An annual tradition of that ever-waning campus culture, the Presidential debate is a rare opportunity for intellectual discussion, a fierce exchange of ideas, total desertion of dignity, and outright barbarism. Well, at least one of those things.
Awkward clusters of seats encircled the stage at Hermann’s Bar; on one side sat NLS, adorned in their IMPACT font t-shirts, with a small, formal looking Liberal contingent just behind them, while to the left of the stage sat the Green sea of Grassroots. As per usual, It seemed that the majority of attendees were, in one way or another, aligned with a faction: with the curation of chairs and cacophony of campaign colours drawing clear boundaries between each group.
The 2024 candidates for SRC President are Angus Fisher (NLS) Rand Khatib (Grassroots) and Thompas Thorpe (Liberal). A three way race comes as a surprise for student politics: while in recent years elections have been either contested or a two-way race, for the first time since 2018, several candidates are running for the esteemed role of President.
The night began with a rocky start. After some helicopter-parenting from a certain faction, candidates shuffled out of the fluorescent stage lighting, to instead sit eye-level with their audience. An Acknowledgement of Country was delivered, and Honi Soit’s 2024 SRC Presidential Debate commenced.
Before we got to our questions, each candidate was given 2-3 minutes to provide an opening speech, which was conducted in ballot order.
ANGUS FISHER
Angus Fisher, representing the National Labor Students (NLS), began his statement by introducing his Economics degree and his position as a tutor at the University. Fisher referenced his experience in USU debating, Boulder Soc and his latest work with Students for Drug Reform. Moving swiftly to critiques of his rival, Fisher accused Grassroots of “failing” students and fostering a culture in the SRC reflective of a “playground for Grassroots friendships”.
Throughout Fisher’s speech, heckles were hurled from the sea of green, while from the NLS side, shouts of ‘hear-hear’ were heard by parliamentary LARPers. Despite this, Fisher moved on to say he will pursue a “strategic presidency” that is built by and around the interests of students.
RAND KHATIB
Rand Khatib opened with an intimate personal account of growing up as a Palestinian refugee, navigating “colonial violence in so-called Australia”. Khatib described her vision as “revolutionary” and stated she is “here to challenge the institution”.
Khatib referenced her experience “kicking anti-abortion freaks off campus”, collaborating with Invasion Day rallies, as well as her lead role in organising the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. Khatib mentioned various Grassroots platforms she intended to continue, including fighting for better staff working conditions, introducing and safeguarding 5 day extensions and holding management to account.
THOMAS THORPE
Thomas Thorpe, the Liberal candidate, sat coolly in his chair before claiming the candidates to his right “made the case for me”. Regarding his fitness for presidency, Thorpe cited his Civil Engineering degree, two society executive positions, and his position as a tutor at St Andrews College. This was met with an onslaught of heckling, “SHAME!”. Thorpe spent most of his opening statement condemning the current SRC, claiming “the SRC has no credibility” with “no students taking interest”.
The debate then moved to general questions for all presidential hopefuls. As-per SRC Presidential Debate history, the audience took it upon themselves to answer these questions and interject, drawing out the night.
What is the single most important issue impacting students?
Fisher declined to nominate a single issue, instead stating “I think students face a multifaceted set of issues,” including “their government being complicit in genocide,” and the “shameful” cost of living crisis. Khatib, on the other hand, said that the “single most crushing thing is the corporate university” that creates exorbitant profits by “cutting our courses.” Thorpe claimed that for him, the “one issue that encapsulates all” is that students “aren’t represented,” claiming that “we have an SRC speaking on behalf of students that is elected by 5% of the students.”
What efforts should the SRC take to advocate for Palestinian liberation?
Khatib stated that the SRC needs to throw “everything it’s got behind the Palestinian liberation movement.” Khatib referred specifically to the ICJ ruling that institutions should do everything they can to end their complicity. Speaking to the success of Grassroots presidencies in this regard, Khatib claimed the faction “used the SRC to build the campaign, and the encampment, and the SGM.”
Thorpe, ever on the contrary, stated that “it’s a bit arrogant to think the SRC can solve a war,” declining to label the attacks on Gaza a genocide. “We’ve seen it for years, the SRC has been doing all these motions about Palestine, which is very tragic,” Thorpe said, arguing this is “beyond the scope” of the SRC. Thorpe then referred to an anecdote he also brought up in his Honi candidate profile interview: “I was at the Lakemba night markets. I chatted with this one guy who came over from the Middle East all alone, no friends, no community. These are the people the University should be platforming.” Honi Soit remains unsure of this anecdote’s relevance.
Fisher stated that the SRC should be doing “every possible thing to fight for Palestine.” Curiously, this passion and strategy were largely missing from Fisher’s policy statement. Moreover, NLS were present at the 2-month long Gaza Solidarity Encampment to a significantly lesser extent than other groups and factions. In his response, Fisher expressed the importance of personally consulting with Palestinian stakeholders, and claimed that in a “perfect world we get disclosure, divestment…” Khatib interjected, claiming, “no, in the perfect world we get liberation.” Fisher responded by saying that what the SRC needs to begin with is “exposing the ties” of the University, and using “the NUS to build a national student movement” to push the government to “do better.”
Cost of living for students has risen rapidly in the last year. Beyond advocacy, what are the concrete steps you will take to harness the SRC’s budget and influence to help students alleviate financial pressures?
Thorpe referred to the SRC’s $2.9 million budget, claiming “a lot of it goes to a bunch of rubbish to be honest.” “The SRC is not doing much to benefit students,” Thorpe continued, “its advocacy powers are redundant.” Instead, Thorpe stated he would aim to take “material steps” to “help students,” including “encouraging the University to employ students more” to give them access to money.
Fisher on the other hand advocated a “multifaceted approach” in line with his two-pronged strategy, acting “inside and outside of the chambers”. He also stated he would “use the National Union of Students,” which “sits in on Senate inquiries and [so] can get politicians to listen to you.” Fisher also said he would “actually attend meetings,” and “lobby the USU and work with SUPRA” to do things like improve transport. Fisher also promised to “increase support and exposure of Foodhub.”
Khatib said that she would focus on the caseworker system at the SRC which can help students fight for their housing rights. For her though, empowering collectives with more funding is crucial to force more action. “Look at the Stucco co-op housing,” she said. “We know that was achieved by stucco. Hands of students instead of hands of management.”
A shared policy between the three of you is saving simple extensions. How do you each plan to preserve simple extensions if they are attacked further during your term?
Khatib responded with “I’m so glad you’ve asked this question,” rhetorically asking “who introduced simple extensions? Grassroots!” Thorpe then quipped that he had “hoped to get an answer of substance,” before claiming that the “SRC has no credibility to save simple extensions.” According to Thorpe, this is because the SRC has been focusing on “issues well beyond its scope.” Thorpe then claimed that “simple extensions are under attack because Grassroots haven’t defended them,” claiming that extensions were saved because “my friend put forward an amendment that saved them.” Fisher lauded his “strategy focused” approach, noting he would deal with the academic board, “petition […] and engage students and hold barbecues,” and “go to negotiations.” “I think it’s important to build credibility with university management,” Fisher said.
Candidates were also asked a range of questions by the audience, submitted by QR code. These included:
What will you do to support international students?
On the issue of international students, all of the candidates signalled their support with Fisher and Khatib highlighting the discrimination they face in the workplace and on campus. Thorpe said that he “loved international students” in general but did not elaborate much further. In terms of actionable steps beyond consultation and working with collectives, all three were lacking.
What is your understanding of the role of collective spaces and how do you aim to uplift and amplify the collectives (i.e ACAR + woco) in a growingly apolitical sphere?
The usefulness and accessibility of collectives was a key point of contention between the candidates. Khatib, who was ACAR convenor last year and has engaged deeply with collectives said they were “safe spaces where students are able to engage,” and do important work. Fisher said he felt “unwelcomed” at collectives but as President would work with them on key issues like Palestine while trying to make them “inclusive [and] productive spaces.”
Thorpe simply stated that collectives did not represent the average student. He did not define what an average student was, but seems to be banking on the general apathy some students feel toward the SRC.
The debate then moved to candidate specific questions, alphabetically ordered with Fisher first in line.
ANGUS FISHER
When criticised for his Labor party membership, Fisher stated that the Labor Party is “essentially a movement that is built by workers” but that it is “not perfect in and of itself.” He went on to state that the party is “as good as the members that are within.” “I’m not in the Labor party to be comfortable,” Fisher said, “[I’m here so] that I can influence the party, push it to the left and make it work for students.” The classic reformist adage received an uproar from the NLS table.
Fisher was then asked on how he plans to “push management” when negotiating with them: “Pushing management is a two-pronged solution,” Fisher said, involving “building a student movement such that they [Management] are scared.” Fisher promised that the would “actually be at the meetings,” claiming that “if you do not engage with the powers that be in our world, you cannot change fuck all.” Fisher finished with a barb at Grassroots, claiming that their strategy is “to ignore and ignore and ignore.”
RAND KHATIB
Khatib was pushed by the moderators on the extent to which she would be willing to negotiate and work with management. “I sat with management after being elected by the encampment,” Khatib said, “it is a similar model with the NTEU, where you are democratically chosen.” Khatib, referencing Fisher’s platform, claimed that “the two-pronged solution is unserious.” “They are diametrically opposed,” Khatib argued, “pick one and do it, and do it well because that’s what Grassroots does and does it well.”
Khatib was also asked about whether she believes there is a gap between Grassroots and the average student, as her opponents often allege. “Absolutely not,” Khatib replied, “Grassroots does a fantastic job,” noting the “power is in the collectives” with their “convenors democratically chosen at Reps-Elect.” “You can’t get more democratic than that,” Khatib said.
THOMAS THORPE
Thorpe was first asked whether his support of the Campus Access Policy really did identify with the “average student” his platform seems to endlessly talk about.
“Yeah,” Thorpe said, continuing by claiming that the SRC is not sufficiently representative of the broader student body: “Do you think many students like it when you go into their lectures?” he posed to the audience, receiving a roar of heckles in response.
Following this, Thorpe was pushed on the policy of his fellow Liberal ticket ‘Reform USyd’ that called for Honi Soit to be defunded. When asked how student politicians would be held accountable to students without an independent student newspaper, Thorpe stated that “I don’t think Honi Soit holds student politicians accountable.” We would highly recommend Thorpe to actually read the paper from time to time!
Thorpe was asked about his position on the presence of “far-right anti-abortion thugs” on campus and his stance on abortion himself. Thorpe called this a “redundant question,” saying that he is aware of the snap rally but that his “stance on abortion is “what does that have to do with the SRC?”
Thorpe’s flippant response to women’s reproductive and menstrual health sent the room into a frenzy. Both Grassroots and Impact heckled, ‘Women’s rights are students right!”
This followed Thorpe’s general strategy of using moderate rhetoric to buttress his conservative policy. When candidates were asked about drug decriminalisation, Fisher and Khatib backed the policy unequivocally, while Thorpe spoke strongly against what he called “debauchery”, provoking laughter from the audience.
When pushed on his policy of “empty the bins more often” Thorpe stated that this policy was “very important,” and that “many bins are overflowing” on Eastern Avenue.
Thorpe claimed that he had spoken to a lot of friends (apparently the sources of many of his policies), and that he “raised this issue as a motion in the SRC last year” but that it was rejected.
Conclusion:
None of the candidates had a particularly strong performance. Thorpe stuck out for his unashamedly populist rhetoric. He claims the SRC is broken and ineffective but his solution of collecting trash and building water fountains is far from revolutionary. His refrain of ‘supporting the average student’ would suggest the average student does not care about freedom of speech or reproductive health.
The battle between Khatib and Fisher was a repeat episode. Grassroots were able to claim stronger activist credentials, and have a clear record of successive progressive and independent administrations. While Fisher’s main critique — that the SRC and collectives only engage with a narrow group of students — could have some foundation, it’s unclear how NLS would do any better. If the issues are as systematic as they suggest, fixing them with a new face and sausage sizzles is a tall order.
