February 2025 SRC Wrapup

The first SRC meeting of the year was also the first in a long time to be held in person. The media, including myself, were also given the ability to ask questions of the SRC, both in general and pertaining to particular motions.

SRC President Diya Sengupta, opened the meeting with an Acknowledgement of Country. She said  that it had been brought to her attention that the way this had been done in the past was insufficient. The Acknowledgement now is longer and more substantial. Sengupta here acknowledged specifically how culturally significant items were destroyed in the process of the light rail’s construction, which is how many arrive at University.

 One thing Sengupta also outlined to members of the SRC was that now, unlike in the past, anything said in the meeting is public, as are all members’ votes on motions. Changes to the SRC Charter also include requiring someone to second any motion moved by a member of the SRC. After this, if no one speaks against the motion, the motion passes, without moving to a vote. While there are no doubt those in the SRC who oppose a given motion but won’t speak against it even with these rules in place, these rules at least put the onus on them to make their opposition known- as otherwise in the media it will read ‘passed unanimously’. The Socialist Alternative bloc in the SRC have long pushed for dissenters to make their voices heard. It might not always be a good faith invitation to speak, but at least they aren’t only out to extend their own speaking time.

Jamie Tyers (SAlt) approaches Sengupta to say ‘we (the SAlt bloc in SRC) oppose this’ and he states he was not aware of any of these changes. There is some back and forth as Sengupta and others say that Tyers did, in fact, get the memo but perhaps just didn’t read it.

The first motion of the night, moved by Conroy Blood (Greens) for the SRC to encourage students to make submissions to an inquiry into university restrictions on free speech in regard to the issue of Palestine. Blood says it is a ‘fairly uncontroversial’ motion. With no one opting to speak against the motion, it passes.

Tyers reiterates his disapproval for new amendments to the SRC charter and proposes that for this meeting they revert to the old way of doing things. Sengupta insists that these are the rules now, and that at least for this meeting the SRC should give the changes a chance. At Tyers’ request, Sengupta then calls for a 5-minute recess.

The next motion up is from Tyers, who pushes here for a return to semesters, saying that the current trimester system has failed both staff and students. Noise asked what Tyers’ timeline to return to semesters was, to which he said ‘They [university management] should change it now’.

Tyers also raises that he hasn’t been consulted on the changes to the current academic calendar the university is looking at making, despite him being Education officer. Tyers says that since Sengupta was consulted, she should speak to the motion. Citing the survey regarding the calendar changes, which at the time was still taking responses, Sengupta dissented and abstained from the motion. They encouraged the rest of the SRC to wait for the survey results to come out. One SAlt member, Owen, spoke to the motion saying that things should not be decided via survey and that they wanted the SRC President to be bound by this motion come time for negotiations with management.

Avasa Bajracharya (SAlt) spoke for the motion, saying that the satisfaction rate for staff and students was at a national low of 64%. Blood also supports the motion, alongside General Secretary Akash Nagarajan, who said that surveys can give fuzzy conclusions, but also stressed the importance of a good replacement to trimesters.

Tyers addresses this by saying that often universities will make these changes and then slide attacks on staff through the cracks in the process.

Sengupta addresses Tyers’ unhappiness with the university not consulting them on these changes by asking them if they would like to come to future consultations with management. Tyers seemed hesitant to commit to that, but did say they would at least appreciate being informed of these meetings. With no other abstentions the motion carried.

Conroy Blood then came to open the next motion which called for support for Green Senator Mehreen Faruqi’s bill to require universities to divest from weapons, mining and gambling among other unethical industries. Blood said that the university is complicit both in wars and with the gambling problem in their community of western Sydney. Welfare Officer Brendan Tate seconded the motion, which then passed unanimously without dissent.

Next up was environment officer Emma Terry for a motion on Trans rights. In the motion they called out the Queensland Liberal-National government under David Crisafulli, whose pause on puberty blocker access Terry likened to child abuse.  Puberty blockers are used to avoid trans children having to go through puberty of the wrong gender, which can help reduce the amount of surgeries and treatments required to transition. It also gives trans people time to consider their gender identity. I agree with Terry on this matter- this move to block key treatments for trans people is part of the wider rise of the far-right, not to mention it goes against the very facts and logic the right likes to tout but never cite. Terry continued, saying this move by the QLD government was a push for gender hierarchies and that the SRC should oppose this and push for an activist response.

Mia Topen, as part of Noise, asked what the SRC is doing to oppose the rise of the far right beyond motions. Terry responded by highlighting that protests can be the beginning of broader movements that lead to change in other spheres, pointing to the examples of Mardi Gras and marriage equality.

Gamamari reporter Sankalp asked a similar question, asking what the SRC is doing on campus in regard to this. Terry said that on and off campus, you have to take up the broader political fights, saying that these are important everywhere.

Sankalp, like many journalists who question elected officials, tried to push them into concretely answering the question. It speaks to a broader philosophical fight within student politics. Motion after motion people continue to ask what SAlt is actually achieving with said motion. SAlt successfully baits their opponents into criticizing them for protesting- their detractors would say fruitlessly. It ignores SAlt’s broader strategy to flood the zone with motions that are not objectionable but not always concretely actionable, not that this is an inherently bad thing.

Sankalp rephrases his question, saying to Terry that she didn’t understand his question, to which Terry shoots back sternly ‘You don’t understand my answer’. Gamamari’s continued mistake in this meeting is trying to go toe-to-toe with prize fighters. It very much sounded like, in his question, he was trying to imply that SAlt wasn’t doing anything beyond motions. I have no interest in litigating the protest credentials or policy achievements of any members of the SRC, but if you are, don’t walk into the SAlt beartrap as if you stumbled upon a golden-gotcha question. Because there is nothing SAlt loves more than bringing up their protest credentials.

Queer Officer Alyss Cachia moves to amend the motion, to recognize other organisations other than CARR that have fought for the same goals, which Terry is amenable to.

Conroy Blood draws the ire of Terry for stating his disapproval of CARR for not commenting on a variety of issues that Blood felt they should’ve. During this exchange Luke Cox (Together Again) says they are a SAlt front. Terry shouts back ‘How dare you take a swipe’ at CARR.

Cox comes up to the podium to speak against the motion and vote to abstain from the motion. Cox states this is because of his disapproval of the organisations mentioned in the motion- Pride in Protest (for being against the Voice to Parliament) and CARR for being ‘A SAlt front’. He nevertheless says he supports the spirit of the motion.

Amongst the credit-taking competition between SAlt, the Greens and the Labor members of the SRC, Mia Topen for Noise asks what grassroots things labor are doing on the topic. Cox mentions the SDA union in his response, which draws near unanimous giggling. SAlt members mention that union’s opposition to marriage equality and general conservative streak. Cox seems to bask in heckles he gets. He argues that this opposition to marriage equality was at the time and not now, and also mentions that he himself is queer. He makes a gaffe in saying he wasn’t born ‘at the time’ to which one SAlt member asks ‘You weren’t born in 2017?’. Luke clarifies to say he wasn’t active in the union at the time, to which Jamie says he personally went to his first union thing when he was 5. Cox responds by  saying that his parents just wanted their kids to be normal. Sengupta gives Cox a warning for this. In light of his opposition to the motion, Cachia asks Cox how long she should have to wait to wait for the inquiry till she can get H.R.T. again. One SAlt member calls out ‘Come on Luke sit down’. After a vote the motion was easily carried.

SAlt Councilor Louisa Chen moves a motion to oppose Trump, calling out Labor for not doing so enough. You Wei, proxying for Ethnocultural officer Ethan Lim moves to amend the motion to include opposing the intrusion of any far-far forces on campus, citing the rise of Islamophobia and Antisemitism across Australia. Chen accepts the amendment.

Blood asks Chen if SAlt will organise against the Liberals and Clive Palmer at all or just talk about Trump. Chen replies saying voting for Labor doesn’t fix anything and raises how SAlt is campaigning in the upcoming election under Victorian Socialists.

Sankalp from Gamamari asks Chen ‘Do only Victorian working class’ get that level of attention from SAlt, drawing groans from the SAlt block in the meeting, along with some excited jeers from SAlt members who would love for VicSoc to expand nation-wide. Don’t threaten SAlt with a good time, Sankalp. Gamamari’s SRC correspondent overall showed some willingness to engage in debate themselves given their jabs at SAlt here. However, I think if that is their intention they should run for SRC instead of covering it for Gamamari. Credit where credit is due, they did raise questions later which I felt gave the SRC an opportunity to share genuinely useful information, but their tone too often with their questions seemed to indicate they thought some SRC members were doing very little. That’s a fine view for an SRC correspondent to have, but if it’s a view they hold they need to come out and back it up with evidence instead of continually implying it. There is nothing wrong with having a view on things but you need to declare it and take a step back from conflicts of interest.

Motion carried.

Environment Officer Terry flagged in her motion against fossil fuels that she is working on an open letter to the university, and calls out Woodside and Labor for greenwashing and enabling fossil fuel production with legal loopholes. Despite the criticism of Labor, the motion passed without dissent.

Queer Officer Cachia was next with a  motion to disarm police, saying that the U.K. and the New Zealand that have done so have not seen increases in crime rate. She said that there is the requirement for police to have weapons sometimes, but cops with 6 months of training can’t be reliably trusted with them.

Luke Cox speaks against, speaking out against attempts to remove police from Mardi Gras despite the irrelevance of this to the motion.

The other Queer Officer, Ren Woodward, spoke for the motion saying police actively endanger communities and said that Labor speaks over trans people.

Sankalp from Gamamari asked that since the removal of cops from Mardi Gras failed as a motion in the Mardi Gras, along with similar motions, that this means that is the queer community’s stance. Cachia replied saying that it isn’t, given that Mardi Gras membership is relatively expensive and also doesn’t represent the whole of the Queer community regardless.

SAlt councillor Anais Williamson speaks for the motion, opposing the right of police to do violence and states they show up at protests in numbers too large to actually be helpful for public safety. You Wei on behalf of Lim abstains from the motion, acknowledging the harm done to marginalized communities at the hands of cops. Their justification for abstaining was that the Westfield Bondi Junction massacre, in which a police officer (rather than S.W.A.T. or another specialized unit) killed the perpetrator. Personally, as someone who was at Bondi Junction at the time of the massacre, I can tell you that S.W.A.T. were on their way very fast, and if I remember correctly, I heard helicopters before I heard the cop’s gunshots, but regardless the two were not far apart.

Dan Gulic (Together Again) proposes the implementation at UNSW of digital student ID cards, which among other things would avoid many students getting fines on public transport should they forget their physical card. President Sengupta says it is not something that can be implemented in the upcoming year and the motion carrying only begins the process. Motion carried with no speakers against.

General Secretary Akash Nagarajan (Together Again) put forward a motion to have an elected student representative present at negotiations for changes to the academic claender saying ‘If we’re not on the table we’re on the menu’. Welfare officer Tate then moved an amendment that would force that student to hold a pro-semester view, promoting Students with disabilities officer Blood to speak against the amendment, saying that it was unreasonable and that any representative would likely hold such views anyway. Concillor Jacob Mullholland (SAlt) gets in Blood’s face and Blood demands Mullholland to ‘let me speak’.

Akash reiterates we need a seat at the table, should not be constrained to be pro semester, they would be democratically elected anyway. Education officer Tyers says that the SRC can’t oppose the representative being bound to a pro-semester stance given the pro-semester stance the SRC adopted in the earlier motion on the topic. SAlt reiterated in answers to many questions that regardless of what happens they will pretty much die on the hill of being pro-semester, even in hypotheticals where semesters aren’t on the table. The SAlt bloc, in all the confusion amongst this motion, realises that the motion calls for an election of a student representative, rather than just calling for an existing SRC member to sit in on these meetings, which the President already does. SAlt becomes heavily in favour of making Sengupta this person, claiming that the previous motion passing already essentially forced thePresident to take a pro-semester stance anyway. With around 30 heated minutes of debate dedicated to this motion, General Secretary Nagarajan scraps the motion. Queer Officer Cachia emphasises the importance of submitting motions on time in order to avoid this confusion. The Salt amendment becomes a standalone motion, which Sengupta votes for this time given the SRC had already earlier adopted a pro-semester stance. The motion then passes unanimously after going to a vote.

In her President’s report, Sengupta mentioned clothing hub is coming, complete with clothing bins around campus which will introduce people to mutual aid. She also raised the work she has been doing with councillor Ally Egan on bringing stress less week to rural students. They also highlighted the success of the women’s collective picnic, and the Queer collective’s recent protesting prior to Mardi Gras. They also mentioned that universal short extensions were in the pipeline to be implemented.

Blood asked Brendan why the mutual aid for strikers from the motion Tate moved in the first SRC meeting of this SRC never got through. Brendan said it was simply because the strike ended.

Councilor Joseph Bellia (365) then asked Tate if there was any update on the affordable meal scheme, a key campaign promise that Tate had touted as being particularly popular with students they spoke to during campaigning. Tate said he had no update to give on the matter.

In the Queer officer’s report Alyss Cachia mentioned cross university collaboration with queer collectives at other universities, something Blood mentioned they are doing with students with disabilities collectives in their report in order to find ways to boost attendance in collective meetings among other things. Officer Woodward said the Queer collective brought in 70 members during o-week, which emphasizes o-week’s importance with collectives. The two officers also raised that they were getting support from management in procuring a new queer space. Sankalp of Gamamari asked for examples of how trans students are being supported on campus, to which Cachia mentions the establishment of queer officers as being a point of contact, along with clothing swaps which are helpful in providing and sourcing clothing for trans students, and finally the financial and emotional support the collective provides.

Students with disabilities officer Blood mentioned they alongside Sengupta are working on making sure all staff receive equitable learning services training.

Councilor Sam Lewis (SAlt) mentioned their petition against Trump which prompted officer Blood to ask what a petition had to do with tangible action, saying it sounds a lot like SAlt is just trying to phoneback, which officer Tyers happily admitted, saying that phonebanking helps spread awareness of protesting.

In the meeting evaluation, both President Sengupta and meeting observer Tyers said they preferred in person hybrid model over the online only model, though Tyers raised they would be moving changes to the SRC charter flagged earlier, saying that they felt the old rules were more conducive to debate and that disagreement could happen even in a motion that goes on to pass unanimously. Given SAlt’s size in the SRC, it only takes an absence or two from other members to increase their voting power. If that happens again in the next meeting, we could see the newly implemented charter rules thrown out already. Even as SAlt look to have well and truly lost an ally this meeting in Conroy, who had campaigned under their umbrella, they don’t look like they are in any they are in any need of a new ally - so far zero motions from SAlt, who move the majority of motions, have failed. While some in the SRC may see the overall SAlt strategy as ineffectual, there is little appetite to shoot down a SAlt motion, an action that would only serve as ammunition against whoever did. The media in the form of Gamamari seems to be one of the few happy to take the bait, which I worry endangers the media’s presence and good standing with the SRC, especially since this is the first time media has had such an intimate level of access in years.