A motion to support a restructuring of the Environment Collective (EC) was passed on Tuesday 18 February, during its first meeting of the year. Some attendees called the motion a ‘political encroachment’ onto the collective, with accusations of ‘stacking of the votes’.

The motion, which was moved mid-meeting, came as a surprise to many, as the average attendance of these meetings in 2024 was 9 people. Woroni understands there were around 60 people in attendance at Tuesday’s meeting.

Motion 5 states that the EC supports the collective becoming a committee, and other constitutional changes which remain unclear. The motion was moved by ANUSA President Will Burfoot, and seconded by Welfare Officer Kiera Rosenberg. In the discussion surrounding the motion, Burfoot referenced ANUSA receiving complaints about how the EC has historically used its funding. There was a brief debate over the motion until a procedural was successfully passed by Rosenberg to move straight to a vote. 

The motion passed with 32 votes for and 27 votes against. 

Significant questions were asked about the practical impact of the motion, which may seem to merely involve a name change from collective to committee. 

The Environment Collective is currently one of ANUSA’s seven departments, established in the Union’s constitution with an elected Officer. The changes to come from its move to a ‘committee’ remain unclear, even to those in the meeting who proposed the motion, as there was general confusion over what and when these changes would commence. 

Burfoot, in a statement to Woroni, confirmed these changes would involve significant structural and funding changes for the EC going forward, to be put forward at the next ANUSA Ordinary General Meeting (OGM).

As the EC is enacted through the ANUSA constitution, these changes will also require constitutional amendments. A 75 per cent supermajority vote of support at the next OGM will be necessary for proposed changes to pass, which will then need to be ratified by the ANU Council.

The motion follows last year’s ANUSA governance review that suggested sweeping changes to the union despite finding it “effective”. Some have argued that the review is not truly representative of the ANU student body, as only 30 students were interviewed. 

A recommendation for the EC to change its governance structure was challenged by the collective, with the 2024 Environment Officer Wren Somerville calling it an attack on student democracy. A petition created by the EC last year gained 291 signatures to ‘Reject the ANUSA Governance Review’.

Responses to the Motion

Members of the EC have criticised ANUSA for a “lack of communication”, with concerns regarding the collective’s independence from the executive. There were also suggestions of a “political infiltration of the EC.” 

This is due to observations that many of the attendees were members of Young Labor, including members of the current ANUSA Executive. In speaking for the motion, an attendee called the EC a “useless collective”, while also admitting that this was the first EC meeting he had attended. 

The EC is the only ANUSA department not aimed at a specific autonomous group, meaning that all students are automatically collective members and are welcome at any meeting. The involvement of student political groups is therefore procedurally permissible. 

However, concerns were raised in the meeting regarding the ability of large groups of students to bring such significant motions without notice and without any prior involvement in the department.

Environment Officer Sarah Strange told Woroni that Tuesday night’s events displayed how “unserious and completely unfit to govern our student union” the incumbent executives are.

Strange continued, “They gatecrashed our first meeting of the year, where we had new students wanting to talk about environmental issues like Clean Up Australia Day and recycling bins, and instead derailed it with hours of political nonsense.”

The Environment Officer expressed that while she will abide by the motions passed, “…students will see right through their short-sighted plans to abolish the Environment Collective as ridiculous political point-scoring.”

ANUSA President, Will Burfoot, has maintained that the changes come as a result of complaints last year regarding potential ‘misuse of funds and maladministration’ of the EC. He said that “it is clear that the Environment Department has strayed from its core purposes and instead has been influenced by a small number of students who have driven down membership to a point where they alone can decide the actions and priorities of the Department.”

Burfoot also referenced an inquiry into the Collective conducted last year, following a funding freeze instituted by last year’s executive. He stated that the current freeze on EC spending has been extended following the receipt of a report from inquiry, to ensure “confidence that all constitutional, regulatory, and legislated SSAF requirements are being followed.” The report will be released to students next week.

The exact constitutional changes being proposed at the OGM, and thus what the EC will look like going forward, remain somewhat unknown.

Burfoot told Woroni, “Students want real genuine action on the environment and the climate crisis, they do not want a department which is focused on the Environment in name only and instead spends much of its time on political activism.”