A principled justification for these changes.

ANUSA’s department structure is one of its biggest strengths when it comes to its governance. Departments are fantastic — they give historically marginalised groups autonomy within ANUSA to serve their communities through advocacy and spending money as seen fit by that autonomous group. However, all students should have an equal say on the environment — it’s not autonomous to any group. Students are all equally entitled to have their perspectives and opinions heard.

At last year’s ANUSA election, 3000 students chose their preferred direction for ANUSA. This happens every 12 months. At a general meeting, notice is very widely distributed, and a quorum of 40 ordinary students is needed to pass the budget as prepared by the elected Executive. Comparatively, the Environment Department can choose to spend money if ten ordinary students show up — this is fundamentally and principally undemocratic.

The spending of money — on a non-autonomous issue — should be determined by representatives elected by the students, that is, the Environment Officer and the Executive.

This is why the governance review proposed this change in 2024 — before there was any discussion on the Environment Department’s misconduct. This is a principled change — to ensure that students have a say over the spending of their Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF) by their student union. This is a democratic change, and that’s where it comes from.

Why there is an imperative to make this change now.

However, it is imperative that this be done now. The Environment Department report — that I encourage everyone to read — details immense financial mismanagement over two years: $6,000 of student money used for Marxism and Keep Left conferences. This breaches the SSAF agreement we have with the ANU. It breaches our regulations, our Constitution, and our policies. It is severe mismanagement of student money.

I will note here that the 2025 Environment Officer claimed at SRC 1 that some of the SAlt spending happened under the 2023 Officer, who wasn’t a SAlt member. I think this is precisely why the change is so necessary. As I said above — this is a structural problem. Ten students who come to a meeting can spend money in such an egregious way, regardless of the elected Officer’s own views. 

To this year’s Officer’s credit, she has and will continue to block spending in order to adhere to the regulations. But, as an association, we cannot guarantee that an officer in future will always, every single time, stand up to the Department and stop this breach. The structural way the Environment Department operates means there is considerable risk this will happen again.

We must have a system that addresses these structural problems  and prevents any spending issues in the future.

To do this, the Environment Department must be removed from the department infrastructure. All departments are governed under Section 11, which entrenches and ensures autonomy (as well as explains how the departments are governed). The only way to ensure financial probity is to remove the Environment Department from this section entirely and move it to a different part of our Association. To do nothing, after being presented with clear structural problems and a clear breach of our rules and policies, would be an abrogation of our duty to the Association.

Addressing concerns, ensuring probity, and maintaining safeguards.

People have asked me, “Why can’t you just increase financial oversight?”

I say that this is precisely what we are doing. Our goal is not to change how the Officer and team do activism, but to ensure their spending aligns with the Constitution, regulations, and conflicts of interest policy. The only way to do this is to remove it from the Department governance.

The main change is that the Environment Officer won’t be able to spend autonomously anymore — we are doing this to prevent the risks of unconstitutional spending. This is also a principled change — the students vote for the Executive, who is enfranchised by these students to act in the best interests of the Association.

That is, if proposed spending by the Environment Officer is unconstitutional — they should, rightly, stop it. The Executive is accountable to the SRC and the student body, and that is why they are able to decide what spending is and is not within the Constitution, regulations, etc.

Regarding people’s concerns about the Executive overreaching and stopping activism, allow me to respond clearly and directly. There is absolutely no power for the Executive to influence the work of any officer. Only a general meeting can direct an officer of the Association, and the President cannot tell the Environment Officer what to do or what not to do. There is absolutely zero change in the powers to tell the Environment Officer what to do. I support the Environment Department’s work, and so long as it is in line with the Constitution and regulations — I will always fight to defend its right to activism.

Another concern is, “What if the Environment Officer has bad political views? Shouldn’t the Department be able to overrule them?” 

In response, I refer you back to the principle I started with — that to elect the Officer last year, 1,600 students voted, and a majority selected the current Officer. Does anyone here who truly supports principles of democracy believe that ten ordinary people should be able to overrule the will of the election?

If, on principle, you think that ten random students should not be able to overrule 1,600 — then this alone should get you to vote this up at the OGM this week.

The next concern is: “What happens if an Executive gets elected wanting to defund it?” 

In our Regulations for the Environment Committee, we have enshrined a minimum budget line of $2,000 — this money is always, every year, to be made accessible to the Environment Officer, and they can spend it on things within the Constitution, Regulations, and Policy — these same guardrails do exist currently, it’s just they are not followed. With the Executive approving spending now, we ensure they are followed. But, I’d also like to quote the answer I got from the 2025 Environment Officer, Sarah, when speaking to her about this issue. She told me that if this happened, then it would be the will of the students to elect the Executive that does this and democratically, that’s fine.

Regarding safeguards, here are all the things enshrined in the regulations we will pass to complement these changes to guide the new Environment Committee. I’ve mentioned a $2,000 minimum budget line to ensure the Environment Committee is funded, but these regulations also:

• Provide the ability to elect co-convenors to support the Officer in their actions — this is no change from the current Department model.
• Require the Committee to meet regularly — this means the Officer can’t abandon their Committee and not call meetings.
• Bind the Officer to put any policies passed by the Committee to the SRC — this gives the committee power to suggest and recommend policy of ANUSA.
• Force the Officer to report to the SRC every week on the actions of the Committee — this ensures transparency and accountability to the SRC, as occurs with the current Department.

I ran through these with the 2025 Environment Officer and asked for any further suggestions. The minimum budget selected was the highest point of the range that the Environment Officer recommended. The Environment Officer was happy with these regulations to help resolve her concerns and didn’t have more recommendations to add to develop them further. I am satisfied that this ensures the Committee is democratic, empowered, supportive, and effective in assisting the Environment Officer in continuing their activism.

These Regulations are guardrails to ensure environmental activism continues, while  ensuring that it comes within the rules that  we all must obey when spending student money.

Conclusions

I think it’s clear that the Environment Department changes make both principled and practical sense. This improves democracy within ANUSA, prevents further risks to ANUSA from unconstitutional spending, and ensures ANUSA will continue Environmental activism.

The Environment Committee will still back the Officer. The Environment Officer can still do activism. More power is in the power of all students and more students than ever before. Importantly, we protect the Association from severe mismanagement and breaches of our Constitution and Regulations. 

I believe this change is incredibly positive and only strengthens our union further. I encourage everyone to go to the OGM on Wednesday, either in Marie Reay 2.02 or on Zoom, and vote in favour of these constitutional changes.

This article presents the opinion of its author and not that of Woroni. 

Have an opinion you wish to share? Send it to our submissions inbox at write@woroni.com.au.