Honi Soit: Could you please introduce yourself: name, degree, year of study, and faction?
AF: I am currently in my fourth year of my economics honours degree, currently doing my honours thesis, which is really exciting. I’d recommend doing that while trying to run for president, and I am a member of NLS, National Labor Students.
HS: What is the name of your campaign and what colour are you running on?
AF: The name of the campaign is called IMPACT, and we’re currently running under black.
HS: Why did you join NLS and how long have you been in the faction?
AF: I joined NLS about a year and a half ago, so it was during the uptake of the Yes campaign, the referendum; and I joined because I genuinely found NLS to be super involved in this campaign, something I was very passionate about. The more I took part in this campaign, hung out with members of NLS, in particular Jaz Donnelly, I was a really good friend of Jaz, it seemed like the values of NLS, that being of democratic socialism, the two prong solution, working through and using activism — but also working in the party and talking with stakeholders — really made a lot of logical sense to me. It only seemed appropriate that I joined NLS because I think making change politically and in society is important, so I wanted to do that.
HS: In that answer you mentioned something about a “two pronged solution,” what do you mean by that?
AF: So essentially, the key strategy of NLS is that we think that you should be able to work and enact change through two different mechanisms and strategies. The first is activism, so that means you work with activist groups, you work to run protest campaigns, informational campaigns to inspire the public and build a greater social movement around particular issues.
But the second and quite important strategy we use is working within the Labor Party or in other areas. For example, we work with university management. We work with relevant stakeholders because we think that activism is essential and important, but if you really want to enact change you should really go to the source of where change can be done and politically that is the mechanism of the Labor Party.
They are in government, they’re the only party that’s actually passed change in Australia. So you should go and be part of that on the university side, or any other side that you’re trying to enact. You should be at the table, negotiate with them, and try to enact change like that. So you do the two pronged solution because they act in synergy to work together.
HS: Are you a member of any political party at this time?
AF: Yes, I’m currently a member of the Labor Party.
HS: And before you joined NLS, were you involved in the Labor Party?
AF: I was not a member of the Labor Party before I joined NLS, no student politics. I campaigned for Jasmine Donnelly in the 2022 SRC elections. And she got elected, so I was clearly effective.
HS: If you had to describe your politics in a few sentences, what would they be?
AF: My politics is all one deliberate, logical strategy. And I think that ties in very well with the two pronged solution.
But it’s strategy that complements a clear principled ideology, an ideology that supports democratic socialism, an ideology that is pro-union, an ideology that upholds democracy, an ideology that is staunchly feminist, anti racist. It complements the best of both, being highly principled but also highly strategic, and we focus on impactful change, whether that be incremental change, whether that be huge change at one point, we see what change we can get and rationalise that and then achieve it.
HS: The next few questions are going to be largely about SRC and stupol. What in your opinion is the role of the SRC?
AF: The role of the SRC, I think it’s in the name, Student Representative Council. They’re there to represent the students on issues that affect students. Of course, that extends to really important things like activism and advocacy and representation, which are core tenets of the SRC.
The SRC president, I think if they’re the head of the organisation, they should be really steadfast in leading and running activism and campaigns. They should also be doing the other part of their job which I think is unfortunately neglected by the current SRC. That is to actually sit on boards, sit on committees and represent students for what they want like defending five-day simple extensions, defending against and stopping course cuts. Being at the negotiating table with management on key issues, the CAP, for example. And so I think [the SRC] does both, the representation is a key part of what the SRC ought to do.
HS: Coming off of that ‘engagement with management’ angle, how will you engage with management? What would your approach be? And do you think that would contradict left-wing values at all?
AF: I think my approach will be relative to the current SRC, doing anything. But in particular what I would do; I’d hope to have multiple meetings per semester with management or important stakeholders. For example, the academic board because I think students deserve a voice in these really important decision-making institutions and henceforth I should be, as the SRC president, in those places.
Second part of that question, does it clash with left-wing values? I think no, it aligns very well with our clearly left-wing deliberate, thought out, two-pronged strategy whereby we can do activism outside which is what the SRC president obviously can do and should do. But they push and fight for these left-wing causes and issues on these boards. They don’t act and capitulate and just allow management to run them over. No, they sit on these boards, they sit at the negotiating table, and they’re hard and they’re stern but they’re rational and they understand, what can I actually achieve here? And then fight to do that. So no, I think it’s actually quite left-wing to actually be at the table and enact change.
HS: Why are you qualified to be the next SRC president?
AF: Good question. Why am I qualified? Well, firstly, I’m a fourth-year university student. So the fact is I’ve seen a lot of universities in my time. I’ve seen the university through COVID. I’ve seen it growing out of COVID.
Hopefully now I’ve seen it, you know, flourishing to an extent. And I think the SRC is playing a really important role in that. And I’ve witnessed the SRC as well, both on the periphery as when I was campaigning for Jaz, but also internally, obviously being a member of council, a member of the executive, and a big part of NLS as well, so I see all of that.
So the fact is, one, I’m involved, which I think the SRC president should definitely be. The second thing is I think I’m involved with the greater university experience. That being, I was heavily involved in the debating society my first two years, so I understand what the society and general student culture is.
Thirdly is that I’m also currently an economics tutor. So I teach second year microeconomics as a casual academic. And so I have this really interesting new perspective of what is it like to be an educator in a university. So I provide that new, interesting perspective. And I think fourthly, which is really, really important is I just have the drive, I have the want to do it.
And the fact is I have great ideas and I just want to implement them. So it’s those number of things that I think makes me appropriate to do so. And hopefully I get a really excellent mark in the Honi quiz. This might come back to bite me, but it’ll be funny otherwise.
HS: What is one success of the SRC in the last five years that you believe to be most impactful or monumental?
AF: Yeah, a hundred percent. There’s been a number of successful things that the SRC has done. I think in particular, implementing things like, easy access for five day simple extensions. I think the running of activism campaigns. I really respect the activism for Palestine, that has been really important.
So really the SGM was really important and amazing for that. I think all the campus campaigns that we run for example against the Campus Access Policy to me — number one, that’s a very important issue right now, but also in terms of fighting against course cuts and also working with — another excellent one was standing on the picket line for the NTEU Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.
I thought that was a really important thing the SRC does. The fact is the SRC does and can do a lot of important things. I think that’s the best part of the SRC. It’s breadth of what it does and can address.
HS: You mentioned the Campus Access Policy 2024. So if you could just clarify your stance on that for us and let us know how you would continue the current campaign for free speech.
AF: So I think campus access policy is an utter shame and it’s an utter destruction on campus life. It’s a destruction and absolute terrible thing on student activism. And it’s really, really damaging to staff rights on all of those fronts. It should be pulled back immediately, as in, it should be completely reverse.
We should have the power to speak freely and act freely on university campus. But I think, as I already said, the way I would address this if I were to be president, is I’ll continue the really great activism that is happening against the Campus Access Policy.
For example, the stall days and like NLS had a barbecue, for example, and a forum essentially where we’re educating students about this, which is really great. Lots of students actually hadn’t heard about the Campus Access Policy. And when we told them about it, they’re like, wow, that’s really screwed up.
I’m really against this. What are we supposed to do? So I think it’s one is the activism and awareness part, but two is also, you know being at the — as i’ll say again and reiterate — being at the negotiator table with management. It’s not exhaust… to not sorry… ignore management… those who actually implemented the policy as frankly a reaction to the terrible negotiating SAlt and Grassroots on the encampment to be completely frank and say ‘hey let’s renegotiate this there’s clearly been some huge hostilities we need to figure this out because the Campus Access Policy is not in the best interest of students or staff or anyone we need to change that’, so once again it’s the dual pronged strategy there.
HS: and stupol again, how is this campaign going to be different different to your USU campaign?
AF: Yeah, so I think empirically and just honestly USU is a very unfortunately, an apolitical space, right? And so that means sometimes the policies that you put forth are, while they’re obviously good policies and policies that you believe in, they aren’t policies that like, are your political beliefs and strategic beliefs.
And I think that’s the difference with this SRC campaign. And why the SRC campaign is called IMPACT, because the SRC right now, I think if you ask any random student, would say they have not felt the impact of the SRC at all, which is shameful, right, we get a $2.9 million sack every year, and the average student doesn’t know about the amazing services the SRC does, like legal casework, academic casework, campaigns, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So, What I’m really happy about with this campaign, and that’s very different to USU, is we have really clear messaging. Messaging on strategy, messaging on what’s going to change, messaging on pushing forth the two-pronged solution, and messaging of actually connecting with students. I think this is very different to the USU campaign because the messaging of IMPACT is going to be super pervasive and super clear.
Also, I think so far we’ve had a lot more uptake in this campaign genuinely amongst my friends, comrades, people that I’ve talked to. And so I think it’s those two things. I think it’s one, the messaging, and two, I think it’s perhaps the potential hype we’re building up about it.
So it’s going to be really exciting.
HS: How would you respond to students who might interpret that you don’t, Care about each of the SRC and USU campaigns enough, given that you ran for both in the same year; how would you insinuate that you’re still passionate about the SRC and how it’s different to the USU?
AF: Yeah, so I think, the USU and the SRC are two places that change can happen at the university; they are both representative bodies of students and I care about representing students. I think the beliefs and values I put forth on representing students are good, I think any mechanism — particularly SRC which is more activism and politics focussed is better — but any mechanism for change is something I want to be a part in and something that, NLS, my faction wants to be part of.
And so that’s why I’m not doing it out of greed or whatever else. I’m doing it because I want to enact change. And the fact is my faction backed me for this SRC presidency. So I have a backing of 20 plus, 30 people, right? Who believe in me and believe in what we can do. It’s a responsibility.
HS: You noted before an interest in building hype around the student politics and the campaign. According to recent election vote numbers, engagement in student politics is arguably an all time low. What would you do to build engagement in the SRC’s activist work?
AF: Hey, it’s all about the messaging. Right, and impact. So I think the average student, to be fair, is like, they obviously pay a lot of university fees. They pay a lot in SSAF, like $350 a year. So they might ask, what is in it for me? Right? And I think this is a fairly reasonable thing to ask. So I think it’s making the work that the SRC does really obvious.
I think of the broad work of the SRC, right? Obviously activism, I think we should continue at a hundred percent, to fight through that, because that has a very important base of students that we obviously can gather; and that was obvious through the SGM, which is great. I think as well, holding, for example, regular forums, or consultations, with barbecues.
For example, I love barbecues. For some reason, students love talking and holding food at the same time. So it’s really effective. And so you’d say you can ask a student, for example, if you’re the president doing this consult or consult hour, for example, you can ask, hi, what can we do as the SRC for you? What are you interested in? And in that same exchange, you can say, well, the SRC has this great legal service that can provide essentially free legal advice to you.
We have this great casework, we have all these amazing things where we’re sitting on, if I was president, I would say the SRC is currently sitting on, overlooking, like, a Senate inquiry right now, a Senate meeting, for example, to enact and stop course cuts from happening.
So, the fact is, you just need to show students that the SRC can have an impact and do the impacting. It’s that simple. So it’s essentially, yeah, having a public facing organisation, which right now, unfortunately, under Grassroots, under SALT, with lots of counsellors, it’s extremely insular, and that’s why students don’t feel impacted at all, which is shameful.
HS: Thank you. Next question is, will NLS’s connection with Labor, perhaps conflict with an SRC, which often pushes against the Labor government? With changes to international student caps and stances on Palestine. How would you sort of navigate that?
AF: Okay, short answer, no. And I’ll address those two issues that you mentioned just there.
The whole point of National Labor Students and the Labor Left in particular, is that you are an aggravating force in the Labor Party, that uses, as I’ll reiterate, activism and work within the party to enact progressive left-wing change. And often times that means people in the left, in particular in the young left, of the Labor Party, they get a lot of hate.
As in, for example, when they held the Labor conference. I wasn’t allowed into the Labor conference. I was outside protesting the Labor conference there. And a few of my comrades in the left as well were not allowed into the conference because of our stances on Palestine. Which is unfortunate and unfortunately very, very shameful.
But the fact is, because we have this dual pronged strategy, we can do that. Mentioning very closely with the International Student Council, I mentioned that Ngaire, who’s the NUS president right now and a member of NLS, made it very clear that we’re against those caps and made a very clear, political and business case upon why those caps shouldn’t exist.
So that’s not an issue for me. Jason Clare, change that. I’m not for the caps. On the very important issue of Palestine, NLS is going to continue to be extremely staunch, continue to be extremely involved in the issue of Palestine, continue to attend protests on campus and outside of campus, and continue to aggravate within the party, passing motions, attending events talking about Palestine, to get the senior faction to actually do stuff.
That’s, so essentially, no, it’s not a weakness. In fact, it’s a good thing, because the Labor Party teaches organisation and It teaches us strategy, it teaches us rationality, and it teaches us the power of incremental change and change over time. And that is a huge, huge positive thing, which has to be implemented if you actually want to create change at all.
HS: Great, I think that’s it for the stupol questions. Based on what you had just mentioned as well, your policy statement doesn’t go into depth about Palestine, bar a brief mention of disclosure and divestment from weapons manufacturer. How do you address these omissions of Palestinian activism in your policy document? And, like, how would you move forward from this as President?
AF: As in, you say, omission as I omitted it?
HS: As in, like, omitted it in the document to have, like, any formal expressed acknowledgement
AF; I just reject that characterisation. I think saying pretty clearly that, and as well in my bio for Honi Soit, which I sent to Honi Soit, it was pretty clear that I was a staunch believer and pro-Palestinian individual.
And on the policy list, of course, there was other really important policies there, but to have divestment, to have disclosure as really tangible and clear strategies of how we’re going to help on campus, That I think is just generally a really good thing. I wouldn’t call that an omission. I would call it something that’s very tangible and good.
And I think in general, the consensus among people who know me, knows that I’m obviously there to continue to build Palestinian activism, build the Palestinian movement. So I generally, I reject that characterisation that there was an omission.
HS: In recent councils, NLS has been criticised for their stance on Palestine or a lack of participation at the encampment. How will you continue the legacy of SRC activism given this accused inactivity?
AF: That’s all it is, it’s accused, it’s a ploy by SAltLT to push us out of the SRC and push us out from the amazing work we do. I actually reject the fact that we didn’t play a big role. I’d say play a really really fundamental role in the encampment. We had multiple, like tens of tents, which members of other factions like Social Alternative stayed in.
We provided a pantry, the food on the encampment would have rotted. Many members of the faction stayed on the encampment. We attended essentially every protest that was for the encampment in particular, I note the opening protest and I also note the counteraction against the Zionists.
I could continue to list off extensive things we were involved in but I don’t see the value in that. It’s apparent that we had a really big role in the encampment as well as Palestinian activism overall. And as president, I would continue the amazing work of activism that Palestine truly deserves.
But I would complement that with sitting down with management, negotiating with management, and trying to push management to actually divest, push management to actually disclose, because the incandescent didn’t lead to disclosure because of the terrible non negotiating that occurred from Grassroots that would be different. In fact, I would actually have positive change unlike the current presidency.
HS: Okay, and do you mind building upon how you could push forth this disclosure and divestment in one of your policies. Do you mind clearly saying, how this would be an achievable goal?
Yeah, so it is achievable, because this exact same thing happened at UniMelb with Disclosure.
And may I note, what happened at UniMelb was an NLS-completely-led campaign. So the only effective campaign was In the nation was one that was led by NLS, and they would obviously use, and had used, the same strategies of activism and the same strategies of negotiating with management, in synergy, in tandem, to achieve that. So there’s an exact case study of it working effectively, which grassroots would never do and actively ignore.
Yeah, so I would, when I’m holding my multiple person, per semester meetings with management, or if there’s another really important action like the encampment, and we have leverage to be used, as was the case when the current president sat down with representatives of the encampment.
That is the form and that is the structure I would use to push forth my case, and make it really obvious, and really evident, that it is in neither of us interest to essentially have investments in this apartheid state, in this genocidal state.
I just think that the strategies and the skills of the current Grassroots presidency, and I imagine all Grassroots and SAlt individuals who are in a current coalition, are not up to the scratch, and that’s why UniMelb was the only campus that actually achieved tangible change through disclosure. And we’ll continue to push through divestment and make it really apparent and clear through doing that.
HS: Okay, the next few questions are pertaining to some of your other policies. So one of your policies is a mandatory in-person consent education program for all first years hosted by the SRC. How would you implement and enforce a policy of this scale?
AF: Yep. So I think, I’m sorry to beat the dead horse, you go to management, you say, you know, you had 246 claims of reports of sexual violence last year, that’s absolutely abhorrent. Clearly something needs to change. We need funding. We need a room. We need time to implement this really important and necessary consent training and I think if you put that case forward I think it’s going to work very well.
As well, I think the SRC and students in particular are best to at least take part in educating on this because obviously the students are the ones that are affected by such policy being implemented, or the opposite, rather being ignored. So I think it’s best to be led by students and I think that’s something I can push forth and tangibly achieve.
HS: One of your policies is to improve awareness of all services, including FoodHub. What are some other services that this would extend?
Yep, so that extends to the casework service, it extends to the legal service, which i’ve already mentioned.
But I will reiterate, if you ask a student, what does the SRC do, they wouldn’t know about these services wich we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on. We spend about 600, 000 on the casework service, 200, 000 on the legal service. People should know about these services, right? Really, really important. And also, they just generate good service. So that would be something that I would push.
I also, as I said already, I make it really clear the activism we do on campus through these consult hours, these forums. And also make clear that the work we’re doing on negotiating sitting committees and to have a sense of transparency, essentially ask the student body, “what do you want me to say at these committees?” and I can report back essentially, to the student body in doing that. And so it would be those things basically.
HS: What are some ways you would raise awareness?
AF: What are some ways I would raise awareness? Well, I think one is, as I said, is to hold the fortnightly forums and events. Whether that be simple, small things like barbecues. Whether that be organised, hi, there’s a room that the SRC has booked. The President is there. Executive members are there. Feel free to come talk to it. Second is a better utilisation of social media. I think making more, essentially making more content on social media, making it more of a really central base is quite important. And you know what, I’d also make Honi Soit even more popular and clout it out even more. So the messaging in Honi Soit and the amazing work that Honi Soit do, and also obviously the SRC reports at the back are spread through there.
HS: A central part of your platform is overturning the campus access policy. How will you do this?
AF: How will I do this? I will continue activism and I will sit down and negotiate management. because I just generally don’t think the campus access policy is in a hundred percent the best interest of management.
Obviously management is partly in its interest because they want to quash activistm and they want peace and quiet on campus, whatever, right? But I want to express that there’s an actual case for them to reject this and I think that is quite persuasive in doing that. So it’d be one, it’d be the activism and two, it’d be the negotiation and then I’d obviously take part in, I, I’d actually importantly I’d move forward the, I don’t know what is called it, the meeting or form at the end of of the year about to reflect on the campus access policy to as soon as possible and to take part in that and not ignore it, which is the current.
HS: And, what might the practical aspects of the activism look like for the campus access policy campaign?
AF: The practical aspects?
HS: Yeah.
AF: Well, I think, for example, I was part of the EAG meeting which put forth the Stalls Day. I was there, I played a part in the messaging on that. So, I think, essentially, interesting, and perhaps more novel forms of activism like that kind of captures the student’s interest and also the news interest. Obviously, Green Left posted about it, which was quite good.
And I think secondly, it’s working with the unions, so the NTEU and the CPSU, because that’s not, the Campus Access Policy is not in their interest either. They made that apparently and abundantly clear through their own protest. So I think making it clear that a lot of stakeholders, that being activists, that being staff, are not interested in the Campus Access Policy, and hugely reject the campus access policy.
And so if you get more numbers, you’re more likely to enact change, and that would be the strategy I would do.
HS: One of your policy statements is to lower the cost of on campus food, which is a promise made every year. Can you walk us through how you plan to do this.
AF: Yeah, 100%. So the same committees that the current USU President sits on, the same committees that other USU representatives sit on, which obviously the USU also has their own outlets, but I would also sit on and I would continue to express the urgency of, hi, we need food cheaper, we need other food options.
On campus, for example, in ABS when they implemented the automated system, which has somewhat decent quality food and options there. I would do that. I also work with SUPRA, I’ve talked with Weihong and SUPRA earlier this year about what can we do. They were interested in starting a food court style system. The fact is I would actually sit down, talk with people who are interested in this kind of thing, and then go back to management. The people who have the power to change you put these things, the USU, whoever it is, and essentially say hey, we have these backings from all the institutions.
We have first-hand references from students. They want this. What can we do? And then figure out a strategy, like a tangible rational solution in critical change, which actually will achieve things.
HS: Many of your policy positions such as free education for all and abolish the cap of 15 working hours per week involves state or national policy as opposed to activism within the university. What would you say to students who might think this focus is unrealistic? And coming off of that, how would you mobilise SRC resources to pursue those goals?
AF: Yeah, so I’ll, before I state that actual strategy, I just want to note that every year, Grassroots and SAlt, when they run the council elections, they have these exact same, like, policies, right? Which I’m glad, they’re very important policies of free education. Of like full public housing, of really important like left wing issues, but they don’t put forth a strategy. They just say it and claim it as their political belief.
So one its my political belief, which I think is good enough, I think that should be broadcasted to students. I think secondly is the fact is the SRC, as the president SRC, you have a lot of political capital, right? It’s a pretty big institution, $2.9 million dollars, and the fact is that lots of current politicians were presidents of the SRC, or at least part of the SRC. So they have an interest, they have a stake in what the SRC does.
And I think to work with the National Union of Students, right, with Ngaire, the current president, whoever the current president will be next year, is kind of the way I would do that. Ngaire sits in on Senate inquiry. She sits in on what the government does as the peak student union body.
So I would collaborate with the National Union of Students to do that, which the current SRC does not do. In fact, the current SRC, just doesn’t think National Union of Students is worth our while at all, which is shameful because of the peak body it should be built up. So my answer to that is I would actually work with the National Union of Students instead of ignoring them.
HS: Your activism policies also mentioned stopping course cuts and improving staff and student ratio. The last five Grassroots presidents have built these campaigns, but management has remained steadfast and neither of those issues have really improved or been reversed. How would your approach resolve this?
AF: Past Grassroots presidents have been more pro-sitting with management going to committees and ranging all the way to completely boycotting them, so I would continue the strategy of the more sensible grassroots presidents of actually going with management and pushing through that. I also work tightly with NTEU.
I’m an NTEU member as well. So I’ve worked with the NTEU there and worked on this essentially two faced option, having both the students interest and also the staff interest. And I think just continue to build that campaign through activism, continue to build that campaign through sitting on committees, et cetera, et cetera.
Hopefully at least we’ll get incremental change and as well focusing on of course to improve and perhaps work when obviously enterprise agreements happening in 2026 but seeing perhaps sitting down the NTEU say how can we bargain something that works for students and for staff.
HS: In a case where you’re sitting in on these meetings with management and they remain steadfast on these policy issues, what would your strategy look like in that sort of scenario? If they’re remaining steadfast on stopping course cuts and improving staff and student ratios, those two sort of policy points there, what would your strategy look like?
AF: So the strategy would be clearly we don’t have enough resources or enough backing for management to budge and that goes back to the two pronged strategy.
If management isn’t going to budge, we do more activism, right? We build a bigger base. We go to the units. We talk to students more. We do more of that and then we go back to management. We don’t just do activism. We don’t just do negotiation. The fact is they work best in synergy and that’s how I would go about doing that.
HS: Okay, these are two sort of more practical questions. How will you balance study with your tenure as president if elected? Would you be reducing your study load or deferring at all?
AF: If I was present, I would do one unit a semester. So, I currently, after this year, I have two honours coursework units to do, and I would just, instead of doing them all, or two of them semester one, I would just do one semester one and one semester two. Which is totally fine. I’ve coped with full time study for three years.
HS: You do seem to deeply disagree with some of the styles of activism with, say, SAlt or Grassroots, and some of their recent policies. How would you look to collaborating with different sorts of factions like these if elected as president?
AF: I reject the notion of style of activism. I also don’t know what you mean by style of activism.
HS: To clarify, we mean for example, boycotting speaking with managers.
AF: Okay, okay, so in terms of like actual strategy, Yeah. I would try to reconcile these factions that we can still do and should do activism, but I would say we should complement this thing with doing the job of the president, the student representative council president, which is to represent students on these boards, and I Hopefully try to reconcile and say this is the strategy we should do but the fact is you’re the president, right?
You have more capital, you have more like perhaps sway, and hopefully that would be enough to push these factions over the line. And I think, you know, I want to work collaboratively, because the fact is we all have extremely similar critical beliefs on the left here, and we just want to achieve that. So talking, discussing is the way I do that because you know, there’s something they can be reasonable sometimes.
HS: Thats it. Anything else you want to add that you feel like we didn’t ask about? Closing remarks?
AF: Hi, I’m looking at you directly now. I’m running for SRC president because I think the SRC has hugely failed to impact students. I don’t think students feel the impact of the SRC, and I think it’s the role of the president to put students first and actually represent students.
I think the best way to do this is to do the amazing activism the SRC currently does and to complement that with actually negotiating with stakeholders like management and government. I think that is going to lead to students actually feeling the impact of the SRC. And as well, I want to connect with students, I want to hold forums, I want to hold barbecues, I want to hold consultations.
And so you know what the SRC is actually doing, and so you feel the felt impact of the SRC. That is profoundly different for the last five years of presidency, and I swear if elected, that is going to change. Vote 1, IMPACT for SRC. Vote 1, Angus for president. Vote 1, IMPACT for the National Union of Students.
