LIVE: SRC Meeting 10/11/20

Ellie Stephenson reports.

Tonight I’m at the last meeting of the 92nd SRC - a peculiar, Zoom-meeting-filled year for the organisation. Tomorrow evening, RepsElect will see the Executive and Office Bearers of the 93rd SRC elected, the dawn of a fresh crop of stupol hacks. Incoming SRC President Swapnik Sanagavarapu will be taking over from 2020 President Liam Donohoe, with Switchroots’ dominance on Council likely to continue. The negotiations for RepsElect - which decide which factions work together to snap up positions - could see the airing out of factional tensions at this meeting. It’s been a year of relatively undramatic SRC meetings; let’s hope for some excitement!

6:30pm - We have quorum. The meeting opens.

President Liam Donohoe does the Acknowledgement of Country reflecting on the destruction of First Nations cultural heritage on Djab Warrung country and asking councillors to “strive for deeper and more effective Indigenous solidarity over the coming year”.

Next up, we have question time. Pulp asks:

(a) What do you see future directions for education campaign after the passing of the HESA Bill?

Donohoe responds: “The campaign has to become a lot more proactive”. He suggests that the campaign is dealing with “a new normal” and should focus on campaigning for free, fully-funded higher education. “We don’t want to return to the status quo… we want to change the system,” he concludes.

(b) Do you have nay conclusions or reflections to draw from this year’s SRC election?

Donohoe describes the election as, “Very disappointing and very frustrating”. He sees it as involving failures of procedures and democracy and is relieved that online elections are frustrating so we won’t have to deal with it next year. He speaks of his “Frustrations around our Returning Officer” and describes it as “not a fun election by any means”.

6:44pm - After some discussion - but no vote - of a speaking time limit, we’re up to Liam Donohoe’s last report as President. He discusses the “militant” and “brave” activism over recent months. He also notes that the SRC has recruited a new Principal Solicitor, suggesting that this will lead to higher quality legal support in the future. The SRC has also secured a space for the SRC Food Bank, with the USU giving the SRC the space for free. This fulfils one of Donohoe’s key election promises and formalises the mutual aid program which was established during COVID-19 lockdown.

He thanks the Council for a year that “has been as fun as it has been challenging” and apologises for not having accomplished everything he promised to, saying “this year has really turned things on its head”. He adds that he hopes next year a lot of the aims he wanted to achieve will come to fruition.

“Good luck to Swapnik and every Office Bearer who has the… pleasure of taking control of this union next year.”

6:52pm - Charlotte Bullock (Unity) thanks the Council and congratulates them on getting through 2020. She tells us the Vice Presidents have been focused on coordinating handover for the next VPs.

Liam Thomas (Unity) does the Report of the General Secretaries, once again thanking the Council for the year and suggesting the mutual aid program was a particular success of the organisation.

6:54pm - A report from the Chair of the Standing Legal Committee presents the Chair’s interpretation of the affirmative action section of the SRC Constitution, which determines affirmative action - on the basis of gender - for the elections of the Office Bearer positions at RepsElect. It passes without contention.

6:55pm - We’re at the Report of the Education Officers. Jack Mansell (SAlt) says the Council should be “extremely proud” of what it has achieved and thanks his “comrades in Socialist Alternative”. He acknowledges that, although this year has seen crises and losses, activists have done a good job of standing up to fight.

“Of all the education campaigns that I’ve been a part of… we’ve been able to mobilise on a weekly basis hundreds of students”, he adds. He highlights regaining the right to protest as a significant victory for the Left and for society at large. He argues that the Left will need to remain vigilant next year when staff enter the enterprise bargaining period.

Jazz Breen (Grassroots) praises the sustained effort of the Education Action Group and the SRC throughout the campaign against the cuts. She says she won’t forget highlights like the occupation of F23 and the road trip to Canberra to protest the passage of the HESA Bill through the Senate.

“The fight continues”, she adds.

7:02pm - Women’s Officer Vivienne Guo expresses gratitude for the support the Women’s Officers have received throughout the “long, difficult” year.

Welfare Officer Maddie Clark (SAlt) echoes earlier speakers’ sentiments about the importance of the education campaign this year. “It’s put us in a really great place for next year”.

7:06pm - Motion - Winning Back the Right to Protest

Maddie Clark praises winning the right to protest as one of the main victories of the semester. She adds that it was important for student rallies to be “defiant and centralised”.

Jack Mansell adds that the campaign on the right to protest provides a model for future protest movements. “Protests are effective when they get in the way of the way society normally functions”, he explains. He praise “that spirit of defiance, that spirit of rebellion, that spirit that says we should actually push the envelope”.

Amelia Koen (SAlt) repeats that centralised protests were an important part of the campaign, describing them as “able to get in the way of business as normal”.

Simon Upitis (SAlt) reflects on running onto City Road as building the momentum of following rallies.

The motion passes.

7:16pm - Motion - Motion of Censure.

This motion has been proposed by Liam Thomas and seconded by Liam Donohoe. It is censuring General Secretary Abbey Shi, who has been totally absent over the last 3 months. The motions calls on her to return the stipend (as it’s a paid position) for that period.

Both Liams express their disappointment in Shi for wasting student money. Donohoe describes the situation as a “egregious”, a “complete blank” and running “afoul of everything that’s in our Regulations and Constitution”.

The motion passes - Shi is censured.

7:27pm - Motion - Oppose Corbyn’s Suspension, Anti-Zionism is not Antisemitism

Lily Campbell (SAlt) speaks in favour of the motion, which condemns Jeremy Corbyn’s recent suspension form the Labour Party based on accusations of Antisemitism. Campbell argues that the Right has “cynically weaponised” criticisms of Antisemitism to shut down support for Palestine. She praises Corbyn for “standing against fascism”.

“Standing with the Palestinian people is a totally coherent principle with standing against racism”, she adds. “Actually, the real enemy of Jewish people is the far right”.

Jack Mansell also speaks in favour of the motion, who argues that the motion outlines “an extremely important issue to take up”. He criticises neoliberals in the Labour Party and the British media for attempting to undermine Corbyn as an “anti-austerity, anti-neoliberal leader”. He suggests that those neoliberals have failed to stand up to the far-right. He describes equating anti-Zionism with Antisemitism as an attempt to “reject the legacy” of anti-Zionist Jewish people and organisations throughout history.

Maddie Powell (SAlt) agrees with the previous speakers, describing a “resurgence of Antisemitic rhetoric and violence” from the far-right as being opposed strongly by the far-left. She adds that neoliberal policies like austerity and border detention have “emboldened” and “facilitated” the rise of far-right and nationalist groups.

Nicholas Comino (Colleges for SRC) argues that Corbyn’s suspension was justified and says that Corbyn enabled the right by losing the UK Election. He suggests the motion is “pretty silly”.

Oscar Chaffey (Grassroots) argues that “the charge of Antisemitism is… an anti-left smear”, and analogises the accusations of Antisemitism aimed at Corbyn to similar accusations of politicians like Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders.

Liam Thomas (Unity) says that the Report came from an independent body and argues that Corbyn can simultaneously be responsible for Antisemitism along with the far-right. “Criticism of Israel is not Antisemitic, but these were cases of people being clearly Antisemitic.”

Lily Campbell says that Corbyn was actually suspended based on his response to the Report, not the document itself. She rebuts Liam Thomas by saying it is “abstractly true” that anyone could be racist, not just the far-right, however she argues the allegations of Antisemitism against Corbyn are illegitimate. “Antisemitism has been the key wedge via which they have tried to drive out the last vestiges of social democracy” from the Labour Party, she argues.

Swapnik Sanagavarapu (Grassroots) speaks to “set the record straight on what actually happened”. He points to the leaked internal Labour Party report, which showed the weaponisation of accusations of Antisemitism based on party divisions. He also notes that the Conservative Party also has issues with systemic Antisemitism, a fact which has received minimal coverage. He argues that, while some Jewish representative bodies opposed Corbyn, there were numerous Jewish groups which supported him, rendering arguments based on identity politics unhelpful.

The motion passes, with Liberals and Unity dissenting.

7:57pm - Motion - No Support for a Biden Presidency.

Deaglan Godwin (SAlt) describes the American election as a “farce”. He says Donald Trump is a “wannabe authoritarian” but that Joe Biden has built his political career on being “the vicious attack dog of the American capitalist class”. Godwin points to the Crime Bill, Biden’s opposition to desegregation and his support for the war in Iraq. He characterises Kamala Harris as “the top cop of California”.

Additionally, Godwin suggests that the return to the status quo represented by Biden is a return to a violent and oppressive status quo. He positions the Black Lives Matter protest movement as a better alternative to electoral politics.

Grace Bowskill (SAlt) calls Biden “the candidate of the American ruling class” and criticises his left-wing supporters. “I would actually rather die than vote for a man like Joe Biden”, she says, insisting he is not a lesser evil than Trump and has “qualitatively done much more” harm than Trump.

Mikaela Pappou (NLS) says “most of us in this call can agree that a Biden and Harris administration does not represent the goals of the Left… I think what the argument here lacks is the fact that… it is always the lesser of two evils when it comes to the American system”. She suggests the Democrats are better than the Trump administration practically, pointing to issues like abortion and the ability for the Left to successfully campaign.

Roisin Murphy (NLS) notes they are not Biden’s “#1 fan” but calls SAlt’s argument “reductive” and “privileged”. “The worst progressive government is always better than the best conservative one”, they conclude.

Simon Upitis describes Trump and Biden as aesthetically different, but argues that “actually, the Democrats have been just as in favour of neoliberalism” and that Joe Biden is particularly right-wing within the Democratic Party. “What of substance has he promised to do?” he asks.

“They are both our enemies and we can support neither of them”, Upitis concludes.

Angelina Gu (Unity) says that SAlt’s arguments are “disgusting” given “people’s lives were at stake” at the 2020 Election. “Biden and Harris are by no means ideal”, she acknowledges, but rejects the premise that they should not receive any support whatsoever.

Jack Mansell responds to the idea that SAlt’s arguments are privileged, saying that people’s lives are also on the line under Democratic Party rule and pointing to the Democrats’ warmongering and deportations. He says that people need to “break from Lesser Evil-ism” and actively fight against the US capitalist class. He analogises the US Election with the election of Emmanuel Macron in France.

Maddie Clark says that it is “privileged to say that Biden is a progressive”. She emphasises that change should come from “the working class and protest movements”.

Lily Campbell adds “I think it’s disgusting that you would accuse people who don’t want to vote for a war criminal of being privileged. What the fuck is wrong with you?”

“Joe Biden is a fucking evil man. Not very much less evil than Donald Trump”, she argues, urging people to “start building resistance now”.

Jason Howe (Moderate Liberal) says that if he were to put on his “lefty hat” (God forbid!) he notes that “it’s just interesting that there’s no candidate on the Left for curtailing the US security apparatus”. He observes that the Left’s “good points” are not reflected in the Democratic Party.

“leave the lefty hat on” Oscar Chaffey says in the chat.

Deaglan Godwin says “the utopians are the people that think anything progressive can come from one of the longest-running capitalist parties… The point is to say fuck them all… we are for class struggle”.

Godwin concludes that “we need to settle this argument once and for all”. It seems a little unlikely to be settled this meeting but points for ambition, I suppose.

The Liberals and Unity dissent. NLS abstains. There are other miscellaneous abstentions, seemingly from people ignoring the Zoom call (I empathise).

James Ardouin posts about this discussion in subtle stupol traits (cursed) despite not being in the meeting. lol. Thanks for reading, I guess.

“I’m sure u can get revolution with 0.000001% of people”, Julia Kokic contributed to the chat. It’s good to see some optimism come out of this debate!

“You know what I never thought I’d miss you guys yelling at each other, it was actually easier to keep track of things”, Secretary Julia Robins complains, as the Zoom chat fills up with heated paragraphs.

The motion appears to fail.

Wait! Not so! It passes. Confusion over.

“Have people dropped out?” Julia Robins asks.

“Of my degree, yes. Of the Zoom, no.” Roisin Murphy responds.

“Mood”, replies Julia.

8:45pm - ABBEY SHI REAPPEARS.

She’s back. After six long, long months of waiting, her co-Office Bearers are in contact with her once more. Now this is a twist. Turns out all it took was a censure motion!

This is intriguing. Shi is apparently going to table a motion. It’s not yet clear what the motion is about.

Liam Donohoe requests a quorum count. We are one councillor below quorum.

“I think it is only fair that we see the motion”, Mikaela Pappou says. I am also deeply curious! Please can I see this motion!

We extend the meeting for 15 minutes or until Abbey’s motion arrives. I’m waiting with bated breath.

9:01pm - Abbey’s motion

Abbey’s motion is as follows:
“1. Public apology and explanation for absence of duty of Gensec for the past 3 months
2. Response to the request of refund - all 3 months’ stipend (approx $3000) will be refunded to the SRC
3. Response to the critical financial situation of the SRC and student unionism, in the form of charitable donation to the SRC”

Woah.

We've got another quorum count.

There is quorum. Phew.

Abbey speaks, apologising for her absence and recognising the censure motion. “It’s been a very hard time during COVID-19, for me personally because there have been a lot of changing circumstance for me fulfilling my multiple roles in multiple organisations… but nonetheless I recognise that I should have done my work as a General Secretary”.

She tells the Council that she is happy to refund her stipend for the period she was absent.

She also states that she has done a lot of work for her community outside of the SRC. She says “I have provided a lot of assistance to students in the COVID-19 situation”.

Shi reflects on the toll COVID-19 has taken on the SRC funding, with contestable SSAF funding being removed. She offers to make a charitable donation of $50 000 (I thought it was $15K, which, holy shit, but like actually, holy - fucking - shit) in support of the Council’s work with students.

“I certainly don’t object to that”, opined Liam Donohoe.

“It was five, and then four zeroes”, clarifies Donohoe. OMG.

Jack Mansell dissents. “Jack why” asks Ben Hines in the Zoom chat.

Mansell says “It’s actually a rather remarkable thing… it’s kind of strange… this whole meeting has been, like, a fucking bizarre affair”. Look, it certainly has been weird!

Mansell thanks Abbey for her support for the protest movement in Hong Kong. “Just a big shout out to Abbey for doing that… but yeah, just did want to register my big what the fuck.”

Lily Campbell asks if it’s legal. It is.

“Hold on… is it actually legal though?” Campbell asks.

I get the sense that people don’t want to look a $50 000 gift horse in the mouth.

“I’m kinda concerned that everyone is happy to just take the money” Campbell says.

Mikaela Pappou says “thank you Abbey, first and foremost, we can understand that it’s been a really tough time.”

“Like it’s so obviously political!” interrupts Lily Campbell.

Liam Thomas is the last speaker. He says, “I do understand where [SAlt] is coming from… but look, this doesn’t undo the censure motion. I think it is a genuinely good-hearted gift from Abbey… We appreciate you coming on here and apologising, and for your gift.”

SAlt dissents. There is no other dissent, somewhat unsurprisingly.

The motion passes. OMG.

Congratulations 92nd Council on your final meeting… and being $50 000 richer at the end of the meeting than the start.

9:24pm - There’s some yelling. “Like… what?” Lily Campbell asks.

“Am I just poor?” questions Jack Mansell. (No, Jack, it’s not just you, I promise!).