SRC 6: ANUSA Meeting Collapses Amid CFMEU Dispute

Written by Finn Slattery-O’Brien and Jasmine Cook

SRC 6 lapsed after failing to meet quorum on Wednesday, 21 August. 

Multiple members of the body, including from the Labor left and an independent, departed the Graneek Room, triggering a quorum check that found the meeting could no longer continue. 

This occurred shortly before the finalisation of a vote on a motion expressing solidarity with the CFMEU, almost two hours after the meeting’s published starting time of 6:15 pm. 

This motion arose in light of the recent allegations of serious fraud and misconduct within the CFMEU. In particular, the ensuing bill brought by the Federal Government to have the union run by an administrator for at least three years in an effort to combat “widespread corruption and criminality” that is alleged to have pervaded the union.

The allegations in question go into the upper echelons of union leadership and include drug and organised crime-related offences. 

A government investigation was ordered and a bill was introduced with bipartisan support to place the CFMEU in administration. It passed 36 votes to 10 on Monday 19 August.

ANUSA in response had a motion of its own brought to detail the student association’s position on the matter.

The motion read:

• “ANUSA, while recognising that the allegations around the CFMEU are very concerning and that something has to be done, condemns the anti-union power grab of Labor and Liberal in putting the union into a >3 year administration.”
• “ANUSA will send a letter to the CFMEU national secretary expressing our solidarity with them in the face of union busting attacks.”

Three amendments were proposed, one friendly and two non-friendly. While the friendly one passed without dissent, the two non-friendly ones failed. 

The first amendment proposed to add a point which emphasised the seriousness of the “allegations of misconduct against the CFMEU,” but also the “immense danger” that could come to construction workers in the face of the “imposition” of an administrator for the union.

The second amendment sought to water down the language used in condemnation of the administration period imposed by the Federal Government, from “condemns the anti-union power grab” to merely “condemns” the “potential abuse” an administration period could enable. 

The final amendment further eased the language used, removing any explicit mention of the government condemning “right-wing attacks” and emphasising the criminal activities in unions that are “detrimental” to the broader movement.

The second and third amendments were brought by those who favoured a more moderate stance on the new Federal legislation, including from ANUSA’s Labor left and Labor right factions. Upon the failure of these amendments, a procedural was brought to go directly to a vote on the original, unamended motion. It quickly became clear when the votes were tallied for the affirmative side that it would pass

However, before the negative votes could be cast and the motion passed, a few SRC members who identified with the ALP and a more moderate stance on the CFMEU affair departed the Graneek room deliberately to obstruct the vote. 

This prompted calls to check quorum, and after several counts and recounts by the ANUSA General Secretary, it was found that it was no longer held.

According to the ANUSA Constitution (p.15), “The quorum for meetings of the SRC is half of the current total of Schedule A of the membership of the SRC, rounded up to the nearest whole person.” The meeting initially had sixteen SRC members, meeting quorum requirements. 

The departing representatives that counted towards quorum were a member of ANU Labor Left, and independent. They allegedly departed to force an end the meeting and block the likely passing of the motion by purposefully causing a failure in quorum.

Students speaking to Observer have raised concerns over the idea that ANUSA resolutions on behalf of the university population can be blocked by the withdrawal of only a couple of representatives. 

In response, the General Secretary said, “Unfortunately ANUSA cannot restrict representatives from leaving a room. 

“There is a standing interpretation that representatives may not abstain from a vote when present at the meeting. 

“However, we can look at root causes as to why representatives do not feel a desire to come to meetings and therefore putting us so close to quorum,” she said.

The General Secretary further noted that this lapse may have contributed to the meeting taking place towards the end of the term, the motion being perceived as less directly related to ANU and “some representatives reflecting [that] SRCs are an unpleasant environment and therefore discouraging them from attending.” 

Currently, ANUSA is in the process of a governance review, which will include addressing issues with meetings.  

Graphics by Shé Chani

Know something we don’t know? Email [email protected] or use our anonymous tip submission.

If you have an issue with this article, or a correction to make, you can contact us at [email protected], submit a formal dispute, or angry react the Facebook post.

Want to get involved? You can write articles, photograph, livestream or do web support. We’re also looking for someone to yell “extra!” outside Davey Lodge at 1AM. Apply today!