We’re coming to you live from ANUSA’s third Student Representative Council meeting of the year. You can also find the livestream on our Facebook page.
We now move onto Motion 8.6, which covers assessable KPIs. If attained, ANUSA will give the NUS ,000 for accrediting. Sibal spoke for the motion, saying that ANUSA has allocated AUD12,000 in SSAF for accreditation. The motion passes with no one against.
And after five hours, we’re done! Meeting closed!
The motion passes.
CAP Representative Kai Clark speaks about the motion. He disapproves of the lack of the consultation about the KPIs, saying “we… need to have more discussion here about what exactly we want”.
The motion passes.
With the amendment passing, the SRC returns to debate the original motion discussing exit KPIs. Lim moves the motion, saying “the value of the NUS and the potential it has to make change and represent us”. The seconder Sibal also speaks for the motion, “the NUS in its current form is not as effective as it could be, but things are getting better.” She positions the KPIs as “encouraging positive change” for the NUS.
On the motion, Poole said an independent Returning Officer is “just not going to happen”, and that a vote for this as an exit KPI “is a vote not to accredit”. General Representative Henri Vickers also spoke for the motion.
Before the vote, Day declares the financial interest of Education Officer of Tanika Sibal and student Nick Pagonis in the vote, due to their involvement within the NUS.
The motion to make the RO an ‘assessable’ KPI passes.
We’re now moving onto discussing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the National Union of Students. It will be dealt with in two motions, that deals with exit and assessable KPIs respectively.
General Representative Yasmin Poole is currently moving an amendment in regards to the requirement of an impartial Returning Officer for the election of the NUS Executive later in the year.
Poole is speaking on behalf of General Representative Maddie Lezon, who has elected to leave the meeting due to the earlier events of the evening. Poole commented that the conduct was “pretty despicable” and that “the person who did that action is reprimanded”.
We’re now on to the NUS motions, but first it’s time for another five minute break.
The motion passes, an hour and 15 minutes after discussion of it began.
A speaker for the motion from the Refugee Action Committee brings up ANUSA’s endorsement of the Palm Sunday rally. He says that a member of RAC was “interrogated” by a person from ANU Security, arguing that this highlights that spaces on ANU are not student-focused.
The next speaker for the motion says, “I think it’s indicative of how much we care about this issue that we’ve been here for so long.” She urges the SRC to vote for the motion.
The final speaker disagrees with the earlier characterisation that everyone supports fee-free spaces, saying there has been a “complete lack of transparency”.
A motion passes to hear three more speakers in favour of the motion.
James uses his right of reply. “I think both ANUSA and students are tired of being pushed around by the ANU and we should push back,” he says.
Gen Rep Jade Lin says she will be voting for the motion, but she is “really disappointed” with how the debate has gone tonight. She says there has been “appalling behaviour”, and that she wishes that people could “do better” when there is a common sentiment.
A non-SRC member says she thinks it is unacceptable that “the two main activists” were removed as the result of their swearing. “We’re all adults here,” she says. She also speaks against the idea of confidentiality in meeting, saying it is a “sham process” of consultation that should be opposed.
President Eden Lim speaks in favour of the motion.
International Students’ Officer Hazel Ang speaks against the motion. “I hope I don’t bring out more anger,” she says. She says she thinks Kambri should be free, saying that ISD had to pay for an event hosted in Kambri. However, she takes issue with “the way the motion has been brought up”. She says that ANUSA Executives should not be chided for complying with confidentiality requirements.
And we’re back. The motion has been amended as a friendly amendment, to say “to the full extent of its bargaining power” rather than “wherever possible”.
Just want to point out that it’s 10:13pm. This meeting has been going on for nearly four hours, and we’re not even on to the NUS motions yet.
Aaaaand on to another 5 minute break.
Nick returns, saying, “Man the things you miss when you grab a cigarette; reason to quit.”
He says he thinks it’s “outrageous” that Grace was named, and that he agrees with her. “I don’t really back this motion as it stands,” he says. He says it is “undemocratic” that the contentious amendment was passed by fewer students than agreed to the motion at the Forum and Enviro Collective meeting.
In conclusion, he says, “Fuck it, name me again, I’m out.” He is named for a third time and told to leave. Unlike the earlier person, he walks out promptly.
A procedural motion passes to quash the earlier procedural motion (to allow more time for people to speak in favour of the motion).
Now a procedural motion passes to wait for Nick Blood, who moved the motion, to return.
Kai’s amendment to add “where possible” to the motion passes.
It looks like the person in question has left the room, so we’re back to the meeting.
Lachy has just said that there’s 5 minutes for the “person that has been named multiple times to leave the room”, and that otherwise “this meeting will not continue”.
In wholesome news, Social Officer Matthew Mottola will be giving lifts in the ANUSA minibus to those who have missed their bus home as a result of this meeting’s length.
We have now been adjourned for 20 minutes. Fun times.
Update: we’re still adjourned.
Another non-SRC member speaks for the amendment, but they seem to be arguing against it. Someone puts forward a ‘gag motion’, and Lachy names the speaker because they continue speaking.
We wait for Lachy to get the Standing Orders up, as he says his “computer has died”. The gag motion would have the speaker, Grace, no longer be heard on the matter, and it requires a two-thirds majority to pass.
The motion fails. Grace labels the gag attempt “right-wing censorship”.
Grace swears while delivering her speech, and is named by Lachy as a consequence. This is the third time she has been named, so Lachy says she must leave. She does not leave, so Lachy deems the meeting adjourned.
A speaker against says that ANUSA should stand for free bookings “all the time”, and that cleaning fees can be addressed separately from booking fees if events make a mess.
Social Officer Matthew speaks for the motion, saying that sometimes fees such as cleaning fees go towards paying people’s wages.
Another non-SRC member speaks against the amendment, saying it is “very vague and broad”, but acknowledges that “we do need ANUSA to be available to compromise”. They suggest an alternative amendment.
CAP Rep Kai Clark proposes an amendment to add “wherever possible” to one of the sections. He says this is “strictly pedantic”, to allow for ANUSA to accept a proposal that, for example, involves free spaces except for a small maintenance fee.
Environment Officer Nick seconds the amendment, but says it is not a friendly amendment (as he is the original mover of the motion). Nick says this is because the original motion is what was agreed upon by his Collective, but he “understand[s] where Kai’s coming from”.
Now we’re on to motion 8.4, on the topic of Kambri booking fees. This is the motion agreed upon by the Student Forum on the issue. It calls on ANUSA Executives to advocate against the proposed policy, and for ANUSA to “take this issue up with Chancellery at the next possible opportunity”.
There’s a procedural motion put forward to allow for more time for people to speak in favour of the motion. This passes.
Motion 8.3 discusses the loss of the Number 3 bus, and the alternative measures in place to get around campus. The motion calls for the creation of a committee to “collaboratively work together in the pursuit of accessible and available campus transport for students in the interim before the launch of the official ANU internal shuttle service in late 2019”. It is moved by Disabilities Officer and seconded by Education Officer Tanika. Again, the motion passes without issue.
Next up is a motion to establish an Honoraria Committee, as provided for in the ANUSA constitution. Lachy moves the motion, saying, “Don’t put me in a constitutional crisis please.” The motion passes without issue.
Clubs Council Secretary Jason Pover is moving to have the Financial Review Committee investigate why the University did not pay ANUSA its mid-year SSAF last year. The Terms of Reference include “whether the response to the issue by ANUSA has been sufficient” and “whether the prolonged absence of a financial controller contributed to the issue”. The motion would have the Committee report to this Semester’s AGM, or another General Meeting.
“This Exec and previous ones have really emphasised the importance of financial management…and I think that’s important,” Jason says. He says the AUD150 000 is “a lot of money”. The motion passes with no further debate.
ANUSA extends nominations for Probity Officers as so far only two people have nominated.
And we’re back! Elisheva Madar, Kevin Tanaya, Isabel Marsh, and Rebecca Kreisler have been elected to he Disputes Committee.
We are currently literally locked out. Lachy has announced a 5 minute break to work out how to open the doors.
Voting for this is going to be ‘in camera’, so we’ll be back in a few minutes with results.
There is a question about the breadth of the Disputes Committee’s powers, especially its ability to overrule interpretations of various representative positions. All candidates say that such a decision would not be made lightly.
There are no further questions, so question time ends.
A motion passes to extend question time for five minutes.
A question about the candidates’ opinions on the most recent Disputes decision is deemed inappropriate.
The candidates are asked why they think they’re suited to the role. Elisheva cites relevant experience, Isabel says she’s a law student with an interest in interpretation who would be unbiased, and Kevin says he thinks “it’s important that the process is fair and all voices are heard”.
The candidates are also asked about departmental autonomy, and how the Disputes Committee should deal with Departments. They are asked about their political affiliations, and none of the three have any. Kevin draws laughter by saying “Well, I’m from a different country.”
There’s also a fun legal theory-esque question about whether it’s just to break an unjust rule. All say they do not think it’s the role of Disputes to determine whether the rules are just, but rather to interpret and apply them as they are.
The candidates are also asked whether they have any close relationships with people on ANUSA. Kevin basically says no. Isabel says yes, but that she would maintain impartiality. Elisheva says that she thinks it’s actually beneficial that she knows people on ANUSA, as it would help her to understand the context and consequences of matters.
We move on to elections for the Disputes Committee. This is essentially ANUSA’s Court – it can overrule the General Secretary’s interpretations, or deem that ANUSA’s policies/regulations/constitution have been breached and order a variety of penalties/remedies.
Three of the six nominees are here at the meeting. The six candidates are:
- Elisheva Madar
- Isabel Marsh
- Kevin Tanaya
- Rebecca Kreisler
- Aroa Grace Susuairana
- Sharmilla Jordan-Mee
Clubs Council Char James Howarth speaks to his report. The Council has approved AUD29,910.67 of funding so far this year out of its AUD150,000 budget. James revises the amount of money spent up to about AUD32000. He says “from what [he] can tell, this is pretty much on track” for clubs spending.
The report also mentions that James brought his dog Loki (a samoyed/shoobie) to a meeting to help get quorum. From the description, he was a good boy.
James said he is yet to hear anything further on Kambri prices from ANU or ANUSA, though he has heard “rumours” that the fees are going to be a bit lower. He says the fees as planned “would be devastating for clubs”. “This sort of money shouldn’t be going back into ANU’s pockets, it should be going towards clubs’ events,” he says.
Aisha Setipa delivers the Ethnocultural Officer’s report. Eth-Yes! Week is this week, and a directing team has been chosen for Ethno Revue. Speaking to her report, Aisha says the launch of the week yesterday was successful, despite two out of the three planned speakers for the event dropping out last-minute. She thanks a number of Departments and individuals who have assisted with Eth-Yes! Week, and flags that the Market Day event is tomorrow.
Nick Blood presents the Environment Department Report. The report highlights upcoming events including Earth Day Planting, a documentary screening, and the cancellation of a field trip to the Mugga Lane Materials Recovery Facility. The trip was cancelled due to insufficient interest. Also mentioned is the Kambri booking fee controversy, which has been brought up a lot at this meeting and will be discussed in a motion later.
Nick flags that he brought fruit for snacks for people, including an onion “for any young Libs in the room”. He also says he wants to “express concerns” about some things that have been said at this SRC. He expresses issues with Campbell’s statement about there being many other issues to advocate on. He brings up water as an issue that it’s important to advocate on, and points out that the Collective organised a bake sale in Kambri to raise money for communities experiencing water shortages.
In response to a question, Nick expands on how he thinks the booking fee issue interacts with free speech. “It’s putting a price on speech,” he says. He also says that a forum by academics on gender and the environment in the Asia-Pacific “was priced out of Kambri”.
We’re back again.
Lachy clarifies that he meant to say that Clare’s resignation and the issues relating to it are currently an active matter with ANUSA, not that it’s before the Disputes Committee.
We go to another 5 minute break. Some non-SRC members don’t seem happy about this, but no SRC members vote against it.
Note: Clare is resigning as at 12am, so she will remain in her position for the rest of this evening.
Madhu answers a number of questions about the transport situation on campus.
We go to a five minute break in light of this significant turn of events.
Lachy cuts in, saying that the matter is currently before the Disputes Committee. He asks that the discussion stop as a student has contacted him reporting their distress, and Clare stops after finishing her sentence.
Note: Jessica Whiting was not involved in this section’s reporting.
“I am resigning because my workplace is not healthy,” she says. “The Executive have repeatedly failed to adhere to their own policies.” Eden tries to move a procedural to stop the speech on the basis of safety and wellbeing, but this fails.
“As established with the Kambri booking fees, there is a lack of accountability within the exec,” Clare continues.
Claire Bricknell resigns while speaking to the report.
Disabilities Co-Officers Madhumitha Janagaraja and Clare Bricknell present their report. It talks about the loss of the Number 3 bus. “The ANU has promised a commitment to…a shuttle service,” Madhu says, saying that a soft launch will likely occur late this year.
Sam Neave presents the Queer* Officer’s report. Pride Week is early in Semester 2. The report passes with no questions.
Women’s Officer Priyanka Tomar speaks to her report. The Department has launched its “EmBody Power Campaign” that “focuses on unpacking the mainstream body positivity movement”. She also flags the Respectful Relationships program at ANU, including the forums for student consultation on the Sexual Violence Prevention Strategy that are happening this week.
We’re back! Indigenous Officer Sarah Loynes is absent from SRC 3, so her report is passed in her absence. The Department has passed its budget and elected a Social Officer.
A procedural motion is passed to take a 10 minute break.
On the Dogs Day Out, Matthew says that he has contacted the RSPCA to see if they will bring dogs and organise the event. If not, he will ask them for advice on hosting a BYO dog event.
Matthew is asked again about the Kambri meeting. He says his role on the Committee is not about the venue hire policy; rather, the Reference Group is “more about the…functional operations” such as toilet issues and vendor move-in dates. He says he has raised the venue hire issue occasionally “despite it not being [his] place”.
On the issue of portaloos vs profits at Friday Night Party, Matthew says that “as an Executive, we decided to hold an event for 1700 people”. The event therefore could not be scaled up in response to the success. He says that “initially it was scaled to about the number of people that we had”, but that this was changed. He says that from his experience, “you can’t really base it on Facebook numbers”, and so the growth of the event on social media was not enough warning as to the scale of the event.
Gen Rep Brandon Tan asks about what projects have been funded by SEEF. He says that there has been sponsorship for students to attend conferences, as well as funding for social-type events, and there is a “new entrepreneurial grant in the pipeline”.
Kai asks about payment for the FNP photographers. Matthew says he is working out the issue, as he had thought they were going to be paid. He says a policy for paying artists is “in the works”.
On to Social Officer Matthew Mottola’s report. The Social Committee has met, and although it has a small budget, it’s planning a number of events – including a “dogs day out”. Clubs Ball planning is also underway.
Matthew flags that applications for Bush Week directors close Monday 6 May. He also says he is going out for drinks after this meeting if anyone wants to join.
A student asks when the next Kambri Reference Group meeting will be. He only knows it will be “soon”, as it’s “convened by Kambri” and not by him.
Dashveen says that the profit from Friday Night Party will “probably just go back into the reserves”, rather than being redistributed to other budget line items.
He says he is working to ensure Departments keep track of the necessary documentation, such as receipts, over this year so that next year’s planned audit can go smoothly.
Kai asks Dashveen how the mid-year SSAF was missed. Dashveen says it was at the point that ANUSA’s Financial Controller was leaving, and so things were missed. Kai asks whether that means there could be more mistakes. Dashveen responds that there are yet to be any further issues, and that if any arise, “we’ll sort it out”.
Dashveen Jose delivers the Treasurer’s report. ANUSA has been paid the mid-year SSAF money that it was owed….there’s a motion about this issue coming later. ANUSA’s audit is on track (it must be presented to the AGM), but Dashveen’s report says that “Department audits have been delayed and will not be undertaken this year.” Apparently the required documents were not given to the auditor by the Departments.
The Treasurer’s report reveals that Friday Night Party made a profit of over AUD37000 (sorry, our liveblogging software hates dollar signs). Readers may recall that there were issues with there being not enough toilets. Presumably these came under ‘Logistics/Security’, which cost about AUD26000…so ANUSA could have doubled the number of loos and still been in the green.
Dashveen says he will post the First Year Camp financial reports after the meeting, as he does have the information.
Lachy is asked why his report does not go into the details of Friday’s SGM. He said he was concerned that he would have “internalised bias”, given the SGM is related to an interpretation he made, which he wished to avoid as chair of SRC meetings.
Lachy is also asked what section of the Standing Orders gives him the ability to stop questions. He says he thinks it ultimately comes from the ANUSA Code of Conduct, in that he is “coming from a stance of protection” to reps answering questions.
General Secretary Lachy Day delivers his report. The Electoral Reform Working Group has met three times and will formulate recommendations for ANUSA’s Annual General Meeting in Week 12. As well as the AGM, there is a Special General Meeting which will be held this week after more than 80 students signed a petition to meet.
The Governance Review will not be completed in time for ANUSA’s elections, and constitutional changes will not be able to be passed this year because the deadline has passed for the changes to go to the University Council (which approves ANUSA’s constitution as part of SSAF funding requirements).
Tanika Sibal presents her Education Officer’s report. It mentions that last week’s Education Committee meeting “became quite intense at times”. Education Committee also has a new logo. With enrolments closed, ANUSA’s “Get Enrolled, Get Informed, Get Voting” federal election campaign has moved to the “Get Informed” and “Get Voting” stages. There are plans for a policy summary zine, and explanations of how and where to vote. Speaking to her report, she says that since she wrote it, she has organised an event with Senate candidates.
In response to a question, Tanika says that the First Year Camp financial report will be presented to next SRC.
Tanika is also asked about the planned NUS KPIs, and why they are the same as last year. She says “they seem to be a good basis to go off”, and that she sent the proposal out to the SRC a couple of weeks ago to get people’s thoughts. She said a forum with the NUS President and student reps “went really well”, with about 10 people attending and “lots of questions” being asked.
One person asks what mechanism Lachy uses to bring question time to an end. Lachy says he will answer it if it is a point of clarification. He says that the SRC can move procedurals to extend time, or can dissent the chair. He emphasises that it is SRC members who get to vote on how the meeting goes.
Campbell is asked how ANUSA reps maintain their integrity given the confidential nature of many of the ANU committee meetings. In response, he ultimately concludes, “that’s what our elections are for.”
Lachy tries to go to a vote on the report, but there is a successful procedural motion to hear the last three questions.
One student asks, “Would you support a public campaign against Kambri fees to help ANUSA argue for students?” Campbell says he “would have to think about it”, though he acknowledges that that is “not good enough”. Campbell raises that there are a lot of issues to advocate about. A couple of people, including Environment Officer Nick Blood, are named for yelling out in response.
Eden asks a dixxer about free breakfast at the BKSS. Campbell says it’s still going strong, but that attendance is lower than when the BKSS was in Melville Hall.
We move now to the Vice President’s report from Campbell Clapp. Campbell flags the movement of the BKSS to the second floor of the Di Riddell building, and his work on student welfare and support. He also notes that he was ANUSA president for 3 days, while Eden was on leave.
Speaking to his report, Campbell flags a number of initiatives he’s been involved with, including Skill Up and the Sex and Consent series.
Campbell is asked a question about the Kambri fees, and whether he thinks a public campaign would be beneficial. He says it was good that the information was given to students, but that is all he will say. He says that having one student on the relevant committees is “better than a lot of other unis”. Campbell says it is better to sit on the committees than avoid them out of protest.
Eden is asked a number of questions about the Kambri booking fees. She says she has “absolutely” always advocated for the use of the space to be free. One person says the consultation process was “a sham”, as only a few students were involved and they were bound to secrecy. Eden says she has successfully advocated for a student forum, but does not acquiesce to the request to give full details of the booking fee plans.
A motion to extend discussion time by 10 minutes fails. A motion to hear the last person who had their hand up to answer their question does pass.
In response to this last question, Eden says that the student forum will likely be next week, but that she has told ANU it “should have been done months ago”.
Also, Eden has selected General Representative Madeleine Lezon to be the ANUSA representative on the ANU Union Board. She is associated with Labor’s right faction. Eden says the process for choosing the representative was different this year to last year’s and was “more thorough”. SRC members were invited to answer questions and Madeleine was selected on the basis of this. Eden is asked how many people applied, and she says she would have to take this on notice.
Environment Officer Nick Blood questions Lim about a motion passed at SRC 2 in regards to the Palm Sunday rally. Blood highlights ANUSA did not share the event on their Facebook page or newsletter. Blood questions asks whether “it was worth our time”.
Lim said she would “do some research” about what went wrong, as she “does not know where the breakdown was”. This was met with some further mummerings from some non-SRC members.
Eliza Croft did not contribute to this blog entry.
President Eden Lim delivers her report. It particularly discussed the Student Assistance Unit, saying the Unit has received more enquiries about emergency accommodation, and many more students seeking assistance in January, than in previous years. The report also notes that there have been “teething issues” with ANUSA’s new office space in the Di Riddell Student Centre.
Speaking to her report, Eden says that the Student Assistance Unit has concluded its quarterly report, and numbers are up. She says she is “really, really encouraged by the fact that people are reaching out”, but that “it also means that students out there are struggling”. She also mentions ANUSA’s move. “There was a bit of flooding, but it’s chill,” she says.
General Secretary Lachy Day goes through the standing orders and the general conduct of meetings. There are some murmurs of unhappiness from some non-SRC members when he says that votes on contentious issues are conducted ‘in camera’ (so non-SRC members only get the final result).
Meeting opens at 6:20pm with an Acknowledgement of Country.
Here we are at the third ANUSA SRC meeting for the year. Strap yourselves in, because this is probably going to be a long one with a number of contentious issues. Most prominently, the SRC will decide on whether to accredit with the National Union of Students, and if so, whether this should be subject to conditions. You can read about the proposed motions, and the history of ANUSA’s relationship with the NUS, in this article. There is also going to be discussion of the Kambri booking fee issue, the campus transport situation given the loss of the Number 3 bus, and the case of the missing SSAF money.