through the collectives and relating the concerns of the student body to the university – either through activism or through working with management.
There have been some incredible initiatives undertaken by members of the council – the Environmental Collective’s Fossil-Free UNSW campaign, the women’s collective picnic by WoCo, the push for digital IDs by Councillor Gulic, many of QueerCo’s initiatives, etc – and I personally feel that the emphasis on ideological motions sometimes suck up all the oxygen in the meetings. After all, nothing that passes in the UNSW SRC is going to affect the Queensland Libs or Trumpian Republicans, a sentiment shared by some members of the council and the larger student body alike, but the aforementioned initiatives will absolutely have a direct impact on the students of UNSW.
In a similar vein, I hope to see more officers and councillors move to speak on their reports instead of simply taking them as read so that we all have a better understanding of what is actually being done for UNSW students.
Anyway, the Student Representative Council should, frankly, be one of the last places one should expect peace.