July 2024 SRC Wrapup

If you’ve been disappointed by the relative civility displayed by the SRC over the past few months, then you’re in luck because this meeting was exactly the level of chaos I was warned about when taking the mantle of the SRC Correspondent. In true student politics fashion, this month’s meeting featured disputes surrounding the policies and Charter of the Council, controversial motions positioned to overthrow the most foundational aspects of our voting process, arguments about Federal government decisions, and a whole lot of interrogating the morals of various office-bearers. So, strap in, because this was a wild ride.

Before apologies were even finished, the arguments started, centred around members of the SRC in particular – Left Action’s Holly Walsh, and Revive’s Alexander Pye, though neither were in attendance for this month’s meeting. It was, in fact, their absence that was the source of the first debate of the night, as it came to light that Walsh had been removed from the SRC for failing to attend three consecutive meetings without submitting apologies. A back-and-forth began, with Left Action’s Gina Elias insisting that Walsh was not notified of her dismissal and that she had actually attended a previous meeting, which Pye had not. Pye quickly found himself on the chopping block alongside Walsh for his similar absences, but General Secretary Paige Sedgwick asserted that he had submitted apologies for his absence and therefore was in compliance with the Council’s charter. This issue ultimately found little resolution in the meeting, and Elias expressed concern over the “highly suspect” dismissal “during a week where [Revive is] moving a contentious motion to move SRC elections to flex week that benefits [Paige].”

The meeting was back on track for about five minutes before it was utterly derailed once more, as issues were raised by Left Action’s Cherish Kuehlmann about Paige’s potential conflict of interest in counting the votes of the aforementioned “contentious motion”. This launched the room into its second debate of the night before the first motion had even been moved, with Kuehlmann and Elias demanding the votes be counted in real-time and published immediately and non-anonymously (which is not usual) to prevent Paige from “rigging” the vote in her party’s favour. Sedgwick maintained throughout the discussion that there were no regulations for this in the SRC’s Charter and that they “[are] not changing this because [Cherish is]upset about it.” President Michael Rahme’s attempt at mediation, with his offer to count the votes instead of Sedgwick, was swiftly shot down by Elias’ assertion that “You’re in the same faction, Michael!”

Even once it had been decided that the results of the vote would be published immediately after their counting, Left Action was not finished expressing their distrust of the voting process, though they had now moved onto a new issue: the voting rights of the two ‘Students with Disabilities’ Co-Officers, Geoffrey Zhen and Timothy To, or, rather, To’s lack of voting rights. Although the two Office Bearers shared the seat in practice, only Zhen was permitted to vote on motions, as he had run as the voting member. This posed a logistical challenge as not only were Zhen and To not similarly politically aligned and therefore held different opinions on the motion, but Zhen was not actually in attendance at the meeting. Zhen had provided a proxy for his vote, which was not To but to Sedgwick, effectively leaving To without any say on the SRC. Left Action was very vocal about their disagreement with the so-called “Paige [Sedgwick] dictatorship”, claiming that she had been trying to intimidate members into not talking to Left Action before the meeting, and Elias criticised “the discrimination towards the Disabilities Officer”.

Finally, the dust settled, and we were able to move on to the first actual motion of the evening – though an ominous air still lingered in the room as we awaited the inevitable conflict the night had been building up to. President Rahme moved a matter for immediate decision, submitted to the SRC only a few hours before their meeting, to amend the SRC’s Charter and the Safer Spaces Policy. This was done as an immediate response to concerns raised by victim-survivors in the last two weeks, intended to take pressure off of the individual Office Bearers responsible for the running of SRC’s Safe Spaces by streamlining the process of the 30-day suspension for perpetrators of gendered violence and bullying. Indigenous Students’ Officer Brydie Zorz raised issues surrounding the Indigenous Collective’s Nira Gili, which is not under Arc’s exclusive control and, therefore, may not fall under the Safer Spaces Policy, stating she wants more time to research and consult with the community and Elders to ensure cultural appropriateness. Environment Officer Elias suggested the motion be delayed until next month’s meeting due to its late notice, while Rahme stressed the immediacy of the response as an interim solution which could be amended at a later date. The motion eventually passed.

Motion two was intended to be a vote to commit the SRC to endorse letters establishing First Nations representation on the UNSW Council. However, Zorz delayed this motion until the next meeting and instead used this time to move a procedural for the flexi-week motion for 1.5 minutes of speaking time for each speaker for an indefinite amount of speakers, to ensure each side would have adequate time to respond to each other. This was, to the immense appreciation of those of us covering the meeting, dismissed, and replaced with the far more reasonable alternative of allowing both the for and against camps with a maximum of seven speakers, with 1.5 minutes each. Rahme was able to approve this without a vote.

Thankfully, we were awarded a short break in between debates, as the next motion promised a pay rise of 52% for the SRC’s office bearers to reflect the disproportionately low remunerations awarded to members of the UNSW Student Council in comparison to other universities. Unsurprisingly, all SRC members expressed their support, and the motion passed with little debate or even conversation. 

This was the calm before the storm that was the following matter. The divisive proposal that had hung like an omen over the entire meeting: Sedgwick’s motion to move UNSW SRC’s elections to Flexi-Week. Splitting the SRC precisely down the middle, this motion featured the longest debate of the night, members of the Council publicly crossing the floor, (read more about this here) accusations of threats and rigging the votes, calls of injustice and discrimination against groups underrepresented in student accommodation, questions about the individual morals and political motivations of various members from both sides of the divide, and a surprise guest appearance from the USYD SRC’s President Harrison Brennan (read more about this). The motion failed by the smallest margin possible, with 12 votes for, 12 against, and one abstention from President Rahme, whose vote would typically decide a hung vote such as this. 

The surrounding debate is too immense to discuss in this coverage – however, if your curiosity has been piqued by this motion which had the potential to change the entire landscape of the UNSW SRC, we highly recommend reading the articles linked.

In a complete 180° shift in both intensity and subject matter, the next motion called for the SRC to recommend that Arc make a public statement supporting the government’s changes to welfare support for students on placement. The necessity of paid placement to combat the ongoing cost of living crisis that significantly impacts students who are not otherwise able to earn a steady income was agreed upon by all members of the SRC, though some Councillors made a point to criticise the Labor government for not having raised student placement hourly rates to match the national minimum wage. A proposed amendment by Left Action to include such criticism failed, as did Rahme’s second unsuccessful attempt at finding a middle ground between the SRC’s two factions by changing the name of the motion. Despite this, the motion passed, though not without an excellent quote from Sedgwick before the conclusion of the polls: “No one’s screaming and shouting, so I’m gonna close it.”

Following this, the night truly began to wind down, as the SRC took a 10-minute break due to the unusually lengthy nature of the meeting until, in the beautifully, unfortunately, coincidental words of Rahme, “9:11 [PM] hits”. When they returned, the council discussed three more motions, which regarded statements members wished to be made concerning Federal government matters. A motion to denounce Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s plan for Nuclear energy did not pass. Similarly, a motion for the SRC to reject the “slanderous” comments made towards Greens MPs for their support of Pro-Palestine protests to defend the right of protest also did not pass. Notably, Australians do not actually hold a Constitutional right to protest, beyond the right to freedom of political expression. The final motion of the evening, however, which called for UNSW to take immediate action in combatting the cost of living crisis through the promotion of grants programs, new access to accommodation and food packages, and increased funding for mental health services, did pass.

After three gruelling hours, the meeting finally came to a close, with one final comment from Rahme that the meeting “certainly [had] a creative style”. Well, that’s one way of putting it.