“A Lot of Posturing” - September SRC Wrapup

With the SRC election season looming over us like storm clouds foretelling a great flood, you might think the 2024 SRC would be washed away without a second thought. But this week’s meeting – which constituted both their postponed September meeting, and pushed-forward October meeting – proved that this council still has a lot to offer, in both decisions affecting your university experience, and in memorable moments. 

Ten different motions were put forward this evening. The first came from Queer Co-Officer Pepsi, and asked the SRC to officially oppose the ESOS changes and commit to advocating for international students. Despite agreeing with the sentiment of the motion, Left Action took an unexpected position by, in the words of Education Officer Cherish Kuehlmann, “carving out a left-wing position in opposing this.” They used this ‘official opposition’ to critique the motion's dependence on the university’s funding model as a basis for its opposition, stating it felt “a bit late”. Environment Officer Gina Elias also brought up an article by Noise which she said “used [this issue] to attack the only people who’ve been actually standing up about [the conflict in Palestine].” Pepsi, who has recently resigned from their position at Noise to run in the upcoming election,  completely agreed that the SRC should be supporting international students, not the university sector. They also pointed out that Left Action had committed to moving this motion months ago but hadn’t done so, concluding the debate by saying, “I may be late, but at least I did it.” The motion passed.

Councillor Brendan Tate proposed the second motion of the evening, which called for the SRC to condemn the Labor government's refugee policies that had left refugees “stuck in limbo”. Councillor Lachlan Magrath said the legislation “shows Labor’s utter heartlessness” and their lack of commitment to responding to concerns. As President Michael Rahme called for any speakers in opposition, Kuehlmann stated, “If no one speaks against, I’m going to assume everyone will vote for this motion”. She then called for Ethno-Cultural Officer Diya Sengupta to comment, as she is “meant to be the anti-racist officer this year”. Sengupta responded that she felt the previous speakers had covered everything she was going to say, but that she “will amplify that voice”. This motion, and the rest of the evening’s, was decided by a visual show of hands, and passed.

You might think since General Secretary Paige Sedgwick was absent from the meeting, that it would be lacking in the SRC’s characteristic debates between Revive and Left Action. However, this motion introduced an unknown challenger into the ring, Councillor Louis Pan’s unnamed proxy, referred to in the meeting, and henceforth, as ‘Blue-Shirt Guy’, who in a shocking move decided to sit in the Left-Action dominated SRC meeting room. Kuehlmann motioned for the SRC to endorse the student general meeting occurring this Wednesday, during which students would vote on UNSW’s ties with weapons manufacturing companies involved in the conflict in Palestine. It was during this debate Blue-Shirt Guy stood up to make his first of many statements in opposition this evening. Elias swiftly responded, asserting that the previous speaker was weaponising accusations of antisemitism to push racist tropes and justifying genocide. She evidenced this by saying the SGM, which stood to condemn the murder of Palestinians, would include speeches from “Jewish Pro-Palestine activists who have found a conscience”. McGrath, in his right of reply, said the SGM was a show of physical support that the university couldn’t ignore, and that it was the biggest thing the union had done all year. While votes were counted, Elias questioned Rahme, who frequently abstains from votes, in the chat, saying “Michael are you voting for, surely the attacks in Lebanon would push you over the line…” The motion passed.

The SRC enjoyed a brief respite from the debate with the next motion, which asked the SRC to stand in solidarity with detained student activists in Pakistan by sending emails to relevant authorities calling for the release of the detained activists and the withdrawal of the charges, and urging student representatives across Australia to do the same. Khuelmann highlighted that this was something the SRC could do to show solidarity with student unionists elsewhere in the world. This was supported by Sengupta, who attested that a ten-minute email could change people’s lives, and Magrath, who asserted that the SRC should be taking note of international affairs and following them diligently. The motion passed with an amendment from Rahme that the SRC advocates for UNSW to make a public statement.

This meeting saw the election of two new councillors to the SRC: Jamie Tyers, and another member whose name was not circulated with Noise editors. Tyers’ nomination revolved around his history as an activist who has most recently helped in the organisation of protests against the rental crisis and the Students for Palestine campaign. Kuehlmann and Elias both showed their support, stating he was a dedicated activist who has been working unpaid for students’ rights, since, as Elias proclaimed, “Student rights have gone backwards under a Labor run SRC”. It was here Blue-Shirt Guy made his second appearance of the evening, beginning his opposition of Tyers’ election by chastising his use of coarse language, and establishing his perspective that activism “doesn’t do us any good”, and that the SRC should focus on student issues. Tyers, in his right of response, stated he would “try not to swear if it makes everyone feel better”, and asserted that the SRC should want to “take the fight” to management and “actually stand up for students”. While his election initially failed in a hung vote, Rahme’s retrospective affirmative provided the casting vote which confirmed Tyers’ new position as Councillor A. 

The issue of councillor attendance to SRC meetings has been brought up in almost every meeting this year, and Sengupta’s motion to amend the SRC charter to equate a failure to provide an office bearer or councillor report as non-attendance attempted to provide a solution. Sengupta highlighted the lack of accountability in the SRC, which had allowed some elected councillors to never actually attend an SRC meeting, and causing strain on other office bearers who have had to “pick up the slack”. Pepsi spoke in support, saying they “don’t think it should be controversial that OBs, who are paid to do their jobs, should be doing them.” With the magic word uttered, the motion very quickly became controversial, as the newly-elected Tyers and Kuehlmann took up an opposition to what they deemed a “bureaucratic solution to a political issue”. Tyers said it was outrageous to censor members who don’t come to SRC meetings, and said it was “rich” coming from Sengupta who, in her position as Ethno-Cultural Officer, had “not once done anything to support protests on or off campus”. Sengupta’s right of response stressed the importance of transparency and accountability for paid OBs, pointing out that it isn’t possible to criticise what members are doing, if the SRC isn’t aware of what they are doing. In the messages of the meeting, Elias continued the criticism, calling Sengupta’s response “a deflection” as she has “done nothing to be part of the key anti-racist campaigns around refugee rights or for Palestine, like our SGM”. Pepsi responded, stating that Left Action’s previous complaints against International Students' Officer Alexander Pye was “political maneuvering”  and that the party had “no interest in actually changing it, you just want something to complain about.” Rahme once again cast the deciding vote to pass the motion.

Sengupta then proposed her second motion of the evening, which asked the SRC to take part in the pilot program of Unitu, a new survey software tailored for student unions to collect data on student life. Welfare Officer Annikka Burge expressed support for the program and its potential usefulness for the SRC, however, Tyers once again took opposition, arguing the software would allow SRC representatives to run survey results through AI instead of talking to students, and that “consulting with random little start-ups” was a “waste of time” for the Ethno-Cultural Officer. This response sparked a reaction from Pepsi that was passionate to say the least, who responded to Left Action saying “For all your talk of activism, you have achieved fuck all”, stating that they had “spent thousands of dollars of student and SRC money trying to make change, and have done nothing” and that they “just complain and don’t achieve anything”. Pepsi showed their support for the motion saying that it would help them reach as many students as possible, telling Left Action “You just want to talk to your friends and live in your little echo chamber.” Elias, and Sengupta in her right of reply, continued to debate on the usefulness of student data in demanding change from higher-ups at the university. The motion passed.

It was with this motion that tensions began to simmer down for the evening, as office bearers from all sides of the SRC moved in support of the next two motions, both proposed by Indigenous Officer Brydie Zorz. The first asked for the SRC to put out a public statement in support of the Truth and Justice Commission Bill, which intends to establish a national Commission to inquire into, and make recommendations on, historic and ongoing injustices against First Nations peoples. Kuehlmann and Elias both spoke in favour of the motion, though used their speaking time to highlight their concerns over the implementation of the Commission’s suggestions under a “complicit” Labor government. The motion passed.

Elias’ question in the prior motion of whether the SRC’s Labor members cared about Indigenous rights still hung over the final motion of the night, which proposed the SRC commit to holding and endorsing a student information session on UNSW's Microtreaty process. The process aims to create a treaty between the university and its Indigenous students, staff, and Indigenous communities, however, Zorz expressed serious concerns that no students or staff were made aware of representative nominations, amplified by allegations that representatives had been “hand-picked” based on undisclosed criteria. She stressed the importance of accessible information in enabling students to make informed decisions, a point supported by Pepsi, and, in his final speaking time of the meeting, Blue-Shirt Guy, who praised the motion for being “within the university’s realm of control”, and claiming it was “the model for what the SRC should be.” The motion passed.

There was an air of relief as the meeting wound down and Office Bearers commented on their reports. Blue-Shirt Guy made to leave, thanking the SRC for the opportunity to speak, only to be promptly cut off by Elias, who asserted he was wasting their time with his drawn-out farewell. Members of Left Action encouraged fellow councillors to attend the “historic” SGM on Wednesday, and Rahme teased a university representative attending a future meeting to discuss UNSW’s controversial academic timeline and obtain feedback for a new calendar. In her closing observations for the night, Kuehlmann as the meeting observer commented that “there’s a lot of posturing on this council, and this meeting has revealed that”. I, for one, couldn’t agree more.