ANUSA Executive Allege Historic Misuse of Funds Will Cost Environment Department

By Rowey Worner Butcher 

Additional Reporting by Sarah McCrea, Sophie Felice, Nuria Olive, and Saffron Geyle

The ANU Environmental Department is currently facing threats of defunding after allegations of financial mismanagement in 2023 and 2024. 

These alleged threats of defunding were raised by the student activist campaign “No Cuts at ANU”. 

In a Facebook post, they alleged the current President, Education Officer, and Welfare Officer of ANUSA “voted to freeze the funds of the Environment Collective as well as endorsing the abolition of the collective” at a recent Environmental Collective meeting. 

Sarah Strange, current Environment officer at ANUSA, alleged that whilst a vote took place at the meeting, it “involved voting on non-binding positions that the EC wanted to take” and stated that “only the [ANUSA] President has the power to allow us to access our funding.”

Lucy Chapman, the co-convener of No Cuts at ANU, stated that the vote “represents an attempt by the ANUSA executive to restrict, and ultimately abolish, a left-wing activist collective on campus.” 

In a report conducted by Paul Colyer, a Senior Project Consultant at NFP Success, it was stated that “baseline funding was not provided to the [Environment] Department in 2023 or 2024, and the Department operated out of its reserves.” 

According to current ANUSA President Will Burfoot, the report was issued by ANUSA’s 2024 President, Phoenix O’Neill. 

This was “due to concerns that the Department had used its funding in ways that did not align with the Department’s constitution, the ANUSA constitution, and the Student Services and Amenities Fees (SSAF) guidelines,” Burfoot claimed. 

It is alleged that the Environment Department used some of its funding to send members to various conferences over the span of 2023-2024, including the Marxism Conference, held in Melbourne in 2023. 

The report found that in 2023, the Environment Department allocated “$10,000 for travel and conferences, whereas campaigns were only estimated to be $1,000 and merchandise appointed $5,300.” 

According to the Environment Department’s 2023 AGM minutes referenced in the report, $3,000 of this was allocated to sending 18 members of the department to the 2023 Marxism Conference, with a total expenditure of $3,447.60. 

Another $3,000 was allocated to the Keep Left 2023 conference, though only $295.10 was spent. In 2024, $4,000 was allocated to the Land Forces Expo, with a total of $2,449.64 being spent. 

In the report, it was stated in regard to Land Expo, “ANUSA have provided information that they have been unable to verify whether the reimbursement for a plane and bus ticket for a particular individual to attend the Land Expo was in fact paid to a student.” 

“The name of the person which appeared on the invoice could not be verified as being the name of a former or current student of ANU.”

“None of these expenditures aligned with the purpose in the department’s constitution” Burfoot stated.  

“They were not SSAF compliant. There is no evidence that conflicts of interest were managed. I have not been provided with any satisfactory explanation for these expenditures that would align with proper financial management and reasonable expectations of students.”

When questioned about the expenditures, Strange stated “this refers to events that took place in 2023 under the then-officer Rex Michelson.”

“They had nothing to do with me. During my tenure, I won’t allow money to be used to send people to Marxism Conference or any other non-environmental conference.”

Chapman alleges that the vote represents more than just the “question of what conference grants are legitimate.” 

She stated, “as demonstrated by the debate on Tuesday, the Labor students do not believe that struggles against war or for Indigenous land rights are linked to the fight for climate justice, they think the collective has always been useless and they believe that only the executive should be able to control the funds of the collective.” 

“Those kinds of restrictions being rammed through is an attack on anyone who cares about environmental activism on campus.”

Key recommendations from the report include “refined governance practices”, “refine expenditure approval protocols” and “establish improved communication structures between the Environment Department and ANUSA Executive to enhance transparency and collaboration.”

Burfoot stated that at ANUSA’s OGM 1 held on March 26th, “the ANUSA executive will be proposing constitutional amendments that (as part of a larger package of reform measures), will transition the Environment Department to an Environment Committee.”

This came from a “previous recommendation of the ANUSA Governance Review to abolish the Environment Department,” Burfoot claimed. 

The report issued by ANUSA, released on Wednesday February 26th, does not make any recommendation to abolish the Environment Department, or cease funding to the department.

The issue was fiercely debated at SRC 1, held Wednesday 26th February, where several motions were passed supporting these constitutional amendments. 

Carter Chryse, member of Socialist Alternative (SAlt) stated “to move to a committee format would restrict the ability of ordinary students to come and participate in these campaigns which have happened for over 50 years- nearly as long as the union itself.”

ANUSA’s BIPOC Officer, Aleeysa Amirizal pointed out that the Environment Department is the “only non-autonomous department” of the collective, allowing any ANU student to participate. 

ANUSA Treasurer Hayden O’Brien emphasised that under the proposed transformation, the Environment Department would still be able to operate. “We are making sure that an activist group that is important to our university stays but is reformed so this disgusting misuse of funds does not happen again.” 

For some, the threat of defunding is alleged to be politically motivated, “the Labor students have dredged up a budget line from several years ago, when Socialist Alternative did not even hold the office, to distract from the real meaning behind their proposed changes” Chapman stated.

“The intended effect of abolishing the collective goes well beyond the question of what conference grants are legitimate.”

Indeed, questions of political affiliation dominated discourse on the issue, as Burfoot stated at the SRC, “I believe SAlt is so opposed to this because they think they own the Enviro Collective.”

Moving forward, current Environment Officer, Sarah Strange stated “I have said consistently from the start that my work will be hindered by these reforms,” but emphasised “I have already committed to accepting each and every recommendation of the audit.”

More to come.

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!