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.