After the drop out of former NLS aligned candidate Harshita Bhandari hours before the Soapbox took place, the remaining nine candidates contesting the USU Board took to the stage at Manning Bar to convince students they deserved their vote. In front of a crowd made up of campaigners and USU staff, each candidate gave a two minute opening statement before being asked questions by a panel of moderators.
USU Director of Debates Will Price chaired the debate with USU President Naz Sharifi, PULP editor Huw Bradshaw, and our own Honi Soit editor Sandra Kallarakkal asking questions.
Key issues discussed by the candidates included how the union could best assist students during a cost of living crisis, the best ways to assist the unique issues facing international students, how to make the union more inclusive, and how the governance of the board as well as clubs and societies could be improved.
Cost of living:
In their opening remarks, all of the candidates argued that expanding the USU’s role as a service provider was essential to help students tackle the cost of living crisis. While lowering the cost of food on campus and expanding subsidies are universally supported ideas, some candidates differentiated themselves with more specific knowledge of the USU’s existing initiatives.
Simon Homsany (Independent) argued the USU needed to focus on the supply side and evaluate all their existing partnerships to ensure they were getting the best deal. He argued his experience as a chartered accountant made him well placed to take on this role. He did not, however, point to any specific changes he would make to suppliers or the current distribution model.
Georgia Zhang (Switchroots), drawing on her experience as a FoodHub volunteer, was able to point to very specific issues with the current program including a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables and the over reliance on student volunteers. She also suggested FoodHub could expand its offerings to include other essentials such as toiletries. Phan Vu (Independent) also suggested improvements noting the long queues to use the service.
Angus Fisher (NLS) argued that key to solving the issues with FoodHub was expanding the hours it was open and suggested the USU further subsidise GP and Pharmacy services in the USU run Wentworth Building.
In terms of accessing existing venues and events, Ethan Floyd (Switchroots) and Zhang suggested allowing marginalised groups on campus to access USU rewards for free and providing equity tickets for USU events respectively.
Candidates spent less time explaining how they would fund these policies. James Dwyer (Unity) and Floyd pointed out that the USU could fight for more constable SSAF grants. Floyd argued that the new CEO Michael Bromley, who was in the audience, should take a pay cut and Dwyer suggested a full financial audit. However, external audits already take place and sometimes the rhetoric of some candidates assumes there was a pile of money not currently being used. Floyd emphasised that every cent of money has to be reinvested into students — being a non-profit, the USU already does this by law.
When pressed if his policies surrounding divestment would cost the union money, Floyd disputed that it was an overall loss, pointing out that investing in First Nations businesses and community organisations would pay off in the long term.
International Students:
Four of the candidates contesting the election are international students which speaks to their growing role in campus life. All four, Vu, Naomi Viegas (Independent), Daniel Park (Independent), and Shirley (Zixuan) Zhang (Independent) argued that it was important to have international student representation on the Board. All four also argued their experience in multiple countries taught them how to reach out to students not traditionally involved in campus life.
Besides broad calls for diversity and inclusion, very candidates provided a specific vision for how to engage international students and the specific problems they face. Commendably, almost all of the candidates have at some point expressed public support for the Fair Fares campaign.
Zhang argued that the key issue was a lack of communication and understanding of what the USU was and what they did. She suggested translating USU messages into languages other than English and creating USU accounts on social media platforms like Whatsapp and WeChat would address communication initiatives. These are promising ideas but when questioned under pressure she was unable to explain how this policy would be implemented when similar efforts had failed in the past and her other policy of creating cultural exchanges was vague at best.
Homsany is proposing a ‘Buddy Program’ where international students would be paired with an older international student to help with their transition to university. While not an inherently bad idea, the policy suffers, like others, from a reliance on student volunteers. Further, the crowd audibly sighed at the suggestion that the students would be taught ‘Australian’ values which Homsany summarised as “having a fair go.”
Political Activism:
The candidates had a wide range of views of how political or factional the union should be and to what extent it should advocate for and take public positions on political issues. Traditionally, the USU has been a distinctly corporate body in comparison to the more activist SRC.
Homsany and Vu both argued their independence and separation from campus politics was a benefit. When asked a question from an anonymous submission regarding independent-running candidates being managed or supported by politically aligned individuals, Homsany said that his “politics were his policies.” Vu argued that the average student on campus was apolitical and not attached to any faction. However, when asked by Honi whether her executive position as International Student Officer in the Sydney University Law Society (SULS) would cause a conflict of interest if Vu were elected — considering SULS recently proposed a change to their constitution which bar the President, Secretary, Treasurer and Equity Officer from running for Board — she did not provide a clear answer. Vu pointed to her running for Board on a separate platform to her SULS position, though she has received support from fellow SULS executives, and stated that if elected the other directors would “work with me as a person[…]who brings changes”.
Fisher, Zhang and Floyd on the other hand, talked up their left wing credentials as key to their policy platform and vision. Fisher pushed for the largely accepted pipe dream of mandatory student unionism and when pressed if policies like his graffiti tunnel rave matched his activist vision, Fisher responded by affirming that putting students first was political, defending his record as an SRC counsellor.
Zhang, who is one of the SRC SASH Officers this year, proposed an environment and sustainability review and committed to implementing BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) principles. When asked how she would engage students not familiar with student politics in her revamped environment and consent week programs she proposed an expanded advertising campaign, more USU staff, and expanded collaboration with the SRC.
Floyd had the most radical vision. Drawing on his lived experience as a First Nations activist and SRC councillor, he argued the University had to come to terms with itself as a colonial institution. His anti-racist platform includes a mutual aid campaign, renaming buildings like Wentworth, and a broad divestment policy which also adheres to BDS principles.
When questioned if all of these ideas were empty promises due to the corporate nature of the board, Floyd argued that left wing candidates had a duty to make their case within the USU and he was accountable to students as opposed to executives.
Dwyer walked a fine line between the two camps. He argued for reviewing investments to make sure they reflected the values of the whole student body but did not give any specific examples of unacceptable investments while also refusing to give a straight answer on whether he supported BDS principles when pressed by Bradshaw.
Accessibility and Inclusion:
Increasing accessibility and inclusion on campus was a key policy platform for the majority of candidates, with several focusing specifically on disability access and services. All candidates, with the exception of Fisher, submitted statements to Disabled Honi outlining their vision for the upcoming USU Disabilities Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) that is set to be developed and consulted on within this year.
Viegas, when questioned by Honi on her failure in her DIAP vision statement to consider disabled USU staff and labour rights for staff who may be injured on the job, responded with broad puff statements about disability inclusion, affirming her commitment to working together with disabled people and being “one with them”.
Park was pressed by both PULP and Honi on his flagship policy initiative — a student-run USU counselling service. When asked about the initiative causing further overreliance on student volunteers, Park responded by saying “a lot of students are willing [to engage] if the cause is positive” and also spoke to encouraging staff members to volunteer. On matters of training, safety and liability — especially in the handling of more serious mental health concerns — Park stated he would employ “training workshops” and referral systems, and would “engage with existing support networks like BetterHealth”. Responding to a follow-up question regarding his mention of staff volunteers, Park stated that many tutors who he had spoken to said they “had no platform to engage personally with students”. The link between academics wanting to have more rapport with students and a counselling service is tenuous.
Let’s get this show on the road
Considering the limited speaking time and amount of questions that can be asked, it is difficult to discern candidate policy platforms as a whole. Additionally, also considering that the majority of the Soapbox audience are candidates’ own campaigners and not prospective voters it is hard to gauge their popularity.
With two candidates already having dropped out, it is now left to be seen which of these nine hopefuls will gain the six coveted Board Director seats. Head on out to Eastern Avenue in the next week to hear them out and make up your own mind.
All USU members are eligible to vote. Voting will take place online from Monday May 6 to Friday May 10.