December 2024 SRC Wrap Up
The 2025 SRC’s first meeting highlighted just how different this SRC is from the ones we’re all used to. The SRC’s of old could be so easily taken for granted when all was working well, but a swell of other new tickets contested at this recent election. These disparate groups managed to sweep away the seemingly impenetrable fortress that was Together, and later Revive, which turned out to be more of a sand castle. They triumphed not because they were a united coalition, but because the incumbents had become just as divided themselves. What we’ve been left with is Socialist Alternative (SAlt) as the largest bloc in the SRC. This large minority has, as you will see, huge sway over what motions pass, and moved a majority of the motions this meeting. A number of Independents, along with people from the Edge, Together Again, Revive, and 365 tickets also were elected, and all made, in my estimation at least, contributions of significance in the meeting.
The night opened with tech issues from multiple parties of the newly formed SRC. The first matter for decision on the night was on Staff and Course cuts, where the mover Jamie Tyers,Education Officer (SAlt), called for a fighting SRC to stop attacks on students and staff. They discussed how University Vice Chancellors are moving ahead with new cuts which they justify by citing the Federal Government’s proposed legislation to cap International student numbers, a bill which is now dead in the water. Tyers stated that past Presidents and General Secretaries had hidden information about cuts that were upcoming and advocated for turning over a new leaf and introducing binding disclosure agreements and Freedom of Information requests within the SRC. Tyers also argued that there are models for this envisioned ‘fighting SRC’ including at Wollongong University. General Secretary Akash Nagarajan (Together Again), one of the two people elected this year from the Labor-affiliated ticket, spoke against the motion. They stated they were in favour of a ‘Fighting SRC’ but that having to disclose confidential information would be against the code of conduct for the SRC. Councillor (A) Louisa Chen (SAlt) speaking in favour of the motion, decried what was a ‘historic attack on higher education’ from University management and argued against keeping confidentiality.
Many of the flashpoints of conflict in this meeting were ideological, but many were also procedural. Tyers had requested a procedural for each speaker for a given motion to have 2 minutes of speaking time, a request that was let down easily by the SRC’s new President Diya Sengupta (365), who said she wanted people to be able to go home on time. While some speakers did have a spot of trouble applying the brakes at times, none were notably egregious at this even if quite a few did need to have time called on them.
Luke Cox, Councillor (A) (Together Again) spoke against the motion, saying they were against the ‘adversarial manner’ in which SAlt wants to engage with University management. They felt that the SRC should find common ground with management, but push back when necessary, and thought the SRC shouldn’t be ‘blinded by ideology’. Environment Officer Emma Terry (SAlt) came on to clarify that this disclosure element of the motion is directed at the President and General Secretary, given how those holding these positions in the past had withheld information about the faculty merger between Arts and Design and Architecture. By the end of the discussion of this motion, there had been multiple requests for clarity on the confidentiality aspect, with some worry and confusion as to how this would impact those employed by the University. Terry’s clarification did assuage these worries, but when SAlt speakers repeatedly used speaking time to clarify questions to instead continue the debate on the motion, it perpetuated the confusion for too long. I don’t think it is too much to ask for the 4th wall to come down for a minute so that a sincere explanation could occur. This confusion created a lot of tension between the SAlt caucus and Councillor (B) (Revive) Ally Egan, who had been seeking clarification.
Jamie Tyers said the need to compel members to disclose certain information was because they felt it should be the SRC’s job to be open, rather than relying on journalists to leak things as has happened in the past. Tyers compared journalists to those speaking against the motion because of the concern for confidentiality saying they have ‘Slightly more of a soul, and a lot more courage than you guys’. Strong wording for sure, though I’ve never met a compliment I didn’t like! I’m glad someone appreciates student journalism.
The motion carried, although Tyers did not get his wish of having someone from the 365 ticket speak on the motion, which they had requested a couple of times, feeling as though they should if they really stand for transparency.
A procedural from the President to have members' votes not be anonymous passes.
In the motion to defend Palestinian activism, Tyers says trumped-up charges and accusations have been made about the Palestinian activism on campus by right-wingers in university management, but says they can’t go into too much detail, because of confidentiality- a point they did seem keen to linger on, given how firmly they’d railed against it earlier.
President Sengupta speaks for the motion, saying that the University is ‘setting the precedent’ that students should leave protest to other groups. They state that due to University management’s suppression of protest in this way, UNSW sees less protest than other Universities as a result.
Councillor (B) Sam Lewis (SAlt) speaks for the motion and encourages those opposed to speak against it. SAlt members throughout the night were quite direct in daring those opposed to their motions to speak up if they intended to vote them down. While I’m not sure I want to hear anyone from the SRC justify the anti-protest approach of the University, I can understand wanting to push people to defend their positions. Plenty of progressive motions in recent AGM’s such as Mardi Gras’ one saw a slim and silent majority vote down or abstain from progressive motions like removing the police from the march or adopting BDS. However, at least for this motion, those dissenting voices were silent- and, since the motion passed with only two abstentions (Revive’s Jenna Harris and Ally Egan), in the minority.
Councillor Cox went on to speak against a motion from Welfare Officer Brenden Tate (SAlt) to support the Woolworth’s strikers. Cox said he supports the spirit of the motion and that we should stand in solidarity with these workers but thinks SRC money should only go to student’s needs and priorities. Tate replies by saying they think it’s an ‘absolute joke’ that Cox thinks the conditions are horrible but doesn’t want to help and says that the issues with Woolworths ‘does affect us, actually Luke’.
Queer Officer Alyss Cachia (Independent) speaks in favour of the motion and tables an amendment to provide mutual aid for striking workers, in addition to food which was the original motion’s aim. Tate accepts the amendment, and the amended motion carries, with both Together Again’s members voting against it.
Students with Disabilities Officer Conroy Blood (Greens) tables a motion to have the SRC speak to Arc about getting them to pay for lockers for collective spaces which includes the SRC room, admitting that ‘some of us are messy’ and that our activist SRC has things like megaphones, which are relatively expensive, lying around in the room. Cachia speaks for the motion, agreeing that megaphones and sensitive information is around in the room and should be made secure. The motion is carried unanimously. Nothing brings people together like self-interest. Who can blame them, that room must be the awkwardest living situation ever, and they can’t exactly institute a ‘no politics’ rule either!
Transparency also seems to be popular though, with the next motion, from Blood, that reinforces the Gen Secs role for minutes be taken in meetings, also passing unanimously.
Indigenous Officer Brydie Zorz (Independent) then tabled their motion on Invasion Day, and encouraged everyone to join the Indigenous-led rally which is non-partisan. No one speaks against and Zorz states, after speakers for, that it is a non-partisan, non-stupol event and they don't want people to speak over Indigenous people in these matters.
Nagarajan and Cox both go on to speak against the motion moved by Terry calling for solidarity with the Newcastle climate protests. Cox states he believes in the right to protest but says Rising Tides (the protest, not the climate-change induced phenomena) puts people’s lives in danger and disrupts the economy (Again, Councillor Cox is referring to the protest, not sea level change, which is set to take some countries off the map). Zorz speaks for the motion saying that protest has given us our rights and that this protest was a minor disruption to people’s lives, saying Cox’s statement makes ‘a really shitty argument’. Nagarajan says much the same thing as Luke Cox. Women’s Officer Ellena Cheers-Flavell (365) says ‘almost like disruption is the point of protest’. Blood adds onto this saying the same line about disruption has been used on nurses, midwives and transport workers when they strike. Terry says in their right of reply that ‘Terrible fucking laws should be broken’.
Councillor (A) Anais Williamson (SAlt) opens a motion about the anti-Landforces activists, decrying the severe and violent repression the activists faced, as well as the presence of University and Government representatives. SAlt also had a speaker who was there protesting to speak. Councillor (A) Jacob Mulholland (SAlt) then speaks for the motions, again encouraging those opposed to speak against, and calling out Luke Cox on this occasion. Tyers also speaks for. In Williamson’s right of reply they state that opposing genocide in Gaza should be non-negotiable.
The motion is carried, with no speaker against.
General Secretary Nagarajan moves for a motion for concession opal cards to be extended to every student. Welfare Officer Tate speaks for the motion, saying it is ‘shameful that it’s a tiered thing’. They say that international students are some of the most vulnerable, and insist the state government could snap their fingers on this issue, citing the former Labor state government in Queensland which introduced 50-cent fares on public transport. Tate says SAlt has a mandate from the student body, having garnered over 3000 votes in the latest SRC election, and also wants to hold those who campaigned on these issues accountable by pushing them to implement or fight for these policies. Nagarajan agrees that more should be done rather than just the concession opal extension. Motion carried, unanimously.
Ethnocultural Officer Ethan Lin (Edge) moved a matter for discussion, seeking feedback on the idea of having an SRC discord server. Queer Officer Ren Woodward (Independent), Disabilities Officer Blood, Indigenous Officer Zorz as well as President Sengupta all raised various concerns though all were concerned as to who would moderate the server. Other suggestions included reviving the SRC newsletter which seemed to have broad support and more importantly- enthusiasm. There’s no amount of political consensus that can make up for an enthusiasm deficit. Lin was happy with the constructive criticism and with the suggestion of an SRC newsletter.
A procedural allowing student media to be present and report on meetings is then passed, no spoilers there. Phew! That would’ve been awkward otherwise.
The night wraps up with Officer and Councillors reports which were largely made up of those people explaining their views and vision for the SRC, and chuck a bit of shade-throwing on past Labor SRC administrations from SAlt. SAlt emphasised that this SRC would be a ‘left-wing’ one so much it had Councillor Egan confused. They went on to ask that since they missed the last SRC training session they feel like they missed out on discussing this and asked if the SRC is meant to be a left-wing activist body. Oh Councillor, if only you knew how far the rabbit hole goes. The members explained that essentially the SRC is the people in it, though SAlt (who ran as part of Left Action), touting their vote totals, obviously felt this SRC should be a left-wing ‘fighting’ SRC. With the era of Labor control of the SRC well and truly over, for now at least, we are truly in uncharted territory. Time will tell how good this new SRC’s navigational skills are.
