LIVE: SRC meeting 15/04/20

We attend the SRC’s first ever Zoom council meeting to let you know what your representatives are up to.

6:08: The meeting hasn’t started yet. We are waiting for everyone to join the Zoom. A mysterious character going by “Jimbo” is kicked out of the meeting as they haven’t used their full name. There are suspicions that it’s moderate liberal ex-councillor James Ardouin. Secretary to Council Julia Robins is sporting a fun SRC logo Zoom background.

Are we jealous of Julia’s SRC background? Maybe…

6:20: Julia starts recording the meeting. We are getting close to a quorum count, which occurs to check if there’s enough people to actually start the meeting. With the ultra-convenience of this meeting, we hope that everyone will attend! The quorum count is run by councillors commenting their name and “present”.

6:38: We’ve finally started! President Liam Donohoe does the Acknowledgement of Country, noting that while everyone is on different land at the moment, the one thing in common is that it was stolen from its First Nations owners. He notes that the SRC should keep this fact in mind in all their decision-making.

The council spot from which Layla Mkhayber resigned last meeting is open for nominations. Paola Ayre (Grassroots) nominates for the position.

There's some confusion about how to vote but there is no dissent, so Paola gets the position.

6:46: Some bureaucracy - we’re reading through the previous minutes to see if anyone has any issues with them. It seems there is no dissent to the minutes passing.

6:50: We move through the agenda items quickly. There’s no questions, no report from the Undergraduate Senate rep Francis Tamer, and no nominees for Mature Aged Student Officer. The executive minutes are also passed easily.

Maddie Powell (SAlt) moves that Council introduces a speaking limit of 3 minutes. There is no dissent - phew.

6:55: President Liam Donohoe (Grassroots) delivers the President’s Report. He discusses the SRC’s initiatives at the moment, including the COVID-19 mutual aid program, opposing ProxyU, and the recent success in expanding special considerations. He says that the SRC has been trying to make the most of its social media presence as well as direct communication channels with the Uni. He also discusses the activism done on issues including rent and tenancy and protecting staff at Universities. Keep an eye out for Pulp’s interview with Liam on the SRC’s work on COVID-19, which will be released later this week!

The Executive Report, the Report of the Vice Presidents pass without dissent.

Liam Thomas (Unity) speaks about the Report of the General Secretaries, saying that the SRC’s progress on COVID-19 shows “the importance of having a strong SRC”. This Report also carries.

7:05: Education Officer Jack Mansell (SAlt) presents the Education Officers’ Report. He discusses the “uncharted territory” of COVID-19, arguing that it is a crisis of global capitalism. “There is no kind of kick in the global economy that will pull us back to normal”. He argues that it will be important to fight for the burden of the crisis not to fall on ordinary people, including staff and students at University. He says we are already seeing some “pretty savage attacks” within the tertiary education system, for instance cuts to staff pay at UNSW. He warns against making concessions to Universities regarding staff wages and conditions. The report carries.

7:09: Women’s Officer Vivienne Guo speaks about the content of the Women’s Officers’ Report. She expresses the solidarity of the Women’s Officers for the victims of sexual abuse in the light of George Pell’s recent acquittal. She notes that the justice system is a flawed mechanism for dealing with sexual violence and concludes: ”To survivors: I hear you, I believe you, and I’m really sorry”.

The next report is the Social Justice Officers’ Report. Deaglan Godwin (SAlt) argues that people need to organise against harmful new COVID-19 policies. Godwin speaks from personal experience about the Government’s refusal to close schools and use of teachers as “cannon fodder”, proposing organising to resist unfair or potentially dangerous policy. No dissent; the report carries.

Now we have the Global Solidarity Officers’ Report. Holly Hayne (SAlt) argues we are currently facing a choice between “socialism or barbarism” as we face a period of precariousness, job losses, and a health crisis. She says that preposed restructures to education are an attack on student learning and staff jobs, as well as expressing concern about the safety of refugees during this time. Hayne critiques the threat to “civil liberties” posed by the application of social distancing laws to protests (where protests occurred in cars) and the fact that laws are being applied unequally. Hayne further argues that people in Palestine, “the world’s largest open air prison”, face particular health risks.

Queer Officer Paola Ayre speaks about the Queer Action Collective’s work. This includes hosting reading groups, contributing to mutual aid initiatives, and collating Queer Honi. She echoes the comments on Pell made by the Womens’ Officers.

Maddie Clark (SAlt) speaks on behalf of the Welfare Officers, echoing previous sentiments about the current health and economic crisis. She says that stimulus packages rarely protect workers, giving the example of the burden of COVID-19 on the tertiary education sector. She argues that people should be preparing to protest upon the lifting of the lockdown.

7:25: We move to the proposed motions.

The first motion comes from Abbey Shi (Advance), one of the General Secretaries. It’s about the need to protest the the lack of student concession Opal cards.

Jiale (Wayne) Wang (Panda) who has nominated to run for USU Board, speaks about the unfairness of the lack of protection for international students.

Maddie Clark says that it’s “outrageous that international students are treated like cash cows” by the Universities, where international students fund the tertiary education system with limited support or benefits.

Kigen Mera also speaks in favour of the motion. Mera argues that international students contribute a lot to the economy, making it unfair that they don’t receive the services that they pay for.

Lily Campbell (SAlt) argues that “our sights should be set higher than just concession opal cards”. She talks about the broad lack of government and university support for International Students, including limited financial support.

Abbey rounds out the discussion by condemning the systematic discrimination against International Students. She suggests that fighting for international Opal cards is a good first step in challenging this discrimination. The motion passes.

7:39: The next motion is entitled “No Uni Cuts! Student Campaign against Cuts to Courses and Jobs!”. It proposes a student campaign to demand no job cuts, cancelling student rents, indefinite visas for international students, and the provision of free education to all students.

Deaglan Godwin speaks in favour of the motion, arguing that staff and students shouldn’t “foot the bill” of COVID-19. He argues that “we really have to connect to the mass anger that students are feeling right now”.

Grace Bowskill (SAlt) says that the SRC needs to discuss these issues. She says unions like the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) have shown the power of rank-and-file organisation which makes a campaign all the more important. She argues there is “a direct correlation” between staff rights and student learning conditions.

Liam Donohoe says “this is undoubtedly the most important SRC campaign” emphasising the potential for the crisis to lead to better social and political paradigms. He points out: “There are things that we didn’t think would be possible in the past which seem to be possible now” and suggests the way to achieve a better world in the wake of the crisis is grassroots action.

Lily Campbell critiques the idea that when businesses lose money, workers should have to take pay cuts, saying “the working class shouldn’t have to pay for the crisis”. She speaks about the opportunity to inspire further action within society.

After some prompting from Lily, who has called for someone from NLS to speak, James Newbold supports the motion, adding that industrial democracy will be important in the fight. “I know you’re trying to start some drama”, he says, but doesn’t seem to want to take the bait.

Mikaela Pappou (NLS) “completely" agrees with the motion and echoes James’ support for industrial democracy.

Swapnik Sanagavarapu (Grassroots) criticises the logic of corporate bailouts. He says that capitalists frame profit as the reward for taking risks, but argues that current events show that workers are being forced to pay for those risks. He argues that this illustrates the exploitation of workers within capitalism.

Liam Donohoe points out that “this is an excellent opportunity for us to try to… achieve the change that we’ve always wanted to see”. He says students should take this “extremely seriously” and think about how they can contribute to the struggle. He expresses empathy for students who are struggling at the moment, but implores students to engage in initiatives like the SRC’s COVID-19 response group as much as possible.

Sofie Nicolson (Solidarity) who is one of the Environment Officers, asks “whether there is anymore more specific on… calling on the NTEU leadership to mount a serious campaign?”. Turns out this question is actually about the fourth motions so we’ll receive its answer later.

Swapnik speaks again about the concessions made by the NTEU, arguing that anything we concede now will probably not be rolled back without a fight. There is a bright side: “if we win things like workplace democracy… it’s gonna be pretty hard for management to take those things away from us”.

The motion passes.

8:10: The next motion is entitled “Abolish the Camps and the Prisons”. Sofie, who has proposed the motion, speaks about the “absolute horror and devastation” that may occur as a result of the coronavirus and the cruel treatment of refugees. She also talks about the harm of prisons and their role in an unjust and equal system.

After a brief interlude in which my AirPods refuse to cooperate, we’re back. I am told there have been some speeches about the consolidation of the state in response to COVID-19.

Maddie Powell supports prison riots around the world, which are an “expression of rage against the totally mundane cruelty” of things like ICE raids, the suppression of protesting and the violence of incarceration. Powell chastises the members of parties involved in refugee camps and so on, many of whom are in the call.

Vivienne Guo speaks in favour of the motion, saying “prisons and camps do nothing to uphold justice”. She points out the huge number of Black people, Indigenous people and people of colour “languishing” in prison and the huge risks they currently face.

Liberal representatives Jason Howe, Holly McDonald, Maia Edge and Julia Kokic as well as James Ardouin (who is acting as a proxy) dissent to the motion. Nonetheless the motion passes. Lily Campbell challenges the dissenters for voting against the motion without making a speech to justify the move.

8:32: The next motion is “Solidarity with the NTEU rank and file”. Jack Mansell criticises the National level of the NTEU for accepting concessions to preserve jobs, arguing that the “bosses will just pocket the money and sack people anyway”. The motion is in support of USyd, Melbourne Uni and RMIT NTEU members who have challenged the concessions and demanded a government bailout of universities.

In answer to Sofie Nicolson’s earlier question, Jack argues that the national leadership deserves censure from the rank and file members of USyd NTEU. “We will tolerate the officials when they do what they want and we will fight them if they don’t do what we want”, he says. He argues that students should pick the side of staff on this issue.

Holly Hayne speaks next, praising the organising of staff and the demands of the censure motion.

Yasmine Johnson argue that the threats to staff are serious, pointing out that Universities across the country have already started to cut staff wages. She asks why NLS supports industrial democracy, pointing out that unions like the NTEU have sold out their members.

Liam Donohoe argues that “the government has the capacity to… fund all of the essential services and programs” and they don’t do so because they don’t care about ordinary people and oppose universities as institutions. He suggests that right-wing politicians don’t like the fact that universities produce left-wing student activists and academics who critique their views. He says that the government is happy to bail out banks and airlines, but neglects universities.

Kedar Maddali (Grassroots) says that one benefit of the crisis is that rank and file union members are increasingly willing to challenge national decision-making.

Sofie reiterates the sentiment in her earlier question that a broader campaign should be mounted rather than just condemning the union.

Swapnik tells us “there’s no better time for a government to borrow extensively than now” because of low interest rates, relatively low public debt, and a reference to Modern Monetary Theory. Therefore, he says, “now would be a great time” to demand that the government economically supports universities, staff and students.

Mikaela argues that unions must represent their rank and file members and that they should act more democratically. She believes that the council should support the motion.

Jack says that the NTEU email to members completely neglected to mention casual workers, and that the national leadership was abandoning casual workers. He suggests this means that the Union lacks the willingness to fight on these issues. He disagrees with Liam’s earlier take about the ideological opposition to Universities, instead suggesting that the Government simply doesn’t view universities as profitable. He responds to Sofie by saying endorsing the NTEU motion on the “basis for a campaign.”

Deaglan argues that the National NTEU decision is negative because it ties outcomes for workers to outcomes for bosses. Therefore “we shouldn’t just reject the decision because it is undemocratic” but because it’s bad strategy for protecting workers.

Liam speaks again, responding to Jack’s point. He says that bailouts are not really made on the basis of “long-term viability” or profitability, using the example of the JobSeeker payments which exclude universities but not unprofitable businesses at large.

Swapnik has offered an “editorialisation” in the Zoom chat: “Why are liberals on this council? You don’t do anything or say anything or defend any positions, all you do is unsuccessful vote against things. I want to hear what people who defend the system have to say.” Still no Libs on the speaking list, so it seems like this desire will be left unmet. Sad.

No-one, not even the Libs, votes against this motion.

9:01: We move on to motions from the floor.

The first motion is entitled “No workers left behind.” Sofie, who proposed the motion, begins the discussion by explaining what the planned May 1 industrial action is: a car convoy and actions at workplaces. She points out casual workers and international workers are still very vulnerable to the crisis. Liam Donohoe adds his support to the motion.

Lily Campbell criticises the CFMEU and the MUA because they have negotiated with the Fair Work Commission to keep sites open and allow early morning work. “The CFMEU has basically said that we want business as usual” and the MUA has, while protesting sackings, offered to accept pay cuts.

Sofie replies to this comment, suggesting that condemning bad actions from union bureaucracy is important, but that it’s irrelevant to this motion because it is ultimately about the rank and file members of unions.

Maddie Powell speaks about the insufficiency of the SDA’s representation of supermarket workers, but praises the local level “militant unionism” which pushes for better outcomes. She criticises the fact that this militancy is lacking in the senior ranks of the unions.

Swapnik says he doesn’t see the relevance of including this criticism in the motion itself, because the May 1 action is comprised of “staunch” union members.

Jack replies that calling on national union officials is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve the required benefits for workers. He suggests that “we have to be critical of the union officialdom at every step”. He then proposes a amendments to the motion to add a platform point which criticises the trade union hierarchies.

Sofie is asked whether these amendments is amenable to her. Sofie ums and ahs for a while, initially approving but saying they’re not amenable at the last minute. As the amendments don’t change the intention of the motion, they are voted on first before the vote on the motion. The amendment passes, with a large portion of council abstaining. It seems as though half the council has switched off a bit.

Lily is speaking on the motion as a whole, responding to Swapnik by saying that this campaign is affiliated with officials in the CFMEU and the MUA. “At every opportunity”, she says, she wants to condemn the unions for selling out their members. Judging by the discussion so far, this is certainly true.

Sofie agrees with the overall critique of the union officials, but continues to question the relevance of the amendments to the motion itself, even though they have already passed. We begin having flashbacks to last meeting’s etymological dispute about the word “strike”.

The discussion has moved to the chat - Sofie has called SAlt’s amendment “abstract radicalism”, and Maddie Powell and Lily Campbell reply “nothing abstract about it” and “i’d rather be an abstract radical than a concrete conservative” (is this a reference to the CFMEU’s officials?).

There are several abstentions, from the Mod Libs and Switch councillor Michael Kallidis abstain, but the motion passes.

9:40: We do a quorum council thanks to the worrying lack of engagement with the motions. Quorum is, nonetheless met. The councillors are present in body, if not in mind.

Thankfully, a shorter speaking limit is now imposed.

The next motion is “Don’t let coronavirus threaten our right to protest”. Sofie speaks to support it, criticising police powers which threaten the right to protest.

Grace Bowskill describes the current state of affairs as “a cop’s wet dream”. She points out the inconsistency of the new rules and expresses concern that the laws will be used to suppress dissent. She is also worried that these powers and restrictions will not be wound back after the crisis. She levels criticism about the Labor left Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews, for enacting these measures. Sophie Haslam reiterates these arguments.

Swapnik editorialises in the chat once again: “can we get some comments from the ‘small government’ units”. No such comments occur. The small government units are uninterested in exercising their freedom of speech.

The motion passes.

9:49: Our next motion, once again from Solidarity’s Sofie Nicolson, is about defending student housing. It calls for rent suspensions for students in student housing.

Maddie Clark explains that this motion is especially important for international students and criticises the insufficiency of existing government measures to control rent.

Prudence Wilkins-Wheat, Switch’s USU Board candidate, says that, having talked to student housing campaigner Aman Kapoor, it’s clear that confusion and concern about student housing persists. She recommends that council members participate in the photo campaign to suspend rents as well as push for more publicity on the issue. This proposed action is approved for an amendment to the motion; as it is amenable to Sofie it will be included in the motion without a vote.

Liam Donohoe commends the campaign so far but believes “it’s gonna have to go a lot further”. Liam criticises the motion’s call for a meeting with Michael Spence on the grounds that he sees it as pointless.

Kedar Maddali speaks about the distress of students facing housing insecurity and believes that the “burden of rent should be lifted off their shoulders”. They recommend that collectives participate in the campaign.

Sofie suggests in response to Liam that perhaps Spence should meet with a group of affected students. He replies that he’s “pretty happy to do whatever” but believes that persuading Spence alone will be insufficient. He suggests there might be more useful staff to meet with. He further argues that the campaign should also turn to private university housing facilities and the rental industry more broadly. The motion is amended to demand a meeting between university management (not just Spence) and the tenants themselves.

James Newbold adds that campaigns about tenancy must consult with tenants themselves. He suggests that the SRC looks to support other groups involved in housing activism.

The motion carries unanimously.

10:05: The meeting ends. My overburdened laptop breathes a sign of relief. We’ll be back for the May meeting!