An overly complicated society in more ways than one, the Sydney University Law Society (SULS) is the only student society that involves an election to select its President and executive team. In the SULS election, voting is open to every SULS member, not just active society hacks.
Whilst Honi elections remain uncontested year after year, woeful for any onlooker ravenous for drama, this marks the second consecutive year of contest for SULS Presidency. Trust FIVE law students to put their names in the ring — and why wouldn’t they? This mammoth project management position may be unpaid, but has been shared by revered judges and evil corporate lawyers alike.
Electoral Officer and wannabe Michael Kirby (attempts at both SULS and USU presidency) Ben Hines explained why this annual debate was shifted forward to September: “so you can really take the time to get to know the candidates before voting or joining tickets as executive members”. Hines also wanted prospective ticket members to have more information on what candidate to join. With SRC elections just around the corner, let’s hope it’s not a case of candidate overload.
Interestingly, the SULS Presidential or ticket campaigning time is not yet upon us; apart from during the debate, candidates are not yet allowed to speak about their platform. So, for now, only the debate’s spectators, likely SULS executive hopefuls, have a grasp of the five’s policies.
The five gave brief opening statements:
Zara Paleologos (LLBVI) told us she’s “been around the place long enough to know law school isn’t just about exams, it’s about the community we build and the connections that we make”, and that her vision is “not about creating flashy new initiatives, but about building on what’s already going on”.
SULS enthusiast Priya Mehra (LLBIII) spoke to her multifaceted experience on the SULS executive and her vision to “build a community for everyone to get involved in, new comers and regulars”.
Juan Facundo (JDII) pointed to his leadership of the Queer Committee and his international background as factors that have “informed how he sees leadership”. Rather than the common policy platform to develop community, he envisions the creation of something new, such as a “different networking atmosphere”.
Michelle Chim (LLMI) is “dedicated to supporting students who have experienced similar struggles to [her]”, her policies prioritising diversity and accessibility by way of targeted outreach.
Justin Peng (LLBI) bravely puts himself forward for SULS President in his first year, framing himself as a single-issue candidate: “a pressing issue is the struggle of pre-penultimate students in finding relevant work experience”. He promises to bring more career opportunities to pre-penultimates — an attractive policy which is, regardless, likely better suited to the Vice President (Careers) portfolio.
Hines then asked some student-submitted questions topical and controversial, and we were off to a swinging start.
First on the agenda was Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS), a free group tutoring program paid for by the Law School that was discontinued after 2022. Ever since the Law School’s contested decision to axe it, SULS teams have promised to bring it back, whetting the confused law student’s appetite. Paleologos’ institutional knowledge promises a chance: she explained how creating an explicit action plan could be effective, considering the appointment of a new Law School Dean. Sitting executive members Mehra and Jacundo raised the current team’s trial run of the Academic Pilot Program (APP), a volunteer-run tutor group, as evidence of student need to present to Faculty. Chim spoke about her plan to engage in broad and in-depth student consultations, and Peng deviated from his opponents, selecting “sponsorships” as his solution to sourcing funding for a tutoring program.
And then, the ad hominems. Peng was asked why he was running as a first year student, but he countered that he was involved in SULS in Semester 1 as a Competitions Convenor, and that his first year status informs his ability to represent that cohort. Chim was quizzed on her lack of involvement in SULS since 2022, but she responded by outlining her involvement in analogous societies, and her unique position to advocate for Masters students. Facundo was questioned why he missed 6 out of 12 executive meetings this year as Queer Officer, but he refused the characterisation that he was not involved: “I did a lot more as Queer Officer compared to previous years”, he declared. Perhaps most hilariously, Mehra, who is the 2024 Vice President (Careers) was grilled on why she invited the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to a socially conscious careers event — only to reveal that was not her event!
The debate touched on some hot-button issues: death, taxes, the relationship between SULS and the University of Sydney Union (USU). Paleologos was asked about her team’s position on cross-SULS and USU contamination (i.e. USU board members who also serve as SULS presidents or on the SULS executive), and she explained that she believes there is an inherent conflict between the two institutions, given “the USU is meant to oversee SULS and all other societies”.
And of course, the age-old question of whether SULS should be a political organisation, given it operates much more apolitically than other elected student organisations such as the USU or SRC. The statements SULS posts on Instagram stories hang in the balance here, people!
The five candidates proffered similarly milquetoast answers, dancing around the elephant in the room of the war and genocide in Gaza. Paleologos agreed SULS should make statements but should “draw the line at political issues which directly affect students”. Mehra expressed support for SULS’ statement about the Voice to Parliament, stating the “role of SULS is to foster a sense of inclusivity”, Chim similarly supported the 2022 statement about the war in Ukraine. Facundo raised the importance of consulting autonomous portfolios. Peng seemed the least onboard with statements in their current incarnation, arguing that, “the educational value should outweigh the political value” and that it should “inform people of facts”.
As time ticks toward ticket-building, we will see whether mergers and acquisitions translate from the law classroom to student politics. A five-way race is unprecedented and would foretell a crowded New Law Building and colourful t-shirt-heavy Taste Baguette line in the months to come. Whether just power-hungry or hankering for tangible change, one of these contenders will control the richest faculty society in 2025.
