All the Financial and Regulatory Info You Missed at ANUSA Clubs Committee #1

By Eduardo Caceres-Sandoval

While the ANUSA Clubs Committee lacks formal power, it was described as “space for constructive discussion” by Harrison Oates, ANUSA Clubs Officer for 2025. 

In the first Clubs Committee meeting of the year, discussion focussed primarily on the financial and regulatory future of clubs on campus.

CLUB GRANT POLICY FOR 2025

116 Clubs have affiliated with ANUSA for 2025, partitioning the Clubs Budget to the $200,000 granted in 2024. 

In 2024, the entirety of the budget was expended, and an expected funding cap of $1800 was denied, with the funding cap claimed by Oates to be “much higher…similar to the funding cap in 2024”. 

What kind of events for your society are more likely to receive funding? Regarding the Ordinary Events Grant (accessible on QPAY), “more diverse events” that ANUSA “couldn’t hold itself” are more likely to pass the ANUSA selection panel. Standard events such as Club Coffee Catch-Ups have a higher likelihood of rejection. 

To alleviate these pressures on the Ordinary Events Grant (OEG), two new policies were floated: the Special Events Grant (SEG) and the Joint Event Grant (JEG).

These grants were suggested as methods to avoid cuts to the $8 per attendee OEG grant in 2025 due to financial pressure. 

The proposed SEG is to function as a shared sponsorship pool designed for smaller ANUSA-affiliated clubs lacking the connections required to gain private corporate sponsorship. 

While not included in the Clubs Committee 1 minutes, it was suggested by Oates that the SEG is entirely opt-in, requiring an ANUSA logo or banner present at the event. The target budget size for the SEG is $50,000, with sources of funding complying with ANU External Sponsorship policies. 

While not directly associated with the Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF) funding regulations, the ANUSA interpretation is beholden to SSAF rules. As such, politically-aligned clubs, parties and candidates will not have access to the SEG.

Information on the JCAP is limited. Its preliminary description is provided by Harrison Oates as “distributing material items provided by sponsorships, such as energy drinks, to clubs on demand”. No further details were provided at Clubs Committee 1. 

KAMBRI AND ANU VENUE POLICIES

External organisations seeking to hire Kambri Venues can expect to pay $2000 per day, the Category 5 minimum for such a hire. 

ANUSA-affiliated clubs must also pay $250-$500 in cleaning fees, depending on the scale of the event. 

Questions have arisen around this policy, when an ANU-affiliated club holds an event on campus on behalf of a sponsor. Any event that features a sponsor’s name in the title will be automatically charged as category 5.

This policy has rendered title sponsorship deals, a source of revenue for many clubs, impossible if using Kambri Venues. At Clubs Committee #1, it appears that ANUSA has accepted this, advising to “not include a sponsored title” and to “put in the description” during the meeting. 

This does not apply to political clubs and organisations. Discretion is difficult to establish with the limit set at “overwhelmingly featuring external sponsors beyond the club itself”.

Theatre clubs featuring ticketed events in Kambri will incur an additional fee of $280 in addition to a bump-out maintenance checklist, where all production elements must be uninstalled in the reverse order to the bump-in. 

POSTER POLICY AND CONSEQUENCES

Poster policy at ANU remains a contentious topic. ANUSA has decided to take an “activist stance”, and requested the support of those in attendance at the Clubs Committee. 

While ANU cannot disaffiliate societies for violating poster policy, the Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF) fund remains under their direct control. 

There were calls from some members of the floor for resistance, one such attendee Chris, stating, “We shouldn’t concede to university management, ANU is attacking student events and freedom of speech…by calling cops, tracking students through social media”. 

Calls for unified action were also raised. Another member in attendance, Malakai, stating “our strength comes from working together. ANUSA and Clubs benefit from shared actions”. This understanding led to the creation of an ANUSA Subcommittee under the Clubs Committee to negotiate with ANU and potentially organise protests against the postering policy.  

It was mentioned in the meeting that clubs may be asked to share campaign materials and events regarding the ANUSA-led Poster Protest with their members. 

Group consensus (of those in attendance) agreed that a working group separate from the Clubs Committee should be established. Not all affiliated clubs were in attendance, nor were they directly asked for their support of a “militant protest with sensible demands” against the ANU’s introduced poster policy. 

Disclaimer: 

While this article provides extensive detail from the minutes in Clubs Committee #1, it does not reflect the opinions of the ANU Observer or its writer. 

Graphics by: She 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 to 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!