Degree: Bachelor of Economics (Honours)
Faction: NLS
Quiz score: 70%
Colour: Black
You can read the full transcript of Angus’ interview here.
If Labor Left policy was a person, it would be Angus Fisher. White, loquacious, and a desire to enact change from within, Fisher was brimming with ideas, both regarding policy changes and stylistic activism changes, but a main takeaway from his platform is his “two-pronged solution”. Not to be confused with a sex position, he enlightened us that this strategy involves enacting change through both collaboration with activists and “being at the table,” negotiating with institutions such as the Labor Party and University Management. Throughout the interview, Fisher constantly critiqued Grassroots’ refusal to engage with Management, signalling a point of contention he holds against the faction that his contender, Rand Khatib is running on.
Fisher boasts the leading quiz score, just shy of a Distinction at 70%. Fisher demonstrated strong literacy pertaining to government and broader state politics, the mechanisms of the SRC and the changing policies around international students. His experience did however have gaps in general USyd knowledge, including being unable to name the percentage of SSAF funding allocated to clubs and societies, the percentage of low SES students at USyd, and which student accommodations were under renovation.
Fisher’s policy statement mentions disclosure and divestment from weapons manufacturers, but otherwise notably omits policy on pro-Palestinian activism. When raised in the interview, Fisher became strongly-spoken, saying, “I reject this characterisation; it is clear from my candidate bio that I am a pro-Palestinian individual.”
Fisher went on to further criticise Grassroots’ refusal to engage with University management about the encampment, claiming their “strategies and skills are not up to scratch.” Divestment “is an achievable goal,” Fisher said. He pointed to the “NLS led campaign” at the University of Melbourne as an example, who were “getting results” because their activists worked with Management on divestment strategies. He suggested that this was a “strategy which Grassroots would never never do.” However, Fisher may not be fully across the relationship between University of Melbourne management and activists, given the institution threatened to suspend or expel 21 students for peaceful protest. This may suggest a naivety in how Fisher imagines communication between management and students can play out.
Despite characterising Labor Left as “an aggravating force within the Labor party,” various answers he gave to Honi started by saying “I’d go to management.” Fisher implied that his strategy of collaborating with management would differ to the past five Grassroots presidents, stating he would attend “Academic Board” (although the SRC President attends these meetings anyway).
When pressed on what he would do if management discussions do not pan out as hypothesised — particularly on issues that management has been unwavering, such as staff-student ratios and course cuts — Fisher noted that this would lead him to the second “prong” of the “two-pronged” solution: “activism.”
Fisher was asked about how, if elected, he would reconcile being a card-carrying Labor member, the party that the current cohort of student activists frequently protest against. Fisher responded by referencing “what the Labor party teaches” [which is] “strategy, and rationality, and the power of incremental change.” Despite this, Fisher referenced his experience “protesting the Labor conference” and aligning with the NUS President Ngaire Bogemann’s (NLS) stance against the international student caps.
Fisher told Honi that his SRC campaign will differ from his unsuccessful bid for USU board earlier this year. He noted that the nature of the USU was “unfortunately apolitical”, and that his ‘Impact’ campaign would run on a comparatively activist platform. Fisher’s more novel electoral promises sound optimistic but perhaps will struggle to be effective in practice. He plans to organise a mandatory in-person consent workshop for first-years, hosted by the SRC. When asked how he would arrange this in practice, he noted he would “go to management to discuss.” The existing “Consent Matters,” module has been widely criticised for its patronising approach, indicating a need for change. In a time where On-Campus Sexual violence warrants immediate action, whether Fisher’s proposed workshop will rectify this is uncertain. It is also unclear whether the SRC could mobilise the University to invest such time and resources into in-person training for a large group of students, and if so, whether it could be cultivated into a safe, rather than uncomfortable, space.
Fisher’s policy statement also included continuing campaigns such as International Students advocacy and drug reform efforts, with actionables that range from building on the NUS-endorsed ‘Legalise it’ campaign, banning sniffer dogs at Someday Soon and introducing readily accessible pill testing kits at the SRC.
Other features of his appeal to accessibility included better utilisation of SRC social media, hosting more “events” and even “making Honi Soit more popular” — a shout out that did not flatter but rather confused us.
When asked about his aspirational policy platform, with “free education” listed under an “advocacy and negotiation” section, Fisher told Honi that Grassroots and SAlt “don’t put forth a strategy” with similar policies on their platforms.
Honi asked Fisher how he would effect change despite these being matters of state and national policy. Fisher told Honi that he would work with National Union of Students (NUS) to be involved in these matters, and that currently the “SRC doesn’t think NUS is valuable.” Fisher noted that the “SRC president has a lot of political capital” —- fitting observations from an Economics student.
After hearing Fisher’s open-arms approach to meeting with University management, Honi asked what this approach would look like, and if he saw it as contradicting left-wing values.
Fisher denied his approach was contrary to left wing values. He again invoked the “two-pronged” strategy, citing that the SRC should do activism “outside and also inside the board,” sitting at the table with a “stern and rational presence.”
If Fisher is elected, his presidency would signal the first NLS tenure in seven years. His candidacy and campaign sees a deviation from the platforms of Grassroots presidencies. Fisher’s approach to the presidency is marked by a social makeover of the SRC, and a controversial move towards making amends with management, which will undoubtedly attract some heated discussion in the upcoming Presidential debate.
It is now up to students to decide at the polls whether their interest is piqued by the prongs.
Campaigning will commence on Wednesday 11 September. Voting will run from 24 – 26 September with in-person ballots. For more information visit the SRC website.
