We settled into Federation University’s lecture theatre for Day Two of the 2024 NUS National Conference, staring blankly at the Minecraft parkour gameplay on the projector screen. 

Day Two’s motions were from three chapters: First Nations, Education and Disabilities. 

In contrast to yesterday’s proceedings, the voting splits of Day Two seemed to be impacted by some absences in the Unity caucus, who appeared to have lost their majority for at least a portion of the day. This tenably allowed the more left-leaning factions to get some motions through which they might not have otherwise. 

First Nations

All factions agreed that Indigenous issues including housing insecurity, youth incarceration and racialised police violence were pressing and disproportionately affecting First Nations people, and hence worthy of NUS priority. Factional disagreements arose around questions of degree implied through the specific wording of each motion. 

          Land back

Motion 9.2, “Sovereignty Was Never Ceded – So Give Land Back”, created some controversy between the factions. Unity moved an amendment seeking to remove the action that would make it NUS policy to “demand that universities and governments return land to traditional owners.” 

The amendment passed with a Unity majority, and a Unity delegate speaking for the amended motion asked how one would give land like the “Sydney CBD” back without knocking it down, to booing from non-Unity audiences.

Speakers against the motion, from SAlt, decried the amended motion as “farcical, right wing” and took the opportunity to take a shot at the NLS for not mentioning the Australian Labor Party (ALP) as the “real oppressors of Indigenous people.” The amended motion passed anyway, on what was then an assumed Student Unity majority.

          Criminal responsibility and a “campus count”

The second controversy of this chapter surrounded the NUS policy concerning the age of criminal responsibility, the age at which a person can be convicted of a crime.

SAlt and NLS argued for 18, while Unity wanted to amend the motion to 16, and to omit the word “immediate” from the policy pledge: “The NUS condemns the incarceration of all children and calls for the immediate cessation of this practice.” 

Speakers for the motion from Unity emphasised their belief that at sixteen, one is old enough to understand the law.

A Unity member justified their position to Woroni by saying that setting criminal responsibility at 16 is in line with “scientific consensus” and follows other organisations like Amnesty International, which would enable the NUS to sign with these organisations when they demand change. A higher age of criminal responsibility, they say, would preclude them from doing so.

Alternatively, NLS argued that under -year-olds should not be impacted by laws they have no say through voting. 

Additionally, they pointed out that “crime” itself is a complex issue, with the majority of young people incarcerated in Australia being Indigenous, and impacted by varying sociocultural factors and used to “perpetuate systemic racism in Australia.”

After Deaglan Goodwin, a USyd SAlt delegate, called for a campus count – a (laborious) roll call vote where the doors are locked and each campus’ delegates are asked individually for their vote, it was determined that Unity did not, in fact, have the majority of delegates as had been assumed by both Unity and student media running the math. The amendment failed, and the NUS policy remained at 18. 

Unity now required the support of another faction to get their motions through, often NLS but also sometimes Forge, the faction that emerged from the Queensland NLS split that we reported on Tuesday.

          ALP

Much of the debate involved SAlt blaming the ALP for the continuous oppression and persecution of First Nations people in Australia, citing examples like the “reopening” of the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in the Northern Territory. (NB: It never actually closed in the first place). 

NLS willingly condemned the ALP for this, and argued that they don’t use the NUS to campaign for the party. Labor-affiliated factions, particularly Unity, stressed their view that the Liberal Party would be even worse in this regard.

SAlt, across all chapters but especially here, spent much time in debates asking NLS about their “two-pronged strategy” of activist campaigns and “change from within [the ALP]”. When NLS themselves were to respond, this was criticised by SAlt, who called  for an “oppositional strategy”. 

Education

          HECS reform or HECS rejection?

There was a general consensus across the floor that the university sector is in a dire state, with education policy being moved in general agreement that widespread action was needed to address current fee structures, education quality and administrative issues. Again, factions differed on what reforms were needed.

For instance, speaking on a motion to abolish HECS indexation (and further the claimed progress attained earlier this year), Student Unity celebrated the proposed policy as “a realistic commitment”, while Socialist Alternative continuously agitated against the “entire HECS framework”. The motion passed regardless. 

Unity maintained unwaveringly that “HECS is best!” (which they chanted in unison), claiming that free university shifts the burden of cost onto the working class and away from university graduates, who have a higher average future earning capacity. They claimed that HECS has given Australia “…the greatest level of accessibility of any university system in the world.” 

Regardless of Unity’s views, the floor passed motions advocating for free, publicly-funded university education across the board and for the abolition of the HECS-HELP scheme. 

Despite delegates in favour of free higher-ed being denigrated by Unity as “living in the year 5000”, supporters for the motions from both SAlt and NLS pointed out that free university had successful international precedent and was previously a “pillar of our society” which should become so again. 

One heckler from the SAlt-occupied side of the room was heard yelling in response to Unity, “Sorry, good things are possible!”

Students also voted to advocate for the abolition of the Coalition’s 2021 Job-Ready Graduates fee reforms. The reforms redistributed higher student contributions onto degrees not considered to be of national priority: mostly in the social sciences and humanities. Delegates denigrated the reform, which the Universities Accord final report found to be ineffective, as “a cooked policy” and called for a need to “backdate this shit”.

NUS has historically opposed the package, and continued to do so in passing the motion, but not without heavy-handed calls from SAlt to condemn the Labor party for not acting to remove the scheme immediately upon entering office, and on the other factions to demand deeper reform.

          Course Cuts and Restructures

The NUS also debated the restructuring, streamlining and course cutting occurring across the nation’s campuses. The ANU, for example, is moving to make $200 million in cuts as part of its Renew ANU plan.

The general consensus was that university Vice Chancellors are “student’s enemies” (from Motion 4.8), and that the staff cuts sweeping Australian universities are disgraceful given that bosses like vice chancellors continue to profit. As ANU SAlt delegate Ell Lappin suggested, the NUS should support NTEU actions and stand up against censorship on Australian campuses.

Students from SAlt and NLS argued that many of these restructures are calculated to prepare students to advance the interests of the Australian military. 

As the preamble to Motion 4.20 (“No Military Degrees”) reads: ‘universities are offering specialised courses and degrees that are tailor-made to level up Australia’s military capabilities.’ 

Speakers against, from Unity, disparaged this view as hailing from a ‘Marxist utopia’, because this motion could encapsulate many essential industries that are military-related. Nevertheless, the motion passed, with the NUS committing to ‘campaign against degrees and courses which are linked to and/or provide services for the Australian military, the defence industry or broader defence purposes.’

          More SSAF for student organisations

In May 2024, the federal Labor government announced that, starting 2025, a minimum 40 percent of the Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF) must go to “student-led organisations”. 

Unity congratulated themselves for agitating for this policy, maintaining that the new 60% target proposed in motions would be good progress on the way to a future 100% goal. They promised to use additional SSAF designation to feed and house students. 

ANUSA President Will Burfoot shouted out the ANU as a model of student money being in student hands, with approximately 81 percent of SSAF going to student organisations including ANUSA, Woroni and ANU Sport. 

Speakers from SAlt against the motion problematised the SSAF system for placing student money first with universities before it is distributed to organisations that university administrators deem worthy. This money, they say, will not go “towards students standing up and activism.” Unity hecklers respond: “Yippee!”

A motion making it NUS policy to call on the Federal government to “increase the allocation of SSAF revenue to student-led organisations from 40 percent to 100 percent” passed.

          International students and free universities

Motion 4.15, “The university sector shouldn’t run on treating international students like cash cows”, was carried unanimously. 

This came after a failed attempt from Unity to amend the motion to remove statements calling for fees for international students to be abolished. 

NLS and SAlt championed free university for all, while Unity insisted that less ambitious change was more practical. A Unity delegate argued that this platform would make it even harder for international students to get visas. This argument was then decried by SAlt as a “shameful cover” for the fact that Unity allegedly supports international students being “charged through the teeth” for education. 

While Unity insisted that free university for international students might be possible “in the year 5000”, this year the optimists came out on top. 

          Housing

Everyone could broadly agree that student housing was overly expensive and poor quality, described as “foul” by University of Wollongong Unity delegate Callum, with motions like Motion 4.38 demanding universities cap rents. Criticism was also levelled against the efficacy of the Labor government’s international student caps policy, which was supposedly designed to tackle student housing availability.

          Working students, paid placement and online learning

Motions for better-paid placements and more online learning options, without participation marks, were passed unanimously. Unpaid placement was decried across the board as a disgrace, with SAlt (as usual) chalking fault up to the Labor government. This was extended to discussions of the general inadequacy of teacher, nurse and paramedic wages. 

A speaker from Forge pointed out that placement poverty often hits rural and regional communities hardest, as with the current medical wages they cannot get workers to the regional areas that need them. The NUS committed to, among other measures, advocating for legislative change that would provide a living wage for students on placement.

Online learning and recorded lectures were also highlighted as important measures for working students, with the NUS committing to call on universities to provide these options to students.

SAlt took “formal opposition” (speaking in opposition while voting in favour) to many of the accommodations proposed for working students, saying that a better solution would be to raise welfare payments so students did not have to work in the first place. Something, as they pointed out themselves that the federal government is unlikely to do.

          AI Policy

The NLS argued for a bloc of motions that would make AI policy and penalisation more transparent and forgiving. In response, Unity called them “National Lazy Students”, and SAlt argued that this was not a pressing issue compared to course cuts. Nevertheless, the bloc passed.

Motion 4.11, a motion that would support an “AI-driven learning environment” was withdrawn entirely.

Disability

          Natcon is inaccessible, again

One of the key criticisms under this chapter, and of the conference itself, was that the Federation University campus was inaccessible (Motion 8.10 “Why here again???”). For example, the campus was highly wheelchair unfriendly as well as being, as speaker Remy (USyd, Grassroots) pointed out, financially inaccessible in its regional Victorian location. This made it difficult for regular students to attend Natcon and observe the proceedings. Inaccessible locations are a recurring problem for Natcon.

          Accommodations at university

Many students shared personal stories of how university support had helped or hindered them. While some shared that they had been helped by ADHD diagnoses they received from university services, others had been let down by universities who had cut them loose when their degree progress was not satisfactory.

Most motions relating to disability accommodations at universities passed unanimously. Accommodations that now form part of NUS policy include: ensuring that lecture content is available online with accurate closed captions, making sure public transport and campuses are wheelchair accessible, and campaigning for Residential Tenancies Act reforms to prohibit discrimination against disabled people who seek housing.

The NDIS

A few motions centred around the usefulness of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). SAlt again took the opportunity to condemn the ALP for looking for over $14 billion of cuts to the NDIS over the next few years.

SAlt, moving motions condemning these cuts, said the scheme – which reimburses disability care costs – is tantamount to privatisation of these services. 

Speakers from NLS agreed that the NDIS exemplified the government’s neoliberal shift, with money ending up in the pockets of private providers rather than the people who needed it. Both Labor factions, however, pointed to the Liberal Party as the greater enemy, and advocated for fixing the NDIS, arguing that it would be abolished entirely under a Liberal government.

Ultimately, this seemed to be the consensus. Motion 8.3, “The NDIS isn’t perfect but it’s something that the Disabled community needs!”, carried, with SAlt in opposition.