Honi would like to acknowledge that NatCon is being held on stolen Wadawurrung lands. We pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging. Sovereignty was never ceded. Always was, always will be Aboriginal land.
Credits to Imogen Sabey, Purny Ahmed and Ella McGrath for live reporting. Follow @honi_soit on Twitter to keep up with all the NatCon drama!
Module 1: First Nations Justice and Fired-up Socialists
In a surprising turn of events, NatCon began today at a punctual time, with quorum hit by 9:36am. Our reporters on the ground expressed slight disappointment in the changeover of brainrot content during the morning wrangling of delegates from Subway Surfers to Minecraft videos. NatCon, if you’re reading this, please change it back!!!
We started Day 2 of NatCon proceedings with motions on First Nations justice. Over a year on from the failed Voice to Parliament referendum, the repercussions of which continue to unfold alongside a New Conservatives Party push in Aotearoa/New Zealand threatening their Treaty of Waitangi, First Nations justice is at the forefront of the agenda.
NLS kicks off discussions with calls for solidarity from other factions in their support of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. A member of SAlt addresses the NLS delegates and their alleged campaigning for the Voice referendum: “the lesson the Labor party drew was that the only time you talk about Indigenous people is when you talk about locking them up.” Yikes.
These motions are eventually passed, before more heated discussion begins over a motion on supporting Land Back. A Ngambri University of Wollongong student starts with demands for reparations in the settler-colonial country of so-called Australia. A speaker for Unity proclaiming that their faction is “completely supportive of everybody” —before questioning the legitimacy of the Land Back movement— is barraged with heckles and laughter across the room. SAlt believes the motion is ill-defined, and abstains from voting.
More fierce debate arises during motions on the age of criminal responsibility, in which Unity opposes the raising of the age from sixteen to eighteen. Their alleged strategy —that sixteen is the age used by most human rights organisations and therefore NUS will be more capable of signing onto other motions and advocating for broader structural changes— is rebutted by Angus Fisher (USyd SRC President, member of NLS): “the rhetoric that you push is the rhetoric that allows right wing individuals to exist and right wing individuals to succeed.”
In a more solemn moment, a Dharug Unity speaker who was “almost a statistic in Indigenous youth custody” agrees to the premise of the motion, but pushes for more of a focus on reform than explicit police defunding. SAlt interrupt this with affirmations of their anti-cop sentiments. In the game of NatCon chess, SAlt seem to be moving their pieces with purpose this morning. That is, when they’re not cutting off First Nations delegates during First Nations policy discussion…
The motion is eventually passed with no amendments and the affirmed age holding at eighteen.
Module 2: Schooling Management on Education
Motion 4.4, “Abolish HECs – make education free again”, is loudly supported by NLS and SAlt and, to nobody’s surprise, opposed by Unity. NLS and SAlt note the increasing corporatisation of universities, with SAlt speaking to their vision of higher education as completely free as they emphasise that “NUS is the fighting body that is 100% capable of achieving this demand”. An NLS delegate spoke on how their second-generation immigrant parents were only “allowed to do this [access tertiary education] because of the Whitlam government” before proclaiming “shame on the Hawke/Keating Labor government!”. The crux of Unity’s resistance to abolishing HECs lies in the claim that free education is simply “not possible”. NLS reiterates that free education is life-changing and SAlt affirm that students deserve access to education for education’s sake, as opposed to corporate interests. Motion 4.4 passes, in a bloc with other HECs-related motions, as Unity woefully cries “shame”.
Incredibly relevant to USyd is the aptly titled motion 4.15, “The university sector shouldn’t run on treating international students like cash cows”, which spurs plenty of debate. The Labor government’s hasty cap on international students numbers has, unsurprisingly, resulted in pre-emptive cuts to tertiary education and jobs across Australia; a massive proportion of universities’ revenue comes from international student fees. SAlt proposes that tertiary education should be free for international students, which then devolves into a semi-related argument with Unity about free Argentinian education and its alleged merits (or alleged lack thereof). Nevertheless, NUS factions unanimously stand against this onslaught and the shameful scapegoating of international students — always low-hanging fruit for a desperate government — for the tertiary education crisis.
Module 3: Protests and Prongs
Well, we knew this was coming. It’s time to discuss our very own University of Sydney’s Campus Access Policy and the Hodgkinson External Review. The CAP is a policy that was implemented by USyd swiftly after shutting down the Gaza Solidarity Encampment. This policy dramatically limits freedom of expression, speech, and demonstration on campus. Alongside this, the recent Hodgkinson External Review, has reaffirmed USyd’s right to restrict students’ capacity to organise and participate in any form of political action which further emboldens management powers with the CAP and pushes for new, censorious recommendations as well.
Yesterday, we saw NLS, Unity, and SAlt fighting it out over the best strategy to oppose draconian measures implemented by management in motion 2.8: “oppose suppression of free speech on campus.” NLS and SAlt both, broadly speaking, argued in favour of employing oppositional tactics whilst Unity pushed their usual concessionist rhetoric.
Where NLS and SAlt differed though, was in the number of “prongs” they were willing to use. The faithful Honi reader will understand that this is a reference to the USyd SRC President’s “two-pronged approach”: protesting management whilst occupying a seat at the negotiating table. This proves unpopular with SAlt, who possess what Honi would dub a no-pronged approach of oppositional, anti-negotiation principles.
Today, motion 4.21, on “Academic Freedom”, saw continued discussion on the Hodgkinson Review, reiterating that its unspoken purpose is a direct attack to Palestinian activism on campus. Factions from across the spectrum acknowledged that the NUS ought to take strong and direct action to campaign for academic freedom, particularly as USyd’s crackdown has become precedent for other universities dealing with Zionist lobbying in the wake of significant pro-Palestinian activism.
Module 4: Recap Quiz (worth 25% of overall grade)
- Does Honi want to watch Subway Surfers or Minecraft videos?
- What is SAlt’s strategy towards First Nations people in NatCon chess?
- Which government introduced HECS debt?
- What the hell is a two-pronged approach?
- Why has the University of Sydney implemented the Campus Access Policy?
