SRC Elections 2005 (2 Viewers)

[Adam]

Anyway, I am sick of seeing so much crap on our grounds. I am sick of seeing posters everywhere (especially of Nick Wood), and I am sick of having pamphlets shoved in my face. I am not voting!!!!

Quoted for truth.

 

[pigs_can_fly]

I quite like Go!!! personally.

Good policies. Left wing but not too ideologically motivated.

They seem pretty well connected too - pretty much every other party says to vote Go!!! #2 for SRC&NUS. I wonder how they managed to do it.

yes too rite
everyone should think like gerhard

 

[picon]

There was a mixed reception for Keep Left in Wallace at 11am. The guy with the long hair went off on a rant against Howard, prompting a girl to yell out 'Shut up/Sit down you communist!", but there was a decent amount of applause for them when KL finished.

 

[withoutaface]

I love the Stop VSU ticket. "Let's have an SRC that exists only to ensure its own continued existence LOL!"

 

[Plebeian]

I fail to see how the Liberals (ie. Choice) can justify this assumption they make that they have some divine right to define what is the will of the majority. When you say that the SRC wastes all of its money on campaigns that average students don't believe in, Justin, you are wrong. As I have posted before, non-student-related campaigns cost hardly anything, because the SRC doesn't engage in them to any significant extent. Tom might rant about funding bus trips to Baxter, but this is simply not true, because only a handful of students went, and they paid out of their own pocket anyway. And no matter what you might say, the vast majority of students who have taken a side in the VSU debate are clearly in favour of USU.

I hope people can see through the euphemistic language of "making the SRC more accessible to mainstream students" to the plain fact that the Liberals are simply planning to slash services that they are ideologically opposed to.

 

[Phanatical]

As opposed to forcing students to fund programs that they are opposed to?

 

[gerhard]

are you arguing for vsu quah?

i think techie i saying
1. hardly any funding is going to these programs
2. how can the libs assume the majority is against these policies when the same groups get voted in year after year.

 

[Phanatical]

I'm not arguing anything. My position on this issue is well known. What I'd like to see is YOUR positions on this issue, and how you justify them. Any good candidate would be able to play devil's advocate with their policies.

 

[withoutaface]

I fail to see how the Liberals (ie. Choice) can justify this assumption they make that they have some divine right to define what is the will of the majority. When you say that the SRC wastes all of its money on campaigns that average students don't believe in, Justin, you are wrong. As I have posted before, non-student-related campaigns cost hardly anything, because the SRC doesn't engage in them to any significant extent. Tom might rant about funding bus trips to Baxter, but this is simply not true, because only a handful of students went, and they paid out of their own pocket anyway. And no matter what you might say, the vast majority of students who have taken a side in the VSU debate are clearly in favour of USU.

I hope people can see through the euphemistic language of "making the SRC more accessible to mainstream students" to the plain fact that the Liberals are simply planning to slash services that they are ideologically opposed to.

The budget you posted is full of crap. The most recent protest alone cost the SRC $100 000. Now use your head, and figure out that this one, of about five protests, cost every student ~$2.50. This means that overall protests cost each student $12.50+, six times the amount quoted in that budget.

The services that the Liberals are ideologically opposed to use the money of the many to deliver minimal benefit to the few (if, for example, the Queer Collective were an effective department it would focus less on Queer Space and more upon lowering homophobia in the general community), and if they continue to be funded the SRC, and what little of its services are actually useful, will choke next year from a lack of students willing to pay $66 for bugger all benefit.

The Baxter bus trips were partially paid out of student's own pockets, but were also subsidised.

And perhaps if the students were presented with a more balanced viewpoint instead of a campaign of gross exaggerations on VSU we would find a lot more students supporting it.

NOLS is just as ideologically motivated as the SULC, so please stop trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[Phanatical]

I'd be interested to see some documentation showing exactly how much it cost the SRC.

 

[Plebeian]

I would be equally interested to see where this figure of $100,000 for the protest came from. The Union spends a lot more, because it has a lot more revenue than the SRC. But unless those balloons cost $200 a pop (excuse the pun), I don't see how the SRC could have spent $100,000 on a protest. Photocopying is not that expensive. My source was an official document tendered by the SRC; I'm not willing to just dismiss it as false because you say so.

In any case, VSU is not an issue where the SRC is delivering "minimal benefit to the few". Clearly the current NOLS-composed executive has always believed that students oppose VSU, because they have been calling for an on-campus referendum since day one, and one is set to be included with the ballot paper. To me, that doesn't sound like some crazed group of students bent on subverting the rest of the university to their will.

I think my biggest problem with your argument is that you consistently misrepresent the amount of money that is spent on things that not many students use. Whether or not you regard support for queer students as essential, how much money do you think is actually spent on it? The expensive things are welfare and legal services, which are accessible to all students when they need them. Cutting these is not going to lift the SRC into some sort of financial utopia, it will bring minimal benefit at a great cost to those people who previously used them. Not every service can be thought of solely in terms of its usefulness to the mainstream.

Consider that engineering students make up about 4% of the undergraduate population. Closing our Access Lab, and our Cafe, would have almost no impact on the mainstream population; it would even save them money, especially the Access Lab. But you can imagine the uproar that would result if anyone were to suggest such a thing. Economic rationalism can not be used as an excuse to destroy the representation and support services that are the very things the SRC embodies.

 

[withoutaface]

I would be equally interested to see where this figure of $100,000 for the protest came from. The Union spends a lot more, because it has a lot more revenue than the SRC. But unless those balloons cost $200 a pop (excuse the pun), I don't see how the SRC could have spent $100,000 on a protest. Photocopying is not that expensive. My source was an official document tendered by the SRC; I'm not willing to just dismiss it as false because you say so.

In any case, VSU is not an issue where the SRC is delivering "minimal benefit to the few". Clearly the current NOLS-composed executive has always believed that students oppose VSU, because they have been calling for an on-campus referendum since day one, and one is set to be included with the ballot paper. To me, that doesn't sound like some crazed group of students bent on subverting the rest of the university to their will.

I think my biggest problem with your argument is that you consistently misrepresent the amount of money that is spent on things that not many students use. Whether or not you regard support for queer students as essential, how much money do you think is actually spent on it? The expensive things are welfare and legal services, which are accessible to all students when they need them. Cutting these is not going to lift the SRC into some sort of financial utopia, it will bring minimal benefit at a great cost to those people who previously used them. Not every service can be thought of solely in terms of its usefulness to the mainstream.

Consider that engineering students make up about 4% of the undergraduate population. Closing our Access Lab, and our Cafe, would have almost no impact on the mainstream population; it would even save them money, especially the Access Lab. But you can imagine the uproar that would result if anyone were to suggest such a thing. Economic rationalism can not be used as an excuse to destroy the representation and support services that are the very things the SRC embodies.

I'll see if I can get some more solid evidence on the cost of the rally, but given the sensitivity of the information and the position of the source it's unlikely to happen.

Where do you get 4% from? I was under the impression that the engineering faculty is nearer to 7.5% (with somewhere around 3000 students, though correct me if I'm wrong), and given the amount of time spent at university compared to other faculties, as well as the fact that their fees are in the highest HECS band, and relative isolation of the faculty an access lab is warranted, though the size of it is imo too large.

I would never seek to have welfare and legal services removed, because as you have said these are accessible to anyone who needs them.

The referendum issue has been discussed many times in the past, and my point is that its result will be about as surprising as Vladamir Putin winning the last Russian election.

 

[Plebeian]

To get 4%, I divided the amount of Engineering undergraduate students listed in the 2005 "Studying at Sydney Uni" handbook (1950) by the total amount of students (45,966) listed here. This excludes postgrad students, but I couldn't see there being 1,500 postgrads. Also, engineering is not in the highest HECS band - that is law, medicine, dentistry and vet science. Check here . In any case, my point is not that Engineering doesn't deserve an Access Lab, because it clearly does. The idea I am trying to communicate is that services may be justified, because they are essential to a particular group, even though they are not of benefit to the mainstream population.

 

[withoutaface]

To get 4%, I divided the amount of Engineering undergraduate students listed in the 2005 "Studying at Sydney Uni" handbook (1950) by the total amount of students (45,966) listed here. This excludes postgrad students, but I couldn't see there being 1,500 postgrads. Also, engineering is not in the highest HECS band - that is law, medicine, dentistry and vet science. Check here . In any case, my point is not that Engineering doesn't deserve an Access Lab, because it clearly does. The idea I am trying to communicate is that services may be justified, because they are essential to a particular group, even though they are not of benefit to the mainstream population.

I concede that there are certain cases where this need is justified, and I would support a Queer Collective which spent its time on more worthwhile causes such as awareness campaigns etc, but I cannot see the value of a band aid solution such as the Queer Space, which as far as I can see encourages further polarisation of groups.

 

[myg0t]

I fail to see how the Liberals (ie. Choice) can justify this assumption they make that they have some divine right to define what is the will of the majority. When you say that the SRC wastes all of its money on campaigns that average students don't believe in, Justin, you are wrong. As I have posted before, non-student-related campaigns cost hardly anything, because the SRC doesn't engage in them to any significant extent. Tom might rant about funding bus trips to Baxter, but this is simply not true, because only a handful of students went, and they paid out of their own pocket anyway. And no matter what you might say, the vast majority of students who have taken a side in the VSU debate are clearly in favour of USU.

I hope people can see through the euphemistic language of "making the SRC more accessible to mainstream students" to the plain fact that the Liberals are simply planning to slash services that they are ideologically opposed to.

Techie, your post is somewhat credible however there are a few flaws I'd like to point out.

A friend of mine is on the SRC at present. Here are a few of the *cough* corrupt events I have heard occur, all funded by the SRC of course:

1. Free cab rides home for all members after every meeting. Yes thats right, doesn't matter if you live in Balmain or Byron Bay...the SRC has got you covered.

2. There is a meeting being held in Darwin sometime this year (not sure of exact date) to hear some speaker about something. SRC members want to go? Sure, why not use the money available..flights, accomodation and all.

Money out of their own pockets, yeah maybe for the packet of chewy and a paper whilst they wait for their flight.



And on the note of VSU, believe me there are plenty of people who believe in it. But why the f!ck would someone protest against something that they like? You are under a false belief that because a few thousand people turned up to a rally which was drummed up for a fortnight and sweetened by a 'free' bbq (yet again, student funds..quite ironic) that the whole uni is in favour of the USU. The only people that really don't want VSU to come in are the 20 odd that got arrested, and to them i say suck shit.

 

[Phanatical]

If the causes that the SRC supported were supported by the majority of students, then there would be no reason to stop the work that they are doing. But when not even a majority of gay students on campus support the Queer collective, or a majority of women support the Women's collective, it's a significant statement that illustrates the point that something is wrong.

When I have gay students on both my own, and the main campus telling me that they find the Queer collective insulting, and when there are people even on the Education Action Group who find the idea of a Women's collective without a Men's collective incredibly hypocritical, SOMETHING has to be done about the spending priorities of the SRC.

This is a post on the Education Action Group, dating back to 2004 but still relevant today:

Dear All,
I've never really read all these emails, I don't even know how I got on this list. But I do feel that I have to stick my two cents in this debate (even though I missed the first email from Andrew that seemed to spark this exchange off).

Firstly, I (guardedly) agree with Andrew in that feminism and affirmitive action has gone too far. In some areas. In principle, I have a problem with affirmative action. I feel that it actually fosters a condescending attitude towards whatever groups its aimed at helping. I know that personally, I want to know that I got my job because I was the most worthy candidate, not because I had to make up a percentage. I'm not even going to touch on the issue of abortion, I think that its an issue where every individual needs to make up there own mind (but should refrain from inflicting their opinion on others).

Lastly, the issue of student representaion. I am going to stick my head out here. I attended few student rallies last year,only the ones that impacted on me, or dealt with issues I felt very strongly about. However, this does not mean that I didn't see substanital numbers of rallies. What struck me most about the unattended rallys was that the student speakers also yelled, as if they were addressing a crowd of many enthusiastic thousands, as opposed to the reality of an audience that numbered in the (few) dozens. It struck me that these people were acting out a stereotype of the politically minded uni student, particuarly those of the 60-70's. It undermined the respect I felt for the stundent representative bodies involved in such rallies, that they
were playing out a role, as opposed to being there as representatives and spokespeople for their audience. Perhaps had there been fewer rallies, with a greater input of energies, Sydney Uni would have seen more scenes of student protest reminicent of the glorious days of yore. Protest meetings and frothing student diatribes seem just a little everyday on main campus to warrant my attendence.

But I want to make it clear these are just the personal opinions of one fairly unpolitical student.

Just to add a more specific example to too much affirmative action. Sydney Uni's main campus has a women's room, which I adore. It's comfy, cosy, there's tea and coffee, a computer, and always interesting discussion groups. To my knowledge (and I would love to stand corrected on this) there is no men's room. I don't retreat to the women's room to escape from the brutality of men, I go there when I feel the need to be secure and away from everyone. Now, I'm fairly certain that it's not only me, or women in general who have a touch of agoraphobia or paranoia, and men could use a space of their own. But they don't have one.

Positive discrimination at work, which lessens my happiness in utilizing the women's room. To have a space for women and not men smacks of elitism.

 

[Plebeian]

myg0t:
People do not only turn up to rallies when there are free BBQs. There have been at least four rallies which a few thousand people have turned up to, and two at most have had any food provided. 20 or so people did not get arrested, and your claim that only 20 people support USU is patently false. Until you can provide evidence that the 'silent majority' actually supports VSU, rather than not caring one way or the other, we will have to go on demonstrated support for one side or the other, which stands at USU: thousands vs. VSU: twenty members of the Liberal Club.

Phanatical:
The "affirmative action is condescending" argument has been trawled over many times before, and the fact is that the student body seems to have pretty much rejected it. The fact that affirmative action was passed for Union Board, led by a push from women, indicates that they recognise the assistance it can provide. That some unnamed people have talked to you and said they don't like it is not a convincing argument against the policy. For every person you can name that is against affirmative action, I can name at least two who are for it. I could also honestly tell you that I have never known a female who was against affirmative action. But arguing by hypothetical examples without real statistical treatment of the whole university population is not going to get us anywhere.

From having spoken to the Women's Officer of the SRC, one part of the rationale behind the Women's Room in the SRC is that female activists often felt pressured into giving up computers in the main activists room when a man requested them. Having a couple of computers across the hallway solves this problem. The SRC Women's Room is fairly Spartan, so I suspect the one referred to in that email is the one in Manning run by the Union, which is a different matter.

It still seems to me like Choice and Resolve are telling students that they are unhappy with the job the current SRC is doing, rather than responding to any real groundswell of opposition to their policies.

 

[stazi]

myg0t:
People do not only turn up to rallies when there are free BBQs. There have been at least four rallies which a few thousand people have turned up to, and two at most have had any food provided. 20 or so people did not get arrested, and your claim that only 20 people support USU is patently false. Until you can provide evidence that the 'silent majority' actually supports VSU, rather than not caring one way or the other, we will have to go on demonstrated support for one side or the other, which stands at USU: thousands vs. VSU: twenty members of the Liberal Club.

Phanatical:
The "affirmative action is condescending" argument has been trawled over many times before, and the fact is that the student body seems to have pretty much rejected it. The fact that affirmative action was passed for Union Board, led by a push from women, indicates that they recognise the assistance it can provide. That some unnamed people have talked to you and said they don't like it is not a convincing argument against the policy. For every person you can name that is against affirmative action, I can name at least two who are for it. I could also honestly tell you that I have never known a female who was against affirmative action. But arguing by hypothetical examples without real statistical treatment of the whole university population is not going to get us anywhere.

From having spoken to the Women's Officer of the SRC, one part of the rationale behind the Women's Room in the SRC is that female activists often felt pressured into giving up computers in the main activists room when a man requested them. Having a couple of computers across the hallway solves this problem. The SRC Women's Room is fairly Spartan, so I suspect the one referred to in that email is the one in Manning run by the Union, which is a different matter.

It still seems to me like Choice and Resolve are telling students that they are unhappy with the job the current SRC is doing, rather than responding to any real groundswell of opposition to their policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Today there was a rally without a free BBQ. About 50-70 people turned up. Plus one crazy homeless guy. There were about 30 security guards which apparently were paid for by the union/src.

 

[Plebeian]

If Tom Watson was pres this year, you wouldn't know what VSU was

VSU was discussed on the front page of both right and left-leaning newspapers for several days, as well as being an ongoing topic of discussion within papers. I think somehow, we might have noticed it .

There was a rally without a free BBQ today, and 50-70 people turned up

Attendance at rallies is related to the amount of building they have (not in terms of food, in terms of making people aware of them), and the level of coverage of VSU in society at the time. VSU has been relegated on the parliamentary agenda right now, and this rally received minimal building as most anti-VSU activists are engaged with the SRC elections. I'm not surprised the turnout was low, but to attribute it to a lack of free food is false considering that previous rallies without food have still attracted thousands of participants.

 

[myg0t]

myg0t:
People do not only turn up to rallies when there are free BBQs. There have been at least four rallies which a few thousand people have turned up to, and two at most have had any food provided. 20 or so people did not get arrested, and your claim that only 20 people support USU is patently false. Until you can provide evidence that the 'silent majority' actually supports VSU, rather than not caring one way or the other, we will have to go on demonstrated support for one side or the other, which stands at USU: thousands vs. VSU: twenty members of the Liberal Club.

.

If Tom Watson was pres this year, you wouldn't even know what VSU was!