Candidacy!

So I've nailed my colours to the mast, and launched an Independent campaign for NUS Delegacy.

First things first: this will be difficult. In order to be elected, I'll need 1/8th of the total votes in the NUS election. This might not seem like such a long shot, given I've previously managed to snag a bit less than 1/4 of the votes in Arc Board elections.

But this time, I'm all alone, against at least two organised campaigns.

Voice is running, of course. I was speaking to Os (who is running for President again), and was hopeful of getting a position with Voice for undergrad rep (electorate A), and potentially for NUS as well. However, it looks like the two Labor factions have stitched up a deal, locking out independents for the most part. I've yet to hear from any of the other Indies hoping to run for Undergrad Rep or NUS spots, but I'm not expecting all that much.

Socialist Alternative will almost certainly be campaigning as well. As the undergrad rep positions have been expanded to 12 (up from 6, after the Post-Grads split off), I wouldn't be surprised if they get a few positions on SRC next year.

Potentially, the Libs will also be running, though I'm not at all certain. Last year they worked with Unity, but Unity's back in Voice now.

I really do hope Voice wins the SRC election, and does so resoundingly. It's a good coalition. I can't be happy that Unity's involved, and still don't understand why there was any discussion with them. What were they offering? What threat could they truly pose to Voice?

But for NUS, well, the last few days have just re-confirmed my hatred for backroom deals. I'm not usually one to talk up my own record, but I have worked my arse off to try and make things better for UNSW students. My degree is all kinds of wonky due to putting more work into SRC than essays. I've been pushing reforms for an Equity Committee for a year now, and every single person I've spoken to about this has thought it a good idea, and something that should happen.

My 'reward', so to speak, is to be sidelined and not spoken to. Perhaps I thought my achievements didn't need to be said. Or perhaps it was simply that I was coming up against the forces of the NUS factions, and a confirmed Independent isn't something they want spoiling their deal-making.

Enough of it. I want to go to NUS, to try and make it better. Or if it can't be made better, to at least have tried. That's why I'm standing for election, as an Independent. My 'campaign page', such as it is, is located here.

As I said to start off, this'll be very difficult. But it's much easier to stand as independent on the NUS ballot, as it's separate to the rest of the ballots, and all candidates are listed.
Once I find out who the other candidates are, I may indicate my preferences. But it's very wait-and-see thus far.

Microparties Guide!

So, it's nearly federal election time, and high time I did another Microparties Guide. People seemed to like the last one I did, looking at the many and varied independent and minuscule parties in the NSW Senate race.

So: here we go.

Group A: Socialist Alliance.
Far-lefty, pacifist, generally nice. Headed up by Rachel Evans, who's been a lefty activist for a range of issues for years now.

Group B:
Headed up by a Robert Hodges. I haven't been able to find a thing about him, there's no website attached to this campaign.

Group C:
Headed up by a Tony Robinson (and no, not Baldrick). The only 'campaign' material I've found is a single post on The Tally Room, identifying him as being a 'Penrith boy'. As to what that means for a senate ticket, I haven't a clue.

Group D:
Darrin Hodges heads up this. According to slackbastard, he's the 'Grand Poobah' of the 'Australian Protectionist Party' (unregistered with the AEC), a far-right party modeled on the BNP.

Group E: Building Australia
Represents the building industry. That's about it really, all their policies are building industry centred.

Group F: Senator On-Line
An exercise in direct democracy - any SO-L senators would vote the way they're told by an online vote of the Australian people. A few of my friends find this fascinating, and are strongly in support. I find myself yet to be convinced that it could work in theory, let alone in practice.

Group G: Communist Alliance
They're back! Or, well, sort of. The CPA dissolved itself in the early 90s, with much of it reforming into the SEARCH Foundation (which is no longer specifically Marxist). As to who's started this one up, who knows?

Group H:
Headed by Nadia Bloom. The only person I could find in a quick Google search with that name, who might be the same person, is the Convenor of the Parents' Gifted Support Group, St Catherine's Anglican School for Girls. But I can't say for certain that this is the same Nadia Bloom. Her preferences are scattered across the entire political spectrum.

Group I: Citizens Electoral Council
Radical right-wingers, part of the LaRouche Movement. Have a bizarre theory that the British Empire still exists, and that Rupert Murdoch is trying to bring it back. Or something.

Group J: Democrats
... are, unfortunately, reduced to microparty status. In NSW, they're running an all-lesbian ticket.

Group K:
Headed by Meg Sampson. Apparently she opposed the mining tax (according to a post on Counterpoint), enough to run for the senate. That's the only thing I've found on her, and she's running three preference tickets, favouring Liberals, Labor and Greens equally.

Group L:
Headed by Leon Belgrave, who at the last election ran for the (then) Liberty and Democracy Party. Apparently liked running for the Senate so much, he's come back for more as an independent.

Group M: The Climate Sceptics
Pretty much what they sound like.

Group N: Secular Party of Australia
What they sound like. In 2007, they didn't have enough members to be registered as a party (and as such ran just under the Group), but have got their act together this time.

Group O: Shooters and Fishers
They like hunting, and shooting, and fishing, and all those red-blooded activities. Generally favour right-wing stances on most issues.

Group P: Democratic Labor Party
Again trying to siphon ALP votes towards the Right. A few DLP people on the Tally Room have tried to claim that there's a DLP movement coming, but if so, it's a long way off. Haven't managed to beat the Informal vote since the 70s.

Group Q: Australian Sex Party
I like them. Sex-positive policies, recognition of various relationship forms, decriminalising sex work. They've even removed their problematic policy of enforcing 50% women in the senate.

Group R:
Yech, David Barker. The former Liberal candidate for Chifley, who declared that if elected he would give his votes to god, "who is on the side of the Liberal Right". Blatant queerphobe, racist, and all round bigot.

Group S: Socialist Equality Party
I simply don't understand these people. They outright declare that reform is useless, and that parliamentary actions are just lulling us all into a false sense of security. Collaboration is corruption. And yet, they stand candidates? Surely that's collaboration? Even Socialist Alternative think this lot are off the deep end.

Group T:
Another party that didn't register with the AEC in time, this lot are actually the 'Stable Population Party'. Accusations of racism have been leveled at them, which they reject. Unlikely to have any major impact on this election, as not having a party name on the ballot means to the vast majority of people, you're invisible.

Group U: Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Primarily concerned with 'fathers rights'. Not so concerned with institutional sexism that results in fathers not having access to children. Now I'll get off my hobby horse.
Aside from that particular issue, they're preferencing right-wing parties mainly.

Group V: Family First
Do I really need to say much about them? Not going to have any results in NSW (thankfully), but might possibly scrape through in South Australia. At least Fielding will be gone though.

Group W: Labor
Finally! A major party! None of them did very well in the draw this time.

Group X:
Unregistered party, 'Reconcile Australia'. Lefties, focus on indigenous issues. Sound alright to me.

Group Y: Carers Alliance
Who doesn't like the carers? Last time they did very well out of preference deals, but that doesn't look to have happened this time round.

Group Z: Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)
Yep, that's the actual name. Anyways, relgious right, known for praying for rain during Mardi Gras (not that that's stop the parade, people would just dance in the rain). An outside chance of taking a seat in WA, but nowhere near enough support in NSW.

Group AA: Liberal/National
major party!

Group AB:
Michael Eckford heads up this group. He's an indigenous man, standing for reconciliation, proper treatment of the country, and generally leftist stance on other issues.

Group AC: One Nation
are still around, worryingly enough. But the less said the better

Group AD: The Greens
minor party! So not a microparty.

Group AE:
Cheryl Kernot returns for another crack at federal politics. While she might capture a fair few primary votes, she hasn't managed to get many preferences going her way. She's issued two tickets, one going to the Greens then Democrats, the other Democrats then Greens. So her votes are almost definitely going to end up with Lee Rhiannon.

Group AF: Liberal Democrats (LDP)
Libertarians. The head name is Glenn Druery, who is an absolute master at getting microparty preferences. In the past, he's come rather close to getting elected with various microparties, most famously with 'liberals for forests' [sic]. Expect him to stay in the count a long time, but most of the lefty microparties are heading straight to the Greens, so he wont challenge the major parties this time.

New Officers for Semester 2

So two not particularly well-kept secrets are out. Jess is the new Chair of Arc, necessitating a new Women's Officer - from what I've heard, it'll be Kimberley Lowe. She's been around quite a bit this semester, and is Jess's preferred successor.

The other one is a bit more personal. Nick Atkins, one of the Queer Officers, is having to quite due to Honours and work pressures. He's asked me to step in for next semester. Now, I hadn't thought I'd ever return to SRC, but after thinking about it (and catching myself planning things), I decided I should give it another shot. It's only for one semester, and a fair bit of it will be talking to people about finding good qu'officers for next year.

So Squish continues to look like being the first Arc Queer Officer to serve a standard term the whole way through - my first started early, Vicki and Jocelyn only got officially made officers late, while all the others either quite early or took over part way through. An interesting record we have in this department.

Annual Dinner

As I predicted, and despite her nervous attempts to stop me from jinxing it, Jess Mobbs is the new Chair of Arc. Some might suspect me of bitterness, given she did after all beat me onto Board last year by less than one vote, but I'm quite happy. I think she'll do a sterling job as Chair.

In other news from the Arc Annual Dinner (held last night, and all involved are still recovering) is the news about the Heinz Harant Award. This is awarded to a student who has done exemplary volunteer work bettering student life at UNSW. It has something of a reputation of going to Yellow Shirts - the award used to be run by the Union, so it typically went to those involved in Union events.

It was awarded to two people this time round. Rachel Smith's been a Yellow Shirt for yonks, as well as doing other volunteer programs, revues and all sorts of other things.

The other winner broke the mould. Chris Moore is the first Guild-side winner for ages (possibly ever?). And it's just fantastic.

Post-semester catchup

Well, I suppose I've been neglecting this. Nothing since the Board elections here, despite several things being of note. So let's go through them.

1) At the Arc AGM, the Post-Grad Council was created! Despite last-gasp attempts from one particular Board Director, who was opposed to the PGC for reasons I simply don't understand, it got voted through by well over the 75% required. I'm not yet sure just when and how the Council will be formed, but it will happen.

2) As a result of the above, Anh Pham will no longer be an OB on the SRC, as his position (Post-Grad Officer) has been abolished. Depending on how negotiations go with the PGC, he might end up holding an OB position there, or might not. His opposition to the PGC's creation, and unexplained absence from the AGM, don't exactly promise much.

3) Barring some really quite bizarre situation, Jess Mobbs will be the next Chair of Arc Board. The two other Directors who could run for it (Simon Bruck and Matt Ward) have both indicated they will not be nominating. In Simon's case, he's pissed off most of the Board with his actions regarding the PGC (see 1 above). Matt says he's much more interested in getting onto the Yellow Shirts OT.

4) As Jess will be vacating the position of Women's Officer, there will need to be a new OB coming onto SRC. I haven't heard anything about who that might be, or whether an election will be held early next semester, or anything like that. There's likely to be at least one other OB change for second semester, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that right now. Will likely be resolved one way or the other in the next week, and if anything happens it'll be on here.

5) It's almost conference season! The many and varied student politics conferences will be held over the winter break. In the standard organising process of student life, most of them are being held simultaneously.
Queer Collaborations (QC) at the University of Wollongong 5th-9th July
Students of Sustainability (SoS) at the University of Adelaide 4th-8th July (the same week)
NUS-CAPA International Students Forum, University of Tasmania, 4th-7th July (... the same week)
EdCon (NUS mid-year conference) at the University of Tasmania, the same week, but only 7th-9th
Network of Women Students Australia (NOWSA) at the University of Newcastle 14th-18th July (the following week!)
In addition, there's also various factional pre-conferences before EdCon. Just how EdCon can be held at UTas is a mystery to me, given that last I heard UTas wasn't an affiliated campus. Very odd.
Strangely, only the International Forum is listed on the NUS website as occurring. At least theoretically, these are all supposed to be linked into the overall NUS framework - why wouldn't contact details at least be given? Not even EdCon?
There's also usually conferences for other groups - ALSA (law students), Amnesty etc. I don't know the details for any of those.
Plus there's actual education conferences.

[update] UTas are indeed affiliated, as of the December NUS meeting/January SGM.

Elections over

So I was ultimately unsuccessful. I'm a bit disappointed, it's true, but I can't argue with the results - was thoroughly slaughtered.

I hope the new Directors do a good job - I'm sure a lot of people will be watching to see what comes of this. The Arc AGM is just around the corner, including the (hopeful) creation of the Post Grad Council.

Of course, this means I'll still be able to run this blog without having to worry about concerns like conflict-of-interest. Plus, I get to keep my Arc job, which is pretty damn nice.

Win-win, I suppose.

Plus now the negotiations seriously start over the new Chair of the Board. This will be rather interesting to watch from a distance.

Electioneering

So every position's being contested, in the quest for Arc Board. The nominations were re-called for Cofa director, and two people applied.

James Fehon and Xavier Atkinson are both Fine Art/Arts students, one nearly finished, the other in second year. I know both of them, and really wouldn't mind which ended up as Board Director.

It's an online election, so all Arc members should receive an email-link early next week. Anyone around either campus can vote in person, either at the Library Lawn or D Block. There's some strict limits being put on campaigning - no direct campaigning on the Library Walk is the major change between this and other UNSW elections I've been involved with. So there's not going to be anything of the 'walk the person right up to the booth' business. As such, I really don't think how-to-vote cards will be of any use or value.

Meanwhile: On Arc Board, there's some campaigning going on as well. The Chair of Arc is elected by the Board, and must be a Student Director. It would be highly unlikely for a newbie Director to have the experience necessary to act as Chair, so it'll almost definitely go to one of the ongoing ones.

The three continuing Directors are Simon Bruck, Matt Ward and Jess Mobbs. Simon has apparently been telling people he isn't going for Chair, as he's nearly finished his degree. So that leaves Matt and Jess. They're both doing their best to shore up numbers from the non-student directors, but a lot will depend on exactly which new people come in.

For me, I have to say I would find it a tough choice. I admire both, and am good friends with both. It would most likely involve talking to others on Board to see where they stand on the matter.

MEANWHILE
Sydney Uni's also having its Union Board elections. I haven't been over there to check it out, but from what I've heard it's much more happening than ours. Lots of people going around in t-shirts, handing out how-to-votes, factional power-plays and all the rest.
I'm rather glad our board elections aren't anywhere near as intense.

SRC explodes!

Well, not literally. But the furore over Tharunka's article (about the Islamic Society's push for prayer rooms) is bringing it close. The Council is currently meeting, and I imagine there's a lot of angry remarks being thrown around (and quite possibly being minuted too, which makes things a lot more fun).

Beck Hynek, the Cofa Campus representative, has put forward a motion to condemn the Tharunka editorial team for publishing the original article, and to force Tharunka to retract it. She has directly alleged racism and discrimination by the university.

There's two different parts of this.

1) Alleging racism by the university. This, legally speaking, is a quite serious matter. With plenty of potential for lawsuit. I don't think you should tiptoe around issues, far from it, but you need to be aware of the consequences of getting it wrong.

2) The relationship between the SRC and Tharunka. This has been unclear throughout Arc's existence, as to quite where Tharunka exists. Is it part of the SRC? Is it part of Marketing? Is it anywhere?
Can the SRC force Tharunka to do anything? Strictly speaking, well, it's not clear.
There has been one instance I know of where the Tharunka editorial team was specifically directed to perform a particular action by the SRC. That was at the final SRC meeting before I became Tharunka editor, when the SRC called upon us to publish, in our first issue for 2008, an apology for accidental remarks published in a 2007 issue. Kind of weird that we were the ones to have to do anything, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. We put in a very short apology, without mentioning the specifics of the matter.
That, to my mind, is very different to what Beck is pushing for. She wants an entire article retracted. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to censor content, in a magazine that is only indirectly responsible to the SRC. Needless to say, I disapprove.

7 into 2

The following is based on candidate statements and known relevent positions, both of candidates themselves and their nominees (and also a wee bit of facebook stalking. Come on, it's not like I'm the only one to ever do that). I imagine the candidate statements will be put onto the Arc website in the next few days, plus they'll appear in Blitz for the next fortnight.
I'll put in a link here to that list once it's online.

7 candidates for 2 positions. Or to be more precise: 2 candidates for one position, then 6 candidates for a second position.

There are two candidates for the Post-Grad Director position. I don't personally know either of them. Of them, the best placed will become a Board Director. The runner-up then goes into the draw for Ordinary Director.

• Jonathan The's statement reads very bureaucratic. Very focused on ticking all the boxes. Bear in mind, this is based purely on what's been written, I've never met him. I don't recognise the names of either of his nominees.
  

• Luke Parkitny I also haven't met. Based purely on what he wrote (which is, after all, all most voters will have), he sounds much more like a human. His nominees include one of the SRC Post-Grad Councillors, Pip Hunter, whom I admire. There's also the current Welfare Officer and the outgoing Yellow Shirt Coordinator.

For Ordinary Director: As said above, the second-placed PG candidate goes into this ballot. It's possible (though unlikely given the numbers) that both PG candidates will become Board Directors.

• David Godwin. I recognise the photo, though not the name. I think he's involved with CircuSoc. He seems quite friendly.
• David Lim. His candidate statement reads as a big reach-out to Sport and Recreation. That's where he's based, he wants Arc to move in that direction (I think). A little birdie told me that he's being backed by Unity. I've yet to find out anything for myself about that, so I wouldn't take it as gospel.
• Natalie Karam. She's the current LawSoc President, and the only female candidate. I've known her for a few years. While she used to be a member of the Liberals, she's walked away from all that and is running independent. I have to say, as a budding grammarian, I really didn't like her candidate statement. Full of bureaucratise, lots of 'weeping willow' structures, and very convoluted sentences. Mind you, from my time as Tharunka editor, many if not most law students will write that way given half a chance.
• Ross Willing. He's running as a representative of the Colleges; from my quick StalkBooking, I think he's from New College. I don't know a lot about him, will talk to a few others from there to see what I can find out. But from his candidate statement, he seems quite level-headed.
• Then there's me. I'm running from a background in student politics, from the SRC in particular.

So: Circusoc, Sport&Rec, LawSoc, Colleges and the SRC. Six clear bases of support. It'll be interesting to see who's still standing once the dust settles. But hopefully, much like last year, it'll be a friendly campaign; there's no need for spite or anger in this sort of thing.

Confirmation email for Arc Board

Dear Rory

Thank you for submitting your nomination form for the 2010 Arc Board Elections. Your nomination has been accepted.

We have more nominees then positions available for the Ordinary Director position, therefore an election will proceed and online voting will commence in Week 11:

Online Voting:

Online voting will be held during Week 11. Voting will open on Tuesday 18^th May and close at 4.00pm on Thursday 20^th May 2010.

An emailing containing the voting link will be sent to all Ordinary Members of Arc.

Polling Stations:

The schedule for the polling station is as follows:

Tuesday 18^th May to Thursday 20^th May 2010

Kensington – Library Lawn:

10.30am to 4.00pm

Candidate information will be in Blitz W9 and on the Arc Website.

The CoFA Director position has been re-opened. If you know anyone at CoFA, who is currently a student and Arc Member, please encourage them to nominate.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Nitasha

~~~

Here we go! And Cofa still needs someone to nominate.

Arc Board

So I've quite clearly gone completely insane. I'm standing, again, for Arc Board.

Why? Well, I think I can help make Arc the student organisation UNSW deserves. It needs to be strong, and not terrified of the university. I don't think it is right now, but extra fortitude is never a bad thing.

So far I know there's at least one other Kenso undergrad candidate, Nat Karam. While she was at one point a member of the Liberals, she has split her ways with them, preferring to stand as an Indie.

There's also at least one Post-Grad candidate. If there's one and only one, then they'll be declared elected without contest due to the Board equity arrangements.
Similarly if there's one-and-only-one candidate from Cofa, they'll be elected without contest.

The mess is in Kenso undergards, and also potentially if there's more than one from PG/Cofa.

Further details will be posted as they emerge.

5pm: Apparently there are at least 4 UG Kenso candidates, 3 PG candidates, and no word on Cofa. Things are looking rather interesting, no?

Of the Kenso UG candidates, there's, well, me, plus Nat Karam as indicated above. The other two are apparently being backed by Amber Setchell of Unity - she miscounted the number of UG spots available, so put forward two instead of one.
This is a rumour at present, not confirmed. I haven't received any notice from the Returning Officer as to anyone's identity just yet.

2:30pm, Friday 23rd. Still no official word from the Returning Officer, but from what I've heard there's now 5 candidates in full. 3 UG Kenso, 2 PG. No-one from Cofa, so I imagine that nominations will be reopened for that soon.

Factional Futures

The following follows on from several previous posts, outlining the various factional standings. I'd suggest reading them first.

At the moment, NLS and Unity seem to be matched in power stakes, with SAlt holding the balance of power. The Big-I's look to have been absorbed into NLS - while this may not be formally true, the two groups are close enough.

Had Unity not undergone a state-to-state war at the January SGM, they would probably hold a great deal more positions than they currently do. They probably couldn't have seized national Presidency, but certainly several states worth. Time will tell whether these state rivalries will cause a collapse in Unity's structure, or whether they will be sorted out.

NLS is also looking like it might well split soon. This won't be a simple state-by-state split - it's far more fundamental. The differences between the 'hard' and 'soft' left go down to basic ideology.

The names themselves are perhaps misleading - the 'hard' left are generally a lot nicer in my experience, trying to help everyone. What they are 'hard' about are issues such as queer rights, women's liberation and indigenous rights.

The 'soft' left, I've found to be much more aggressive. Less prepared to compromise, less prepared to work with others. Less prepared to stand up for solidarity, more wanting direct control.

To step into UNSW, this division became apparent last year, around the time of working out the Voice ticket. Hard left got Welfare (James Still), Soft got Education (Helen Samardzic). In the past, these two positions were overseen by a single officer, and it was often seen as a stepping stone to Presidency. That hasn't been the case for a few years now (the last being Phuong Au, President in 2008), but the association is still strong in people's minds.

Both Helen and James have indicated an interest in becoming President next year. Both have been working with people on- and off-campus to try and get support for this. If NLS remains part of the Voice coalition, they can't both go for it - they would need to first get endorsement from UNSW NLS. That is, as long as NLS remains a single faction. Shoud it split, Voice will suddenly get a lot more interesting. And probably wouldn't remain in existence.

As for other factions: SAlt are looking up. I'm not happy about this, seeing as how I disagree with some of what they push, and have major issues with the methodology.

I truly believe a left-wing, non-Labor, non-Marxist faction is needed. To fill the void that GL left, something new needs to emerge. But I'm not sure it will - many if not most indies have switched off from NUS, after being ignored for so long. The main uni student environmental group, ASEN, was removed from the NUS Environment OB position at the January SGM.

Something needs to be done. We need a voice at NUS that represents non-party uni students. And we need it to be heard. Much as I hate to admit it, being a committed indie, despising the concept of the party structure - I think we need a Faction.

Independents, of all kinds

Next we come to the most confusing part of NUS, the two/three/four/many ‘independent’ factions.

The Independents (Big-I’s) started out as a split from Labor, because Natasha Stott-Despoja didn’t get preselection for an NUS position. So she started her own faction. For a time, the Big-Is ruled the roost in WA, simply because the other factions couldn’t be bothered to cross the Nullarbor.

Not around at UNSW, obviously.

It’s difficult to tell if they’re around right now. Over summer, they worked so closely with NLS they might as well have been absorbed.

The WHIGS, well, whether they even exist depends on who you’re talking to. Right-wing independents? East coast independents? Just a bunch of High Tories at USyd who managed to convince people that they’re actually a faction? The best description I’ve heard is that they’re Liberals who Want to participate in the NUS process (unlike ALSF).

At UNSW? Well, a group of right-wing indies were part of the Unity/ALSF coalition at last year’s elections. But I’m hesitant to call them WHIGS. Mainly because they didn’t.

If you can’t tell whether they exist, you can’t expect me to say where they’re going.

East Coast Indies are sometimes bundled up with WHIGS, sometimes not. Most of them are from regional universities, many of which aren’t able to pay affiliation fees to NUS. So while they’re around, they don’t have much power at NUS beyond drawing attention to issues of constitutionality.

The independents (small-i’s, indies) aren’t a faction. They’re anyone who hasn’t joined a faction. Small i, because they aren’t the same as the (confusingly named) Big-I Independents. Sometimes includes East Coast Indies, sometimes includes WHIGS, sometimes includes GL. It depends what you accept as being a faction.

Obviously, they’re active at UNSW. Our president is one, so am I. Small-i’s have held the balance of power on our SRC for a few years now, and currently form a majority on council in their own right.

We’re not going to go away, because a lot of people don’t want to join factions. But on the other hand, it is very difficult to get anywhere in NUS without joining. Calling yourself an indie is inviting you to be recruited. For a lot of faction members, the concept of being indie doesn’t even exist.

Socialist Alternative (SAlt)

SAlt, I’ve already annoyed with my last Tharunka piece. Far left Marxist radicals, very in-your-face, gung-ho, black-and-white. Apparently a few years back they were part of GL, but split. The split looks to have done them good – they’re the most influential non-Labor faction these days. They currently hold both Queer NOB positions, yet seem unaware that there’s anything more to Queer Activism than fighting for marriage equality.

AT UNSW – you know they’re here. You hear them. They’re active. They’ve always got a stall going, even on Open Days. I suppose you could call them the ‘opposition’ on the SRC to Voice, in that they hold three voting positions on Council.

Where are they going? They’re influential, but very, very divisive. People typically either love them (mainly members) or hate them. I admire the passion, but I disagree with some of the goals, and also the methods. But in terms of NUS, they mobilise voters. And so gain votes, gain positions, gain power.

A note on terminology: Sometimes you hear them referred to as 'SA'. I've avoided this, as SA is also the abbreviation for the political party Socialist Alliance. SA and SAlt are opposed at both the theoretical level and in practice. So instead I'm trying to popularise SAlt as an alternative name.

Grassroots Left (GL)

GL have been an important minor player in NUS in the past, but don’t seem to be around much these days. They were made up of unaligned ALP members, greenies, environmentalists, queer activists and other groups who tended to work from a collectivist mentality, rather than hierarchical bureaucracy. For a number of years, they usually held one or two NOB positions through deals with NLS. However, this came unstuck at the 2008 conference, where NLS instead favoured Socialist Alternative, leaving GL with nothing. A lot of GL abandoned NUS following that, others lost courage and belief.

I’ve never found any evidence of a functioning GL group at UNSW. We’ve had a lot of student politicians who would most naturally fit within that faction, but for one reason or another never joined.

Where are they going? Well, are they even alive? I know a few True Believers, but in most people’s minds GL is dead and buried. Maybe another collective-based faction will emerge, but it won’t be the same group.

Australian Liberal Students Federation (ALSF)

ALSF, as the name suggests, comprise members of the Liberal Party. They are not supporters of NUS, and have pushed for the organisation to be disbanded. No-one from ALSF, to my knowledge, has ever held a position in NUS. However, their preferences have occasionally led to unexpected outcomes, such as at the 2006 conference (where a far-left Independent candidate became General Secretary, instead of the expected right-wing Unity candidate).

ALSF exists at UNSW, but only barely. Similar to the federal Libs, there was something of a civil war last year between ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ members of the faction. They’ve participated in SRC Elections, in 2007 by themselves, and last year in coalition with Unity.

Where are they going? I suspect they’re still laughing over the chaos that was last year’s NUS conference. Alternately, they’re annoyed none of their NUS delegates went along to the SGM in January, if only to call for a quorum count – which, I am led to believe, would have caused NUS to become legally defunct.

Student Unity (Unity)

Student Unity (Unity), despite the name, are the other main ALP faction – this time for the right-wingers. Under the ‘sweetheart deal’ between NLS and Unity, Unity get NUS General Secretary in return for supporting NLS for President. They usually also get the Welfare NOB, and a few other, ‘minor’ roles.

At UNSW, they’re around, but not in a major way. Up until 2005, they held Presidency and a majority of positions on the Guild (pre-Arc). Indeed, either NLS, Unity or one of their predecessors had held Presidency every year from 1992 until 2009. But nowadays, Unity are somewhat dampened at UNSW. Until last year’s election, they were part of the Voice coalition, but didn’t manage to secure the same deal again. So instead they formed an opposition ticket in a coalition with Liberals.

Where are they going? At last year’s NUS Conference they nearly seized Presidency. At the Special General Meeting of NUS (held in January to make up for the fact the December meeting completely failed to do anything) they came close to taking control of several state bodies, the deal only falling through because of internal Unity personality clashes. As a single bloc, Unity are looking close to taking full control of NUS. But there are internal clashes yet to be worked out.

National Labor Students (NLS)

NLS are one of the major groups. Born out of a merger between two former Labor groupings (Australian Labor Students and National Organisation of Labor Students, for those keeping track), it broadly contains those student politicians more inclined to the ‘Left’ of the ALP. By tradition, they always get NUS Presidency in labyrinthine deals, as well as several other of the National Office Bearer (NOB) positions (in particular, Education NOB).

As far as UNSW is concerned, they’re a big player. Before this year, NLS (or a predecessor) had held presidency since 2005. They’re part of the ‘Voice’ coalition which holds a majority of the SRC positions.

Where are they going? It’s a bit confused. Over last summer, it looked like NLS was about to split into two factions, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ left. From where I sit, it looks like these tensions have been muted a bit, but they’re definitely still there, bubbling under the surface.

Ideas about NUS - Affiliations

This, and the next series of posts, were submitted to Tharunka for the next issue (#3). I've done a bit of editing to make it more presentable for this format. I'm not yet sure how much of this will be in the print edition, hence my posting the full-length article up here.

The Thinking Snake’s Guide to NUS

rory thomas

Last time I wrote, I presented a snake’s eye view of the members of our SRC. The SRC represents students at UNSW. It links up with other unis, both directly (eg our president talking to the president at USyd) and via the National Union of Students.

If you talk to students about NUS, you’ll get a finite range of responses. Some people will be absolutely effusive about it, regarding it as the best thing since sliced bread. Others hate it, and think it is complete and utter garbage. Then there are those who dislike the methods used, but still regard the concept of a national union as worthwhile.

Of course, these three groups are dwarfed by the group of students who will simply shrug at the name, say they’ve never heard of it, or might think you’re talking about the National University of Singapore.

NUS claims to represent every university student in Australia. Or at least, it draws representation from every affiliated undergrad university student organisation (there is a separate national body for Post Grad students, called CAPA). Arc@UNSW is an affiliated organisation, through the SRC. Similarly, USyd students can get access to NUS through the USyd SRC, Newcastle Uni students through NUSA, etc. (For quickness, I will henceforth refer to ‘student organisations’ as ‘SOs’)

Affiliation can be a big deal. Whether and how much money an SO pays in affiliation fees determines much of the pecking order at NUS. Smaller regional university SOs are usually less able to pay fees, so get less say in how NUS works and what it does. Several SOs are completely unable to pay any fees – so are without say as to what NUS will focus on.

This may well seem to you a sensible system. He who pays the piper calls the tune and all that. But in the age of Voluntary Student Unionism, it can become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy: a small SO collects less money from members, so pays less to NUS, so NUS gives less attention to that campus, so the SO gets less attention, so gains fewer members, lather, rinse, repeat.

Affiliation, as such, can be a major issue for an SO. If you aren’t getting anything from NUS, why maintain membership and continue paying large amounts of money? Particularly if you need to keep all your money on-campus simply to avoid bankruptcy?

The other side of the NUS coin is, of course, the factions. The next series of (short) posts will look at the various factions currently operating: who they are, where they sit, what they're doing, and where they're going.

What makes a Councillor?

As I indicated earlier, the position of 'Councillor' is somewhat ambiguous. Who do they represent, how do they make decisions, what do they do?

Let's start with what the various documents binding the Council say.
1. Councillors are not mentioned, even once, in the Constitution. Neither are Office Bearers, to be fair. The Constitution, being incredibly difficult to change, doesn't have most of the nitty gritty of how Arc works.
2. The Regulations give where councillors are elected from (A, B, Cofa, UG, PG), their terms of service (same as OBs, 1 December-30 November), the method of election and filling vacancies... and that's it. Nothing about responsibilities, nothing to link Councillors with their electorates.
3. The SRC Charter (passed by Council, but still not passed by Board for some strange reason) goes into a lot more detail. Included in this list are:

• Representing the electorates, by 'raising and discussing issues'
• Recommending proposals, on issues concerning students
• Ensuring OBs are held responsible for their actions
• Promoting activites of the Council to their electorates
• Actively participating in SRC campaigns and/or events
• Then the usual stuff about acting honestly, not acting improperly etc.

Now, this Charter was only (finally!) passed by SRC at the final meeting for 2009, held on November 30 last year. Apparently it hasn't gone to Board yet (I'm really not sure why). So it certainly wasn't binding upon Councillors from last year or the previous year, and it's a bit unclear as to whether this year's Councillors are (yet) bound by it.

These roles and responsibilities are important. I'm going to go through them, and give some explanation of the motivation, and how people may or may not have upheld this part of the Charter. Also, looking at just what the role/responsibility means (if anything).

'Representing the electorates' - Um. Hmm. Does this mean, well, anything? Does a Councillor's mere presence on SRC mean that the electorate is represented? Should a Councillor only limit themselves to issues relating to that electorate? Should a Councillor organise meetings with members of that electorate to try and gauge popular opinions?

This is incredibly vague. It pretty much leaves it up to the individual Councillor as to how they go about their job. The question is, is this a bad thing? Shouldn't we give leeway to individuals as to how they perform in their role?

Well yes. But the problem is, you give someone no guide, they may well end up not doing anything. Often, Councillors just end up turning up to meetings (or not even that), don't say anything, and vote when required.

Also, there's no way of enforcing that all faculties are represented. FBE and Medicine in particular are rare to have Councillors representing them, due to the heavy workload those faculties require.

'Recommending proposals on issues affecting students' - is pretty much up to the individual as well. Depending on how well you argue, anything can be an issue affecting students. Or nothing can be. Again, vague and ultimately just says 'if you want to put a proposal, you can'.

'Holding OBs to account'. Hoo boy, this is a much bigger one. This is where, in my opinion, the guts of the Councillor role is. It is a significant mark of difference between what a Councillor does, and what an OB does.

Contrary to what a lot of people have thought, including myself, there is a method to remove a member of SRC. It's incredibly difficult (and rightly so) - it requires Special Resolutions of both SRC and the Arc Board to pull off. (A Special Resolution means that, instead of just 50%+1 of the voting members, you instead need 75%+1, a much more daunting task).

OBs have their own particular areas, that they are supposed to focus on. If they're not, then that might well be a reason to at least raise the threat of removing them from office. If they continue to fart around doing nothing, or doing things clearly outside their portfolio instead of working in their area, then why should they stay there, getting paid? Arc isn't really rich enough to justify paying someone to not do their job.

'Promote/participate in SRC events/campaigns' seems a bit like filler to the untrained eye. There's a hidden catch though. If Council resolves a particular way, then the Councillor shouldn't go around telling people otherwise. SRC Members aren't meant to go around protesting each other's events. SRC Members shouldn't pass around petitions protesting a decision by Council.

This Charter wasn't in power around this time last year, when several Councillors from a particular faction postered around campus calling for the sacking of the President and most OBs, for failing to accept a proposal. If it was, then those Councillors could easily be said to have broken the Charter.

Decisions are made at Council. That's when you have the debates, the arguments, the name-slinging etc. If you want to change a decision, you bring it up at the next meeting. But in between meetings, there is a certain level of decorum expected regarding passed resolutions.

~

So what next? What should a Councillor do? What should the Charter say?

I don't really have answers for this, but one thing in particular I think ought to change. The name.

'Councillor'. It's confusing. Isn't everyone who sits on a Council a Councillor? Why reserve this name only for a subset? Maybe if they were the only ones to vote, but that's hardly the case.

Instead, I can't see any real reason not to adopt a name like 'General Representative'. It's clearer as to why they're there. They represent the student body in a fairly general way, not focussing on particular issues to the exclusion of all others.

Norrie and diversity

(This is already moving away from being a specifically student politics blog. We'll see where it ends up)

So I imagine a lot of people have heard the news about Norrie, who last week became the first person in Australia (and going from reports abroad, the world) to be legally declared to be neither a man nor a woman, with 'Sex: Not Specified' listed on hir Recognised Details Certificate (equivalent to a Birth Certificate for naturalised Australian citizens).

This news quickly went around the news, being reported on the BBC, the British gutter tabloids, in New York, and countless other places. Norrie even got a wikipedia page on hir (under hir birth name, 'Norrie May-Welby'). For who-knows-how-many, the news was a great relief - finally, there was a path to legal recognition for sex and gender diverse people (including myself). It has caused conversations around the globe as to whether this is a good thing, with most reports being extremely positive.

But wait, there's more. And it's not so good.

Last Tuesday afternoon, Norrie was phoned by the Attorney-General's Department (I believe NSW, not federal) that they had received legal advice that what had happened was in error. So it was canceled. This despite Norrie having been told in writing that the process had been finalised, signed by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Then, to add further confusion to the mix, Norrie received hir new Name Certificate (zie had also changed hir name to Norrie, from Norrie May-Welby. On this certificate, the sex was listed as 'Not Stated'. Why this? What's the difference between 'Not Specified' and 'Not Stated'? Why is one allowable and the other not?

In any case, how can the Attorney-General cancel something after it has been signed off? The person on the phone cited 'legal advice' - but that doesn't hold water. There has been no court ruling. It isn't within the AG's remit to alter the Register without due process.

So a hastily organised protest was set up, on the street outside the Human Rights Commission. Many of the usual suspects turned up, Rachel Evans from Socialist Alliance and CAAH, the current head of the Scarlet Alliance (who I met and was introduced to, but can't for the life of me remember her name), Lee Rhiannon from the Greens, several friends of Norrie's, and also a couple of people who heard about it via Facebook and quick emailing.
There were a few people from the press, which is always good. I saw 2UE, ABC, 7 and SSO logos, there may have been one or two others.

I went along, because I thought it important. The initial ruling that Norrie could be considered 'Sex: Not Specified' was for me a truly wonderful thing. It opened the door to true legal recognition for myself and so many others. I posted on here before some of my thoughts regarding filling out forms etc - this looked like a path out of that disaster.

To try and close this door now it has been opened is, I truly believe, beyond the powers of this ignorant AG's department. The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, and so on and so forth. You've all heard the phrases used before. But it'll still be a difficult fight. Norrie put in an official complaint about all of this to the Human Rights Commission today, and getting them on board will help a lot. But it'll still likely take a while.

Strikes

Just got this oh-so-wonderful email from Uni.

Dear students

You may have seen material distributed around the University by the
National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) indicating that its members
intend to take industrial action at UNSW in the form of 24 hour
stoppages on Thursday 18 March, Wednesday 31 March and Tuesday 20 April.

It is deeply disappointing that the NTEU has decided to take this
action, despite the potential impact on students. However we are
confident that the great majority of staff will be working as usual
and that there will be minimal disruption. The University will
continue to operate normally and we are hopeful that most classes
will go ahead.

In order to minimise inconvenience to students, lecturers will be
asked to advise their Heads of School and their students if they are
not intending to take classes. If you have a query about any of your
classes scheduled for these dates, I encourage you to contact your
lecturer or course/program coordinator.

The University has a legal obligation not to pay any staff member who
takes industrial action. We have decided that salary costs saved as
a result of the stoppages will be allocated directly to student
services on campus.

I reiterate my disappointment that the industrial action is occurring
during term time, which will certainly inconvenience some of you. I
take this opportunity to wish all of you the very best for the
upcoming academic year.


Yours sincerely

Professor Richard Henry AM
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)
Tel: (+61 2 9385 2800)
Fax: (+61 2 9385 1385)

This isn't really student politics per se, but it is university politics. The NTEU's been in negotiations with the uni over the group certificate for well over a semester now, and nothing looks like it's going anywhere. There was a strike last semester, and now it's looking like going into rolling strikes. Which sucks majorly.

This sort of situation can put students in a very difficult position. Do you cross the picket line and attend classes while other staff are striking? Or do you risk being penalised for not going to classes? Where do you draw the line?

To add more confusion to the mix, Arc's holding a Volunteer Expo on Thursday. It was meant to be a big way of showing students the many and varied ways you can become involved with volunteering at uni. The last I heard, the Expo was still going ahead. But if students don't turn up to uni, then it's a wasted opportunity to let them know what's going on. And if they do turn up (including the Volunteer Program Coordinators and the volunteers themselves), they're crossing a picket line.

Even more fuel in the fire! One Women's Week event has had to be cancelled, because the speaker doesn't want to cross the picket line.

So yeah. A single event snowballs, and takes up more and more.

Then of course there's that wonderful line, "We have decided that salary costs saved as
a result of the stoppages will be allocated directly to student
services on campus." Those 'salary costs' are drawn from students - either now, or from HECS. And wouldn't it be better for students for the uni to simply sit down with the NTEU and negotiate, instead of farting around like this and making everyone's life a misery?

Old Shirts

So I've just moved house, which involves packing everything up at one end, then (eventually) unpacking it at the other. Interestingly, during the wardrobe stages a found a few old campaign shirts.
If you're ever involved with elections, you'll end up with at least a few shirts. I usually keep them around to sleep in, since they're usually basic comfortable cotton t-shirts.

What do I find?
Last year's 'Voice' shirt
'Say Yes to Jess' Arc Board election (I never got hold of a 'All Aboard with Matt Ward' sadly)
two 'Demand a Better Future' shirts, one with the arms taken off and a home-made deeper neckline
and finally, one I'm somewhat less pleased with nowadays, an 'Action Andrew' shirt from the 08 Arc Board elections.

I used to have Voice shirts for both Phuong and Chari (elections in 07 and 08), but sadly they have migrated off to the Smith Family.

Why do I keep them? Partly I'm a hoarder. Also, as mentioned above, they're comfortable shirts for sleeping in (wouldn't be seen dead wearing one around outside).
Also, they remind me of what it was like to do that campaign. What the people promised, what I promised in the cases of my own elections. What people promised and failed to deliver.

'Action Andrew' Looi seems to have vanished without a trace. What has he accomplished, in his year as an Undergrad Councillor, his year as Education Officer, and his nearly completed two years on Arc Board?

I hope that his position will be filled by a strong, capable Director when elections roll around. If last year's campaigns are any guide, it'll be strongly contested.
I ran for Board Director last year, and lost out by less than one vote. I have no complaints about the person who beat me at the final count - Jess Mobbs has been fantastic, and I'm sure will continue to be as such. Matt Ward I'm good friends with, but he has a definite tendency to take on more than he can chew. Simon Bruck, the only Director from last year who pulled a quota in his own right, I'm least impressed with. The reasons for that will be looked at in a future post.

If you're an Arc member, definitely think about what you want Arc to be doing. Don't go for Directorship merely to add credentials to your CV. Don't go for it to prove a point. The role takes work - you would need to sacrifice your time, for no pay.

I'm not categorically ruling out another tilt at Directorship myself at this stage, but I will say it's unlikely. I'm nearing the end of my time at uni, plus I'm quite liking the rate of pay I receive as an Arc Retail Employee. So it's not likely to happen.

O-Week Roundup

So O-week has been and gone. A huge lot of impressionable first years. The best chance all year to build up an e-list, a club, a collective.

For the most part, I think the SRC did well. Being next to the Arc Membership tent was helpful in channeling students towards the SRC (especially given the quite astounding rate of membership this year). Probably would have been better if the SRC stalls hadn't been so far back from the main walkway, but you can't have everything.

A few things stood out.

Thanks to the Indigenous Officers, I discovered the incredible tastiness of emu and crocodile.
Wheelchair basketball is incredibly fun.
The Ethno-cultural and International Students departments look to have made an excellent start on rebuilding their collectives - there were lots of people going up to them throughout the week, signing petitions and having fun. It may well happen that Ashraf Alfian Alias, currently an Undergrad Councillor (A), will become co-International Students Officer.
Queer made a great start to the year, which then culminated in the splendour that is Mardi Gras.

A few other things, on a less positive note.

The Education Officer, Helen Samardzic, seemed to have only been around for part of the day on Monday. Not much for the rest of the week. Later on, several undergrad councillors were trying to collect names for the Education e-list for her. But while all the other collectives got lots of sign-ups and enquiries, there simply wasn't anything from the Education Department.

The Cofa Representative, Beck Hynek, was on Kensington campus all day on Tuesday. This might not seem like a bad thing. She was meeting students. But... Tuesday was the COFA O-Day. From the looks of it (and from hearing from a few COFA SRCers), she seems to have no interest in the campus she represents, and no interest in working with the SRC she chairs.

Not happy Jan.

~~~
On a completely other note, classes have started up again at UNSW. Plus I'm four weeks into my Tafe course. So I won't be posting here all that often, usually with either general info stuff (the 7 or 8 topics I raised a few weeks back) or with breaking news. But stay tuned nevertheless, since there still will be occassional posts here.

Shenanigans, limitations and conflicts

The SRC has limited resources. Members of the council are expected to show some degree of restraint, and to be able to justify their actions when using said resources. I would like to go through a few things that seem to me to be an abuse of said resources, as well as an abuse of trust of other members of the Council.

1. To use the SRC printer requires a login and password. This is to prevent people abusing it and printing off reams of paper for assignments and other personal use. Each member of the council has a quota of sheets (both colour and black&white) for every month. While asking for the quota to be raised for a particular month isn't difficult, you're expected to be able to justify said raise - for example, you need to print off flyers for O-Week, or your equity room, or something similar.
If you don't want to send an email up to IT to get your quota extended, you'll need to borrow someone else's login and password.
Do not do this without permission, since they may well have an event coming up for which they need to print material. Also, use common sense. If you're printing mass quantities, then email IT. Don't steal someone else's quota.

2. The SRC is not a Clubs Resource Room. If you want to get resources for your Club or Society, then head on over to the Roundhouse, where there is a Clubs Resource Room. Clubs material shouldn't be printed through the SRC, because of the limitations on the printer there. Clubs are meant to pay for their material themselves - its part of the point of showing they can sustain themselves.

3. During large events where the SRC has stalls (i.e. O-Week and Foundation Day), those stalls are for the SRC. They are there to promote the SRC. They are not there to sign people up to your club. There is no requirement to be part of any club to be involved with the SRC. If you want to promote your club, go over to that club's stall.
If your club missed the deadline for applying for a stall, then tough. That's the club's fault. You can't just use the SRC's space for that. At the very least, to put a club's material within SRC space leaves you open to a massive conflict of interest. It also creates the impression that to be involved, you need to be part of that club.
If you've managed to get your club's stall nearby the SRC, then good for you. But there's a difference between having a club nearby the SRC, and having it within the SRC.
This goes double, or even triple, for political clubs.

I always thought all the above were fairly obvious, commonsense guidelines. I'm worried that I need to be stating this.

So I'm sure you can understand how perplexed and irate I am to discover that Thimmaiah Kaliyanda, an SRC Councillor (Undergrad A), used another SRC member's quota to print off material for the Whitlam Club (NLS, LAbor Left) from the SRC Printer (Tim has recently been elected Whitlam Club President as well).
And furthermore, that the Education and Welfare stall was apparently being used yesterday to recruit for Whitlam Club members instead of promoting Education and/or Welfare campaigns (or at least to get a collective going).

[edit]
It seems I was somewhat misled (quite possibly me misinterpreting what someone else said) on the last point. At least today, there was no evidence of Whitlam Club material in the Education stall. There wasn't much evidence of anything in that stall, in fact. But more on that later.

UWS Hive collapse?

Hot off the presses: Apparently the Hive (the student organisation at UWS) has just/is about to/is in the process of collapsing.

The Hive was a new student body at UWS, set up about 6 months ago. The previous student body, UWS Student Association (UWSSA), disintegrated in the aftermath of VSU coming into force.

The Hive was very strongly dependent on UWS for funding (as with nearly all student unions post-VSU, Arc included to a lesser degree). And it looks like UWS has removed all funding to the Hive, just before O-Week. There's a few different reasons being floated, from it being 'too political', to neglecting some of the UWS campuses, to even rumours of corruption amongst Hive OBs.

We'll see where this goes. The Hive's board will be meeting soon to determine whether the organisation can remain solvent (which seems unlikely). If so, then UWS students will again be left without even a paltry attempt at representation.

SRC Structure

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of it all (ie, the 7 or so topics I put up last week), I realised it might be useful to explain a bit about the way the SRC itself is structured. Not many people are familiar with the system used, or why some people have votes and some don't, and the whole mess.

Broadly speaking, there are three groups of people who sit on the UNSW SRC. There are the 'Office Bearers' (OBs), who work in particular areas. The second group is the 'Councillors', who theoretically represent the broad student body. The third group are the 'ex officio' positions, those who sit on the SRC as a result of holding a position in another body.

OBs: There's quite a few. My earlier post went into detail about my views of the people holding those positions. Each Officer position gets one vote on the SRC. So when a position is shared (as it is this year with Enviro, Indigenous and Ethno-Cultural), only one of the co-officers gets to vote. This is usually worked out when they nominate for election, based off who is more likely to be able to get to meetings.
A (sometimes seen as loopholey) exception is Queer. Because the Queer Department is the only one to have specified as having two Officers (female-identifying and non-female identifying), the Queer Department gets 2 votes on SRC.
Including President, there are 13 votes held by OBs

Councillors: (I'll likely write further about this section later on)
On the full SRC, there are up to 14 'councillors'. These are divided between Undergrad and Postgrad, between Kensington and COFA, and (at Kenso) between the two university 'electorates'. The University electorates are Electorate A (Arts, Law and Commerce) and Electorate B (Science, Engineering, Medicine and Built Environment).

12 Councillors represent Kensington. 3 are 'Undergrad A' councillors (ie undergrads from electorate A), 3 'Undergrad B', 3 Postgrad A and 3 Postgrad B.

2 Councillors represent COFA - one undergrad, one Postgrad. I don't believe the COFA councillor positions have ever been filled, since to get that position you first need to be elected to the COFA SRC then get their endorsement to also sit on the full SRC, then get the full SRCs permission to sit there, then get Arc Board's agreement too. An incredibly overblown bureaucratic process, which the COFA SRC so far has shown little patience for (and really, can you blame them?).

Each Councillor receives one vote. For a running tally, there are 27 votes so far accounted for.

Ex-Officio: These people already sit on another committee/board/council/body, and as a result of that position get to also sit on the SRC. Not many ex-officio positions get voting rights - usually the person is there to find out what's going on in SRC world, to offer advice, and (potentially) to take SRC ideas back to their own groups.

The Chair of the Arc Board sits on SRC, with full voting rights. The Chair is elected by the Arc Board, and must be a student representative.
The Convenor of the Student Development Committee (SDC) sits on SRC with full voting rights. The SDC oversee Arc's Volunteer Programs and Club Affiliations.
(The SRC President and Arc Chair also sit on SDC as voters, and the SRC President and SDC Convenor are ex officio voting members of the Arc Board)

29 votes for full Council.

The ARC CEO also holds an ex officio position on SRC, but does not vote.
The Student Representatives on UNSW's University Council (one undergrad, one postgrad) sit on SRC, but do not vote.
The Student Representatives on UNSW Academic Board (four in total, two undergrad, two postgrad) sit in SRC, but do not vote.

The Tharunka Editors are kinda left alone. There's a bit of debate going on as to whether they hold ex officio status on SRC (non-voting) or whether they don't. Legally, they currently do not have automatic entry to SRC meetings. I strongly suspect this is just a case of no-one getting around to putting them back into the Regulations after the merger of the Guild into Arc. The Tharunka editors are invited to submit reports to COuncil, so it seems odd they may not have speaking rights. Also, SRC is the body responsible for maintaining the Tharunka Charter.

So there's (theoretically) 29 voting members of the SRC. For a meeting to take place, at least half of the voting members need to be present - that's of the current voting members, so if a position is vacant then quorum may well be lower.

It is possible to give someone a proxy vote - but that person already needs to have the automatic right to attend meetings. So proxies can only be held by non-voting co-Officers, University Councillors, Academic Board reps or (maybe) Tharunka Editors. Also, crucially, proxies do not count towards quorum.

If anyone's got any questions, feel free to ask. I may well have bungled an explanation, or need to make things more clear.

A brief excursion to Queer Politics

The National Union of Students has two Queer Officer positions. These are elected (usually) at the December meeting. For the past few years, the positions have been dominated by members of Socialist Alternative, who have focussed more-or-less exclusively on the issue of Marriage Rights.

I have to say, I do think marriage is something worth fighting for. But the language used in the debates often comes across as suggesting that marriage is the one-and-only issue in which queers are oppressed in modern Australian society.

As a person living as Genderqueer, I find this to be, frankly, bullshit. The following series of emails, reposted from the NUS Queer e-list, will hopefully go some way towards explaining why.

This email was sent out to the e-list from the newly elected National Queer Officer Bearers (hereafter referred to as NOBs) three days ago.

Hi All

This is Kath Larkin and Phoebe Kelloway, your newly elected National Queer officers for the National Union of Students (NUS). We've been centrally involved in the equal love campaign to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage, particularly on the campuses, where we've been working with students. We look forward to continuing that work this year as well as making NUS more relevant to students.

Last year's Queer Officers Heidi Claus and Liam Byrne did great work in building a profile for NUS and keeping it relevant to students by immersing themselves in this campaign. The demand for same-sex marriage rights has overwhelming support from students and we hope to build on that this year; the national year of action for same-sex marriage. Equal Love has called 2010 the year of action, so as to use the election year as an opportunity to place real pressure and demands on our government to repeal the homophobic ban.

We made a great start yesterday at Pride, the annual march which concludes Melbourne's Midsumma festival - a celebration of the LGBTI community. . We marched with the equal love contingent, because while it's fantastic to be able to celebrate who we are, it also really important to continue to fight for equal rights, the reality is that homophobia continues to kill people today. Rudd's ban on same-sex marriage enshrines this homophobia in law.

The contingent drew a diverse range of people (not limited to Victorians), including many students. The contingent was lively and vibrant, getting a great response from the crowd as we chanted. As part of the contingent we handed out thousands of leaflets advertising the next rally (details bellow) and got 100's upon 100's of signatures on the equal love petitions demanding same-sex marriage rights.

It was fantastic to have an NUS presence at this important community event- to show NUS's continued support for queer students. Phoebe was even interviewed by Joy FM!

Next Rallies
Sydney
March 20: Rally, 1pm, Sydney Town Hall
Melbourne
March 13: Equal Love rally, 1.00, state Library of Victoria
Brisbane
March 20: Rally, 1pm, Queens Park

It'd be great if you could all come along to the speak-out for same-sex marriage, this Friday 12^th of February on the corner of Bourke and Swanston sts at 5.30pm.

Looking forward to a year of campaigning
Kath and Phoebe

So they've put out their plans. Okay, they're focussing on marriage (and don't seem to have got the memo that people really should be talking about 'marriage equality', not 'same-sex marriage').
They've also used the word homophobia a lot. Now, this is something of a matter of debate, but generally among queer groups (as the NUS queer e-list must surely be presumed to be) it's become much more standard to use the term 'queerphobia' when referring to discrimination against all queer people, with 'homophobia' being reserved for specific discrimination against gays and lesbians (ie, the homosexuals).

So I decide to respond. Politely. I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt where I can. Or maybe I just want to give people enough rope to hang themselves. One of the two.

I was wondering, since it didn't seem to be covered at all in your email, what plans you have for campaigns for the rights of sex and gender diverse people?

There's a response from Kath:

We're keen to take up issues that effect sex and gender diverse people, there's going to be someone representing one of the transgender organisations in melbourne speaking at the next rally.
Do you, or anyone else on the list have any ideas or initiatives they'd like to suggest?

-Kath, national queer officer for

Which, while respectful, suggests to me they haven't got any ideas, and I really wonder whether they'd have even tried to come up with ideas if they hadn't been prodded.

There's a bit of to-and-fro, one of my colleagues down at Wollongong uni pointing out the complete lack of consultation by the Queer NOBs as to what they would be focusing on this year. Within a reply to that, from Jason Virgo (who, I gather, is involved with the marriage rallies down in Melbourne), is this paragraph.

I think the equal marriage is a campaign that is growing momentum and as it is one of the biggest issues nation-wide it should definitely be a priority and take up resources of the nus queer officers, of course anti-discrimination laws are also important but if we can't get our own government to stop discriminating against us (ie not allowing us to marry) i hardly doubt they are going to put in solid anti-discrimination legislation.

For a lot of people, this wouldn't seem like a big thing to say. I suspect Jason Virgo didn't think about the implications in this paragraph. Well, hopefully he's now considering his next move, because I finally got my rant on with this reply.

To reduce all government discrimination against the queer community to one issue is to ignore the many and varied ways discrimination works. In particular, to put this single issue forward as the *single main* topic of discrimination is incredibly short-sighted. It comes across as at least being cis-privileged.

Let me make it plain to you, and to the others reading this. Every time I fill out a form, including legal governmental forms, I am forced to make a choice. Do I put down my gender identity, and risk having my application being denied on the basis of not answering a required field in an acceptable manner. Or do I lie, tick the box that says 'man' or 'male'.
This is not a light decision. It is not easy to make. One choice involves continuing to live in the closet, somewhere I swore I would not return to. The other involves trying to deal with often quite transphobic policies, and people that simply cannot understand the concept of gender diversity.

For me, this is a far more fundamental human right that is being denied. Far more fundamental than marriage. And to be told, time and time again, often by the people who have promised (and are getting paid) to advance the cause of queer rights, that I just have to wait until the latest popular cause is done with, strikes me as a betrayal.
It makes me wonder just how these people dare claim to represent queers when they seem to only have the interests of cis-gendered gays, lesbians and *some* bisexuals at heart.

In many ways, I'm a lot better off than many other people within the umbrella of 'sex and gender diverse', in that I don't need to deal with the medical community.

But don't you dare tell me that marriage is the one and only matter of discrimination queers need to worry about. If you continue to do so, then I will have no regrets in calling you a transphobe.

~~~
The NUS Queer e-list can be signed-up-to here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nus_queer/

It has sometimes been a rather volatile list, since queers are hardly a single bloc. We've all got different ideas on how to achieve equality/equity/freedom/liberty/domination (delete to suit). In the past, there have been massive, sprawling debates on a few different issues. Perennial favorites include: the ethics of sex work and/or exotic dance; arguments between radical feminists (particularly lesbian separatists) and transpeople as to what gender means; and as the above shows, debates on what rights are important to fight for.

ideas

I've got a few different ideas for what to write about in the next little while. So I thought I might as well see what people want to see (and, by-the-by, work out who's actually reading this).

1. 'What is a councillor?'

2. Explanation of the factions - where they come from, where they're going. Probably a series of posts.

3. 'what is a small-i'

4. looking at how the SRC fits into the overall Arc structure

5. looking back over the fiasco that was last year's NUS conference, then the various deals and collapses involved in the SGM. This one I'd like to leave a bit, see what else comes to light. Plus I would be very surprised if one of the Tharunka editors doesn't write about it themself.

6. explanation of the SRC election methodology - forming tickets, the process of voting, 'what is a valid vote' etc. Almost definitely a series of posts, way too big to fit into one.

7. The proposed Post-grad council - who's in favour, who's against, how the whole shebang is meant to work, and why it's all taken so long.

8. Anything else you'd like me to take a look at?

Let me know.

Attack?

Before things go any further, I'd like to clarify something. I'm not trying to just mindlessly attack people. There is a method to my madness (or perhaps there's madness in my method, we'll see).

I want to see our student reps do well. A big, massive part of that is checking up on them. Not just at elections each year - it's incredibly rare for anyone to actually stand for re-election, so the ballot isn't a good way of holding anyone to account. Rather, we need to look in on them throughout their term.

I want to know what the people I voted for are doing. I also want to know what the people I didn't vote for are doing (and there's a few of them, the wonders of below-the-line voting). If someone's being competent, then that person deserves congratulations. If someone's being incompetent, on the other hand, that person should be getting in trouble.

There are a whole lot of things wrong at uni. The point of the SRC is to try to better the student experience. If someone on the SRC isn't pulling their weight, this needs to be realised. If the whole SRC isn't pulling their weight (which I sincerely hope will never happen) then that definitely needs to be publicised.

That doesn't mean our reps should be held with their noses to the grindstone. They are, after all, students, and every now and then things like parties, work, general life and (last, and sometimes least) actual study intrude. This helps keep you sane in such a position.
But an SRC member can't just fall back on excuses all the time. They need to do something, or at least keep trying to, or else move away.

And I don't want to hear that tired old refrain that 'UNSW students are never activists, the activists all go to USyd'. To be frank, that's bullshit. It's offensive to the very character of our student body. It's also readily disprovable - the Queer Collective, twice, got quite large turnouts to the Marriage rallies (one well outside of semester). Turnouts that were well above what the USyd collective managed to muster.

To fall back on the old stereotype that UNSW students don't participate in activism is sheer laziness. It's proof that you either haven't tried, or you don't have a clue as to how to mobilise people.

Fact-checking and typos

So far I've noticed a few errors, mainly in the typographical area, which I've then gone and corrected. If anyone else sees anything, please let me know and I'll adjust/respond. Just because these posts are being written in the heat of the moment is no reason not to correct errors later on once they come to light.

SRC 2010

[the following has been submitted to the first issue of Tharunka for 2010. I thought it may as well get out a tad earlier]

"'University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small'" - Henry Kissinger

For better or for worse, student politics is often likened to a festering snakepit. It is brutal, harsh, full of various ever-changing alliances and cults-of-personality.

So it’s no surprise that many of you reading this will have no interest whatsoever in being involved in politics at UNSW. You may well wonder what relevance these petty squabbles and power-plays have to your own life. But is that the only attitude? To ignore it and leave it to the student politicians? There are many things at uni which could be improved – are you going to leave it to those few people who ran a week-long campaign to try and fix those problems?

At the very least, it’s good to know who these people are, so if you’ve got a problem you can know who to harangue to try and fix it. Elsewhere in this publication, you may have found Office-Bearer reports from your Student Representative Council. These will, of course, have been written to show the SRC in a very positive light, inspiring confidence in those SRC members. But they won’t tell you very much about them as people. Or even much about them as politicians.

So here I am, one snake amongst many, giving you the gossip on student politics, UNSW-style.

To start with, there’s the Factions. These are mostly (but not always) linked with Australian political parties. They aren’t quite the same as ‘tickets’, which are what run for election (which will be covered in a future column). At UNSW, on the current SRC, we’ve got: National Labor Students (NLS), composed of leftwards-leaning members of the Labor Party. There’s also Socialist Alternative (who you may well have encountered shouting various things around campus by now).

Outside of the current council, we’ve got Student Unity (a misnomer of course, they comprise right-wing Labor members), the Australian Liberal Students Federation (the Young Liberals, more-or-less), as well as a few people calling themselves WHIGS (right-wing ‘independents’).

Most of the current SRC is non-factional (indeed, this has been the case for a few years now), referred to in student-politics-speak as ‘small-i independents’ (to distinguish from the ‘big-Is’, a West Australian faction). Bear that in mind whenever you hear people talking about the ‘Labor-dominated SRC’.

So now, we can move to looking at the people themselves.

First up: Osman Faruqi, SRC President, ‘small-i’. The first non-Labor President since the early 90s (so you can imagine that people in both Labor factions are somewhat taken aback). He’s quite nice, as far as SRC snakes go. Since he’s non-factional, he’s also significantly less likely to pay attention to what the National Union are likely to be saying.

Jelena Samardzic (also known as Helen) is the Education Officer. She has made clear her intentions to become the next President (for NLS). What is less certain is just what she intends to do in her current role. Her immediate predecessor was more interested in filling out his CV than activism – will this tradition be continued?

James Still holds the Welfare role. He’s been very active over summer, printing off a new version of the Cheapskate’s Guide. We will all be watching to see whether his enthusiasm continues throughout the year, or whether he burns out (as did his immediate predecessor).

Ben Noone and Nicola Karcz are sharing the role of Environment Officer. The Enviro role is usually shared by two people. Sometimes they get on and do a lot of fantastic activism together. Sometimes, they do not.

There are a group of positions sometimes referred to as ‘Equity’ roles – they represent special interest groups, typically groups that historically have faced persecution. Jess Mobbs as Women’s Officer, Shuang (Samantha) Guo as International Students Officer, Marita Morgan as Students with Disabilities Officer, Felicity Lee and Anna Khan in Ethno-Cultural, April Long and Peta MacGillivray sharing the Indigenous Students role, and Nick Atkins and Squish Ramsay are the Queer Officers (the last of these I hold in a special place – a student politician snake who keeps snakes!). The Equity Officers are usually devoted to their special area, and do good work in it. If they don’t, they may well find themselves replaced by someone even more passionate.

And then we come to two particular roles. These roles aren’t necessarily problematic, more to do with the individuals holding them. You see, Anh Pham as Postgraduate Students Officer and Rebecca Hynek as COFA Campus Representative are members of Socialist Alternative. And the thing about SAlt is, they often fight for good things. But the methods they use are nasty. Attacking the individual, repeating mantras instead of engaging in debate, ‘with us or against us’ attitude in general.

Pham and Beck may well rise above this usual method of SAlt behaviour, which I hope occurs. But I cannot be confident of this.

If you’re over at COFA, then you get another group of Office-Bearers as well. In this snake’s experience, COFA OBs are inspired and full of fun. They have miniscule budgets, but great ability to make the money work.

So those are your Office-Bearers for 2010. Then we’ve got Councillors, both Undergrad and Postgrad variants thereupon. Councillors usually aren’t that noticeable. The role is notoriously undefined; it’s not quite clear who they represent. They generally fall into three groups.

First off, you’ve got the up-and-comings who didn’t manage to snag a position as office-bearer. Next, you’ve got the old hands, staying on for an extra year. Then you’ve got the randoms, people who got the position simply for being in the right place at the right time.

And why am I doing this? Well, I’m just another snake slithering around this snakepit. I was on Council for two years, first as a Tharunka editor, then an Office-Bearer. Maybe I'm waiting for another chance to get involved. or maybe this snake is sick and tired of the whole shebang, but can’t quite muster up the courage to let go. Time will tell.