On 20 August, ANUSA released the findings of an independent review into its governance undertaken by consultancy firm NFP Success. The review was commissioned in the aftermath of the 2023 dissolution of PARSA and ANUSA’s expansion of responsibilities to cover postgraduate students.

While it was initially planned to assess the absorption of postgraduate students into ANUSA, the review covers a wide range of issues including the association’s balance between politics and service delivery, student engagement with the association’s leadership, and the allocation of responsibility for the association’s decisions, much of which is irrelevant to postgraduate students.

A total of 30 students participated in the review, with 20 being student representatives and the rest being students from the broader community. University stakeholders in the review included the Senior Adviser, Student Experience, Interim Director Student Experience, Manager, Corporate Governance and Policy, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Grady Venville.

Tension between services and activism

One key source of tension within ANUSA over the years has been striking a balance between service delivery to students and activism on political issues.

The review found that, while students “universally” support ANUSA’s student services, many find the political activism that ANUSA engages with “alienating”. In particular, students found SRC meetings “scary”, “hostile” and “a distraction”.

These views have led to ANUSA developing a “reputation [of] primarily serving an activist political fringe”, reducing the effectiveness of its service delivery programs, the reviewer said.

The last ANUSA election had a turnout of only about 7 percent of eligible voters, with an even lower turnout for postgraduate students.

The review warned that low turnout and engagement “perpetuates a cycle of apathy”.

The review recommends that ANUSA should improve its communication with ANU students, namely, “Develop a communication strategy that reassures the wider student community about the impartiality and inclusivity of ANUSA’s services.”

To curb the criticism towards ANUSA meetings, the review recommends that ANUSA ”Expand Section 1.4 of the ANUSA Standing Orders (Conduct at Meetings) to include behavioural rules that ensure all voices are heard, maintain respectful and constructive discussions, prohibit interruptions, bullying and personal attacks, and outline clear consequences for disruptive behaviour.”

Currently, Section 1.4 of the Constitution requires the chair to explain the conduct required by members at meetings, with no stipulation what the required conducts are.

College Reps to be shut out from“too large” SRC

The review recommended reducing the size of the Students’ Representative Council from its current sixty members, which is “too large to effectively govern”, to a more manageable thirty-two.

There are currently four college representatives per academic college. These positions would be reduced in number and their role will focus entirely on the Education Council (EDC), chaired by the Education Officer.

At the 2023 ANUSA election, many roles in the SRC went unfilled due to a lack of nominations. Most of these vacancies were postgraduate college representatives. If ANUSA is unable to increase post-graduate representation on the SRC, it risks losing Student Services and Amenities Funding (SSAF) from the ANU.

The review pointed out that many college representatives and people interested in running for the role are often  uninterested in the political issues.

ANUSA’s “ambiguous” leadership to be clarified

The review also identified an issue of role ambiguity surrounding ANUSA’s current leadership structure. Whilst the SRC is named the “committee of management” within the ANUSA Constitution, the Executive holds “actual managerial authority”, both “individually and collectively”. The review finds this problematic for the potential of confusion and ambiguity when interpreting the Constitution, and at worst “introduce[s] legal risk”.

To mitigate this, the review suggests the ANUSA executive should be designated, “the primary governing body of ANUSA with legal responsibility for key decisions, fiduciary duties, and overall governance.​​” While the SRC will retain all of its policy-making power, it remains to be seen how the powers of the executive will change under this recommendation.

The review further raised concerns about the roles of other ANUSA positions, such as the overlapping duties of Welfare and Education Officers who “frequently engage in similar activities”. There was particular focus during the review on recent pro-Palestine campaigning, which some students found detracted from core education advocacy and student welfare issues. The review suggested a clearer delineation between these roles using “clear position descriptions” to ensure accountability of student representatives.

However, the review does not detail how these positions will be differentiated.

The Parents and Carers officer, a role transferred from PARSA to ANUSA subsequent to the former’s defunding, was flagged as an “anomaly” within ANUSA’s current leadership structure. Currently, the officer reports to the President, however is not part of the Executive nor a department. Recommendations suggested that this role should be shared across several students in a part-time capacity, report to the Executive, and provide administrative assistance as well as professional development. The review further proposed the role should be compensated with a stipend.

The review also found that general representative roles were perceived as having the lowest status and lacking accountability measures. This was despite student interviewees maintaining the importance of this position in providing “diverse representation and fostering future leadership. It was suggested this role should be offered a small honorarium and target training.

Enviro to go in department reforms

The reviewer recommended that ANUSA’s autonomous departments should no longer be required to have their own constitutions and should instead be governed according to “department charters”.

This includes the Womens’, Disabilities, Queer*, Bla(c)k, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC), and Indigenous Departments, and the Environment Collective.

The reviewer recommended the removal of the ANU Environment Collective from the constitution as an autonomous department.

This would “reinforce that the purpose of autonomous departments is to represent and advocate for historically marginalised student groups”. The purpose of the Environment Collective, by contrast, is to “engage in environmental activism” and “promote environmental sustainability” without representing any particular group of students.

The department, currently led by Environment Officer Wren Somerville, was questioned by the SRC back in March as to their use of their budget, which is drawn from ANUSA’s SSAF. In their 2024 budget, the department earmarked about $7,500, or about 75 percent of their budget, for “conference and travel grants” and only about 10% (or $1,000) of their budget for “campaign expenses”.

In 2023, organised by then Environment Officer Rex Michelson, $6,000 in travel grants were allocated to fund travel to conferences organised by political factions, including Socialist Alternative (SAlt) and Solidarity.

The other departments do not commit a similar proportion of their budgets to travel grants.

However, by abolishing Department constitutions, the review risks undermining the independence and autonomy of these Departments. Under the new model, Departments would be bound by the ANUSA constitution, and not one stipulated by its own collective.

The review also suggests Department Officers should report twice, once to the SRC and again to the ANUSA executive.

Postgraduate engagement reviewed

The review highlighted an overall disconnect amongst postgraduate students who view ANUSA as predominantly targeted towards undergraduate interests and activities.

The review noted, “Many postgraduate students reported a widely held perception that ANUSA is only interested in engaging with politically active students, which creates a barrier to their engagement.”

This sense of alienation is exacerbated as postgraduate students tend to focus more on study and professional development as opposed to matters of student politics. To maintain relevancy and to better represent the entirety of the student body, the review suggested that ANUSA more specifically target these postgraduate interests.

Whilst ANUSA has made efforts to reach out to more postgraduate students through newer initiatives, events and newsletters, the review suggested ANUSA consider more targeted communication strategies to better “convey [these] benefits and services ANUSA offers to postgraduates.”

What’s to come? 

In the upcoming ANUSA Ordinary General Meeting, the recommendations of the review will be proposed, with all ANU students having the opportunity to participate and vote on the recommendations. If the recommendations successfully pass in the meeting, it will be implemented into the constitution.

In the weeks preceding the publication of the review, ANUSA has hosted Governance Review working groups, with the ANU Enviro Collective launching a petition to reject the review. The petition currently has over 200 signatures.

*Editors Note 15/9: An earlier version of this article implied Wren Somerville was involved with the 2023 Environment Collective budget, as opposed to Rex Michelson. The article has since been amended to correct this. We apologise for this error and any implication of financial mismanagement that resulted.