Editor’s Note: While Victor Zhang is not ordinarily involved in any coverage relating to the USU, as he is an employee of the organisation, the editorial team has made an exception for matters relating to the 2025 USU Election given the intensive labour and time requirements demanded by student election coverage.
Content Warning: The policy analysis section includes discussion of femicide and gendered violence.
There are 12 candidates in this year’s University of Sydney Union (USU) Board election. Campaigners clad in brightly coloured shirts on Eastern Avenue will seek to solicit your votes. That person you met in the first week of uni will be DM-ing you out of the blue. No matter how you vote, Honi implores you to interrogate the policies and promises of the Board hopefuls, and for you to hold them to account if they are elected.
Candidates in order of the ballot are listed below.
Emily Boxall (Independent), current SUPRA Councillor
Nabilah Chowdhury (Independent), General Executive of the Sydney University United Nations Society, NSW Greens candidate for the 2024 Local Government elections
Michelle Choy (Independent), Secretary of the Sydney University Chinese Students Association
Thomas Fletcher (Independent)
Shiya (Sally) Liu (Penta), Faculty of Science Student Representative to the Academic Board
Lachlan Mansour (Independent)
Leo Moore (Unity/Labor Right), President of the History Society, Students’ Representative Council (SRC) Social Justice Officer
Cassidy Newman (NLS), Treasurer of the Sydney University Radio Group (SURG), SRC Intercampus Officer
Annika Wang (Independent), Sydney University Law Society (SULS) International Student Officer
Layla Wang (Independent), President of the Sydney Arts Students Society (SASS)
Archie Wolifson (Independent), Undergraduate Student Representative for the Business School
Noah Rancan (Liberal)
While in previous years, the USU Board elections have been a factional battleground, this year continues the trend away from factional contests for the Board in favour of independents running with a grand total of eight of the twelve candidates running as independents this year.
Of the factions running candidates, Penta is seeking to catapult one of their ranks onto Board following a successful SRC election. Unity will seek to maintain their representation on Board with Grace Porter (Unity) finishing her term after this election. National Labor Students (NLS) have thrown their hat into the ring in their effort to claw back representation on campus after an acrimonious split with NSW Labor Students, who currently hold the SRC Presidency. The Liberals are running Noah Rancan, who has declined every opportunity to speak to student media about his campaign.
This is not to say that all the Independents running are neutrals. No, not at all! Far from it, in fact. Each year, candidates vying for a spot on USU Board organise themselves into the left or right bloc. Four of the independents are aligned with the left bloc, with the names of their campaign managers giving away how they might lean factionally. The right bloc forms as a result of whoever is not dealt into the left bloc.
Participation in a bloc is a vehicle for preference deals and less so an indication of a particular ideology (though this is not to say ideological leanings make no bearing on which bloc candidates fall into).
The June meeting of the USU Board is the meeting where the Board, joined by the incoming directors, will vote on the composition of the new executive. Alliances made on the campaign trail, both Board hopefuls and existing Board members, play a crucial part in determining what the ticket that wins control over the executive looks like.
The left bloc members this year are Chowdhury, Liu, Moore, Newman, both Wangs, and Wolifson. Honi has yet to see how-to-votes for other candidates and cannot determine the composition of the right bloc.
Food & FoodHub
Unsurprisingly, in a cost-of-living crisis candidates this year are campaigning on cheaper food prices on campus. Cheaper and more diverse food is a common campaign promise year after year, but it remains to be seen whether the combined will of the elected board candidates can drive down prices or if they will let this promise lapse while they enjoy their $15 a day meal allowance.
Notably, this year four candidates proposed working with the University to create a canteen to serve cheap and affordable food akin to the campus canteen at the University of Melbourne that serves $5 meals.
Given the success of FoodHub, it’s also unsurprising that most candidates are campaigning on extending the operating hours and staffing of FoodHub. There is no doubt to the good intentions of the candidates in this regard, however Honi noticed that Mansour, Moore, Newman, and Wolifson made errors in identifying the operating hours and/or item limits at FoodHub.
Funding & Red Tape
Almost every candidate is also campaigning on increased support for clubs and societies (C&S), whether that be through increasing semesterly funding, relaxing criterion for discretionary grants, providing more non-financial support to clubs, and increasing staffing in the USU Student Experience department to better handle tickets submitted by clubs.
Candidates specifically deemed the administrative duties placed on C&S executives as “red tape”. Candidates identified pain points around pre-event registrations and approvals, handover and finance processes, the necessity of risk assessment forms (RAFs), and the slow response times to emails.
When pressed on these matters and how they would seek to ‘cut’ this “red tape”, candidates spoke mostly about “streamlining” and a “communication of expectations”. Moore and Newman indicated that they would seek to increase the staffing of the USU Clubs Office to speed up the processing of inquiries, tickets, and approvals.
Student Safety
Candidates also proposed a suite of policies aimed at improving student safety and ending sexual violence on campus. In 2024, the Red Zone Report was torn up at the SRC RepsElect meeting. Shortly before this incident, 27 residents at St Paul’s College were suspended or expelled for hazing.
Candidates have proposed mandating that C&S executives undergo in-person consent training to be equipped to deal with incidences of sexual violence, requiring sober welfare officers to be present at high risk events, and improve disclosure and reporting systems.
It is vital that elected Board members have a vision and strategy for ensuring that the USU is able to partake in efforts ending violence and fighting for a world without victim-survivors.
Incorporation
All candidates Honi interviewed, bar Mansour (because in his words, he “[hasn’t] really had much time to look into it”), were in favour of USU incorporation. Despite this, most candidates stressed that there was a lack of consultation in the incorporation process. Successful candidates will play a key role in influencing the future of the USU in its transitionary phase. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to deliver the consultation with the wider membership they critiqued the lack of.
The Dreaded Quiz
Honi sought to revamp the quiz this year, moving from a system of pure rote recall of facts, figures, and names to one that would reward general knowledge of a topic even if they could not accurately recall exact figures. This was not to say that there were no questions that asked candidates to state a name or number. After all, we had limited time to assess each candidate’s knowledge.
We were, in fact, charmed when candidates were able to tell us about the goat-related Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 or name the NSW Minister for Tertiary Education, Steve Whan.
The intention of the redesigned quiz was to gauge the candidate’s overall understanding of a topic across 15 topics split into five rough themes. Candidates were encouraged to volunteer information if they could and were prompted when quizzed on each topic. Candidates did not necessarily have to answer every prompt. Specificity and detail in answers were rewarded.
Despite expanding the operations of FoodHub being a campaign promise that appeared in almost every candidate’s policies, only Chowdhury, Liu, and both Annika and Layla Wang, were able to fully identify the operating hours, days of operation, location, and item limits of FoodHub. The remaining candidates misidentified either the hours and days of operation and the item limit per visit.
Perhaps, not every candidate requires the services of FoodHub, but Honi finds it puzzling that for candidates who wish to specifically extend FoodHub’s operating hours, they would not be able to identify what the current hours are.
Where most candidates could identify the amount in Student Services and Amenities Fees (SSAF) the USU was allocated in 2025 and the relative amounts other student organisations received, most candidates could not articulate the process by which it is allocated and who has the final say over the allocation beyond a technically correct but vague answer of “the university decides”. Only three candidates identified the distinction between base and constestable funding.
What Honi found shocking was the inability of many of the candidates we quizzed to define casual employment. Only four of the nine candidates who took the quiz identified casual loading in lieu of paid leave. Most candidates spoke about reduced hours, a characteristic of part-time employment but not necessarily casual employment.
The USU employs over 300 casual employees in: F&B outlets like Fisher Coffee Cart, venues such as Courtyard, Manning, Hermann’s, the retail and graduations stores, HostCo catering, Verge Gallery, in Student Experience including the Student Activities Officers (SAOs) that are the first point of contact for club inquiries, just to name a few.
It would behoove the candidates that are elected, who will gain a say in decisions that may affect the futures of the said casual employees, to gain even a cursory understanding of industrial and work rights.
Vote!
We encourage you to read our profiles of the candidates (links to each profile at the top of this article) and for you to make an informed decision on who you would like to represent you on Board.
Voting opens at 9:00am Monday, 12th May and closes at 5:00pm Friday, 16th May. The results are announced shortly after voting closes.
If you or any of your loved ones have been affected by the issues mentioned in this article, please consider contacting the resources below:
NSW Sexual Violence Helpline – Provides 24/7 telephone and online crisis counselling for anyone in Australia who has experienced or is at risk of sexual assault, family or domestic violence and their non-offending supporters. The service also has a free telephone interpreting service available upon request.
Safer Communities Office – Specialist staff experienced in providing an immediate response to people that have experienced sexual misconduct, domestic/family violence, bullying/harassment and issues relating to modern slavery.
Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Service – Provides legal advice and sort for a range of issues, including domestic, sexual, and family violence, to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander women, children and youth.
1800RESPECT – A service available 24/7 with counsellors that supports everyone impacted by domestic, family and sexual violence.
Lifeline – 24/7 suicide prevention crisis support hotline for anyone experiencing a personal or mental health crisis.
