USU Soapbox Recap 2023

Clubs, commanders, and killer robots

The Soapbox began with opening statements from the Board hopefuls. With a mere two minutes speaking time, candidates spoke broadly about their campaigns and principles. Most candidates spoke to the importance of clubs and societies (C&S) and outlined their key policies.

The age-old debate of whether the USU should engage in activism flared up once again, with Grace Porter (Unity — Labor Right), Sargun Saluja (National Labor Students — Labor Left), Grace Wallman (Switchroots) and Victor Zhang (Engineers) speaking strongly in favour of it. Cost of living, accessibility, and divestment from fossil fuels were cited by most candidates as issues that an activist union should tackle. It should be noted that (after a lengthy process and delay) the USU will fully divest from fossil fuels on June 30.

Porter spoke to the need of the USU to act as an “active countercourse against the insidious culture of sexual violence on campus,” through her policies which include implementing a standardised reporting system for SASH incidents at C&S events.

Victor Zhang used his opening remarks to argue that “the USU should do both activism and service provision,” adding

“what does it say when one of the three student organisations on campus doesn’t fight and advocate for the needs of students?”

Zhang said that the USU ought to take a stand against rising militarism on campus due to the University’s ties to arms manufacturers such as Thales (joking that the USU could “invest in killer robots”). Conversely, joke candidate Ben Moore said that he’d install himself as Supreme Military Commander of the USU.

Accessibility

Increasing accessibility on campus was a plank that most candidates addressed and offered policy solutions to. Of these policies, a number focused on increasing disability accessibility on campus, specifically in relation to the University’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP), which is not registered on the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Grace Wallman (Switchroots) spoke to her experience as the inaugural Sydney University Law Society (SULS) Disability Officer, where she “experienced some of the most difficult sides of the USU,” and the need to foster higher disability inclusion and accessibility in C&S through the creation of Disabilities Officer roles and the prioritisation of a USU DIAP.

Julia Lim has an extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the USU, having worked as a Student Activities Officer for two years and as President of the Korean Law Students Society and Secretary of the Sydney University Law Society. Lim is running as an independent candidate, appearing to be backed by numerous SULS heavyweights, including current Board Director Naz Sharifi — for whom Lim campaigned last year.

Julia Lim (Independent) was asked by Honi to name two measurable outcomes she’d want for a USU DIAP, and why. She answered that it could be as simple as ensuring that “all students find [USU buildings and outlets] accessible” and tangible measures could include “having ear plugs and quiet spaces available.”

Saluja said she would support international student welfare through “maintaining and expanding FoodHub” and “paying USU volunteers”. Sabaat said the USU should “be more transparent and create a more diverse USU app,” citing his experience as a software engineering student.

Philips said that they would increase accessibility by “making the election process better”. When pressed on this, they said they would have the USU “draw more attention” toward elections and “what each candidate stands for”. The USU already manages a page that features candidates and their policies.

Colleges and conservatives

Bryson Constable (Liberal) was questioned on whether his self-described “bold” support of the colleges would act as a hindrance to student safety at the Colleges, and why survivors of SASH at colleges should trust him to take their stories seriously. Constable rejected the on campus; however, as with her close competitor in the Honi quiz, Grace Wallman, it is unclear whether a position on Board can actually achieve these progressive changes. claim and reiterated his support for the colleges, stating that they are treated as a “big boogeyman” compared to C&S.

Constable was also pressed as to whether he would take the role of Board Director seriously, given the disruptive behaviour of the Liberals at SRC council meetings. He said that he and the Liberals had “raised motions that are serious,” and “relate to issues students on campus are facing”. Some of these “serious” motions include calling for the SRC to support the abolition of the minimum wage and endorse Ron DeSantis for President.

The “Bens” were questioned by Honi on their conservative ties. Due to his frequent references to Constable’s campaign, Ben Moore was asked whether he was a Liberal in disguise. He rejected the claims, but when asked why he was “so obsessed” with Constable, he sheepishly remarked that the two were “lovers”. Ben Hines was asked what values he would bring to Board (specifically in relation to its corporate ties), given the perception that he is a Libdependent. For clarification, he is a former member of the Liberal Party and has previously served as Vice President of the Liberal Club. Hines said that he “disagree[d] with the premise of the question” and didn’t specify which values he would bring, except that he’s now “progressive”.

80%

Slogan: Join Julia

Colour: Purple

Faction: Independent

Favourite USU Outlet: Courtyard

Slogan: It’s a Sargun

Slay

Colour: Hot Pink

Faction: NLS

Favourite USU Outlet:

Courtyard

22%

Sargun Saluja, a first year Science/Law international student and member of NLS (National Labor Students), is running for USU Board. Saluja is the first NLS candidate for Board since Ruby Lotz in 2020, and represents a progressive campaign aimed at “amplifying the voices of [marginalised] communities.”

Saluja’s policies are broadly organised around welfare for international students, ethical service provision, and environmental protection. As a first year, Saluja pledges to advocate for these policies from a perspective that foregrounds “youth affairs”, arguing that this sets her apart from older students on Board that may not relate to those arriving at USyd.

In terms of Saluja’s policies for international students, she admirably wants to reduce the “culture shock” and “isolation” faced by students arriving in Sydney. She spoke to Honi about the “gap” that the pandemic opened between domestic and international

Lim is promising a “more diverse and inclusive USU” through measures such as cultural competency training, offering resources in different languages and improving allergen management. Programs such as increasing training modules are well-trodden ground for Board hopefuls, but their efficacy isn’t concretely proven. Lim also seeks to improve support for revues, autonomous spaces, Foodhub, cultural accessibility for international students, disability justice, and safer spaces that end sexual assault and harrassment students, and how proper integration is necessary. To achieve this, Saluja suggested creating “mentoring workshops” hosted by older international students for younger international students. She also spoke to improving employment services for international students, though when asked practically about how she would achieve this — given that the SRC already has this service in place — she could only vaguely suggest a push for “awareness” and “collaboration” with the SRC.

In her policy document, she stresses Foodhub’s essential role in supporting the cost of living crisis facing students. Saluja said that she would like to expand Foodhub for “low SES students” and “international students, even though Foodhub precisely exists for these student demographics: she also wants to increase awareness surrounding Foodhub, stock Foodhub with fresh produce from a new “community garden” on top of Wentworth, allow for more “flexible timing” for Foodhub volunteers, and for the USU to pay these students.

In her quiz, Saluja scored 22%. She demonstrated a worrying lack of institutional knowledge: she was unable

When pressed about the capacity of the USU to openly take political stances, particularly in regards to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, she said “the USU doesn’t have to hesitate, it doesn’t have to fence-sit in a sense. I think a view can be given, but students can also be informed and encouraged to further explore the issue for themselves”.

When asked about transparency on the USU Board, Lim said that “with my experience as SULS Secretary, I now have an understanding that ideally things should be left for members of the public to view so that the organisation can be held accountable… I do understand from what I’ve seen that there are cases where you have confidential or sensitive information where going in camera is a necessity.” to name any executive member of the USU Board bar its President, Cole Scott-Curwood, whose faction and last name she did not know; further, she was unaware of the USU’s financial situation, society publications, or revues. Her higher education knowledge was insufficient: though able to explain the “40:40:20” model of teaching, Saluja could not identify the University’s Provost, Australia’s state and federal Education Ministers, or the National Union of Students (NUS) and its President — despite the fact that Bailey Riley is a member of her own faction. When Honi asked her to account for this, she said that she has “met Bailey Riley personally” and just forgot her name. Saluja appears to also be at odds with NLS’ historical practice of members binding with their caucus’ vote: she said that NLS would not bind her decisions on board, and that she “has [her] own perspective and would value it more.”

That being said, Saluja was forthright and well-meaning with Honi, her policies are fundamentally progressive, and she displays a clear desire to improve welfare on campus, particularly for international students. It is up to voters to decide whether

With the secondhighest quiz score, Lim boasts an intricate understanding of the USU, however she faltered in areas such the NTEU’s demands for Indigenous employment and the current NUS President. In her interview, she noted that “the USU is distinct from the SRC”, however also explained the organisation’s history of lobbying in cases such as the Ramsay Centre partnership.

Overall, Lim is a strong candidate with deep institutional experience, however her progressive policy might echo those of past Board Members who have been unable to effect the changes they promised. Despite this, she does see a capacity for the USU to speak out in favour of student welfare, particularly on issues such as the Voice to Parliament. It’s up to students whether they want to “join” Julia, and elect her to Board.

Saluja’s activist platform outweighs her lack of institutional knowledge, and merits a place on Board.