The 2026 SRC Presidential Candidates Face Off in a Debate

While the bulk of UNSW’s student body has been enjoying the well-deserved rest of our final Flexi-Week before the end of the academic year, it’s clear the prospective 2026 SRC candidates have allowed themselves little time to relax as election day looms ever closer. If your social media feed is anything like mine, then you’ve likely been inundated with content from the various tickets, ranging from promotions of progressive new policies, to attempted takedowns of opposing parties, to nearly nonsensical memes about the state of student politics. And if, like a reluctant horse dragged to the watering hole and forced to drink, you, too, have found yourself drowned by this deluge of dissonant voices, it’s just as likely that these curated campaigns have given you little actual insight into the people you’ll be voting for. 

Unfortunately, a catchy ticket title and a bold colour scheme do not a thorough explanation of party politics make, and even the sincerest of captions cannot provide the personal touch of a proper conversation. It was for this very reason that the editors of Noise@UNSW invited candidates to participate in an election debate on Thursday evening: a debate run by the students, for the students, featuring questions from us, and quizzes to test our hopeful President candidates on all things UNSW. I hope you’ve not had your thirst for SRC content quenched just yet!

With an Acknowledgement of Country, a brief explanation of how the debate would proceed, a caution that “disrespect from anyone to anyone will not be tolerated,” and an assurance from Noise Coordinator Max Richter-Weinstein that “I will not hesitate to give you a warning and kick you out if anything like that happens,” the evening was off to a strong start. 

The Presidential debate kicked off with an opening statement from EDGE candidate You Wei Chung, who justified the questionable name of his ticket with the slightly less questionable goal “to be an edge above the rest.” Chung spoke to the achievements of EDGE’s successfully elected 2025 Ethnocultural Officer, Ethan Lin, which included a $1000 cultural collaboration grant for clubs and a fundraiser barbecue for children affected by the war in Palestine. He expressed the ticket’s intentions to continue with initiatives that “put students at the forefront of the SRC’s actions,” such as an ‘International Students Guide’ and a ‘Housing Rights Guide’ to be published in O-Week, improved public transport access for students located in Western Sydney, and cheaper menu options on campus. “Our policies [are] aimed at helping [and] improving the lives of students,” Chung explained, “Our goal is to bring integrity to the SRC, [ensuring] independents are in control [so that the SRC] will always respond to students first.”

365 candidate Billy Moran began his opening statement by discussing his connection with, and admiration for, 365’s General Secretary Candidate, Diya Sengupta. This was unusual, but not particularly unexpected. Like many of this year’s candidates, Moran is a relative newcomer to the world of student politics, particularly when compared to his tenured running mate, who served as Ethnocultural Officer in 2024 before winning the Presidency in 2025. “Watching her transform the SRC from a tired and ineffective body to an effective and united force has been inspiring,” Moran stated, speaking to the cost-of-living relief provided by $5 meals and the Clothes Hub, “the SRC’s most successful initiative yet.” 

Interestingly, Moran attributed the University’s decision to abolish trimesters to the efforts of 365’s 2025 Office Bearers, even though the SRC had endorsed the abolishment all the way back in April of 2024, months before 365’s inception, in response to a successful motion from Left Action’s former Education Officer, Cherish Kuehlmann. 365’s approach occasionally stands at odds with Left Action, as Moran explained: “We know that sometimes you must work with management, and sometimes you have to go to activism, and sometimes you have to do it yourself.” He continued with the assertion that: “We need an SRC that shows up for you. One with great policies, but also great plans. One who understands that multitasking is possible, between activism, lobbying, and doing it ourselves.” Seemingly in response to the comedically referential names of opposing tickets, Moran concluded by stating: “We’re the serious ticket, who’s ready to actually take ourselves seriously, take this election seriously, and deliver on our goals.” Exactly which goals Moran was referring to, attendees had to wait and see.

The opening statement from Anthony Ma set the stage for the actual debates that would occur this evening, as he introduced his ticket, Kensington Fried Chicken, or ‘KFC’, by criticising the SRC for being “overrun by radical activists who are more interested in resume padding, banner painting, and protesting, than [in] delivering real services to the people of UNSW.” Ma took the stance that his ticket “[knows] what the people want” — and, apparently, the people want “a cheap, affordable, crispy fried chicken outlet at UNSW.” Personally, I couldn’t care less about fried chicken, but, if Ma is anything to be believed, then I must not be very indicative of the student body as a whole, because he hardly spoke about anything other than their deep-frier dreams. And dreams they very well may be, as Ma provided no specifics as to how KFC intends to accomplish this lofty goal beyond promises of “[extensive consultation] with the UNSW community” and “[demands to] the university administration [to] negotiate the contract [and] get a fried chicken place up and running as soon as possible.”

Even as we moved into question time, Ma deigned not to elaborate on his ideas. When asked, “What intimidates you the most about the possibility of stepping into this role?”, Ma answered that he was most worried about not having a majority on the SRC and being unable to ensure “a unified front, so the university administration and other governing bodies know that we are serious about fried chicken on campus.” Moran gave an implied response to Ma’s concerns in his speaking time, claiming he would be “very happy to be elected with a minority” — which is lucky, since 365 isn’t running enough candidates to win a majority anyway — and that “if you have the negotiating skills to get [motions] through the SRC, then [a minority] is okay … If you can’t handle a Student Union meeting, then you’re not gonna be able to handle Estate Management, and you’re definitely not gonna be able to handle the Arc board.” Where Moran’s worries were quite personal, intimidated only by the “public speaking part of it,” Chung’s concerns were far more broad: “If the SRC is held up by people attempting to focus on unfixable national or global issues … This will seriously delay the SRC’s ability to do anything.”

The next question aimed to identify exactly what the three candidates believe makes them “an ideal SRC president.” Moran referred, not for the first time, to his volunteering experience, and the ability to “find the common ground” amidst the yelling which characterises much of the SRC’s interactions, acting with “empathy and understanding” to find “moments of understanding, of unity… When we are united, we are at our strongest.” Ironically, TOGETHER, the UNSW ticket affiliated with Unity, the Labor Party’s right-wing faction, chose not to attend the debate. Somewhat similarly to Moran, Ma spoke to his negotiation skills and administrative experience on the executive of large Arc clubs such as the United Nations Society and Law Society — though, as Sengupta would point out later in the evening, he failed to mention his administrative experience as the President of the UNSW Liberal Club, despite calling his experience his “greatest asset in ensuring the SRC runs like a well-oiled machine.” Chung also discussed his time as a club executive, stating he knows “how to grow movements, [how] to consult and get good policy running … [how] to compromise and get deals done, rather than aim for perfection.” According to Chung, no matter how much you practice, “Perfection is impossible … and getting some sort of compromise [is] better than getting no deal done.”

When asked how tickets plan “to strike the balance between working with management, and standing up to them,” Chung elaborated on EDGE’s intention to put forward policy that is “reasonable and feasible” and explained that “if policies aren’t achievable [from management], we’ll be able to reform and restructure to get something working for students.” In contrast, Moran emphasised the importance of “[aiming] high, and really [putting] forward your policy positions to university management. It is inevitable that they will say no, [and] you cannot concede to them before the negotiations have started … You need to push hard … If we mobilise on an issue, [the] university will have to come to some sort of agreement with us.” Ma agreed with Chung and addressed queries as to the feasibility of KFC’s seemingly sole policy by stating “the university is very concerned about money … [I] couldn’t think of a better money-printer [than a fried chicken outlet on the main walkway].” His focus on finances continued: “We’ve had enough of [the university and Arc] squandering away our money on useless pet projects and services … We know that sometimes less is more, and students should decide how their money is spent.”

The final question of the Presidential debate addressed the surprising fact that none of the prospective candidates have held a position on the SRC before running for the top seat, and asked what alternative experience they had “in terms of student advocacy, and supporting students outside of [the SRC].” Ma asserted that he saw his fresh face as “a boon, rather than a liability … I’ve found overwhelmingly that the vast majority of students do not engage with the SRC, [and] that is a liability because of the failure of the SRC to deliver anything tangible for students.” “We’ve got a comprehensive policy slate,” Ma continued, “We are currently campaigning on cost of living, on building a cheap fried chicken outlet, as well as abolishing the Student Service and Amenities Fee and disaffiliating from the National Union of Students.” With Ma concluding with this dropped bombshell of hitherto concealed and highly controversial campaign policies, no elaboration was provided before Chung’s time to answer. 

Keeping it, perhaps overly, concise, Chung pointed out that more than half of this year’s candidates were newcomers and that the SRC “will always need new blood,” and explained that his consultation with clubs meant EDGE’s policies for the election were “designed with them in mind.” Which clubs — and for that matter, policies — Chung was referring to, he failed to say, with the vagueness of his statements throughout the debate making it difficult to determine how effective a response to the concerns of UNSW’s wider student body their policies would realistically be. 

Moran once again provided a personal answer instead of a policy explainer, speaking to “the hard work [Moran has done] rectifying that experience gap” through his involvement in the SRC’s volunteer activism, and in his previous role as the SRC correspondent for yours truly, Noise@UNSW. Backing the strength of 365’s team as a whole, he emphasised his desire to “be a leader” instead of a boss, and, whether inadvertently or not, highlighted for the second time his dependence on Sengupta as the more experienced of the two in “the paperwork stuff.”

The President’s debate concluded with Richter-Weinstein announcing the results of the quiz that the three Presidential candidates completed prior to the debate. The candidates had been given twenty minutes to answer the 20 questions, which consisted primarily of multiple choice or short answers, and which you yourself can take here. In last place was Chung, who somehow scored even worse than I did, with an 8/10, followed by Moran with a barely passing 10/20, and Ma topping the class, yet not even earning himself a credit, with a 12/20. A valiant effort, and though I’d certainly never make the claim of being more suited to the position of President than any of our candidates, I’m also not running for the position with my 9/20… If you think you can do better, take the quiz!