By Will Cassell, Madeleine Crabtree, Nurul Azhar, and Jasmine Cook
ANUSA Welfare Officer, Leila Clarke, has labelled criticism of her proposed electoral reforms as “gendered”. Although accepting of the result, she has questioned its legitimacy after her controversial motions failed to pass a four-hour ANUSA Annual General Meeting (AGM) last week.
In a statement this week to Observer, Clarke stated that she experienced critics “effectively calling me stupid for proposing the changes, men taking credit for the [a]mendments I orchestrated and wrote”.
Clarke reported experiencing “supposedly left-wing groups targeting their harder questions at women because they perceive them as weaker – and then not questioning the men”.
“This is really unacceptable and concerning for the future of women being a part of student politics on this campus”.
In a statement to Observer, Women’s* Officer Katie Jakab said “ANUSA spaces are not exempt from [the] patriarchy”.
“It is important to create spaces where everyone, including women, can be criticised and challenged on their policies without facing sexism and discrimination,” they said.
The ANU Women’s* Department, the Disabilities Student Association, the Queer* Department, and the BIPOC Department opposed the electoral reforms as they were first drafted.
“This change in the election process will have serious democratic consequences, including seriously impacting Department autonomy and the viability of independent candidates in ANUSA elections,” they wrote on Instagram.
Although they acknowledged that amendments to the motion solved some problems, “other public concerns were not addressed, particularly those related to the viability of independent candidates in elections in motion 6.7”.
Clarke removed mentions of these Departments in her first motion, 6.2, following this criticism.
Motion 6.2 sought to streamline ballots by introducing above-the-line voting. Motion 6.7 sought to restrict tickets to two or more people.
It was “[the] worst organised AGM I have ever seen,” Clarke said. “[D]emocratic principles in this meeting were undermined”.
Clarke alleged that a different type of voting technology was used and was not well communicated which “discouraged people from participating in the meeting”.
Online voting tool OpaVote was used under a ruling by General Secretary, Malakai King. It has previously been used by ANUSA and the National Tertiary Education Union. However, Observer understands that it had never been used in an AGM. No one in the meeting dissented from this ruling.
She also alleged that there was “real discretion” as to the admission of students into the Zoom.
“Because the results were so close, this could have made a real difference in outcome”.
Clarke noted that she accepts the result of the meeting.
It took four counts of voting before motion 6.2 was declared to have not passed, failing to reach the 66.66 per cent needed.
After a third vote received 63.4 per cent, Clarke requested another recount which King initially refused. He said he would need to be disallowed as Chair for the recount to take place.
After negotiations between King, Clarke, ANUSA President Charley Ellwood and another supporter of the motion, they agreed to an additional recount.
Supporters, predominantly from the Rage party, were seen walking up and down the room, allegedly calling and texting to ask people to join the Zoom and vote in favour.
These efforts were unsuccessful. 56 per cent were in favour of the motion, well below the 66.66 per cent required.
Clarke then moved to delay voting on a second motion, 6.7 which was expected to draw less support. At ANUSA AGM’s, voting numbers on motions are not required to match initial attendance. With meetings lasting for hours, attendance declines as the agenda progresses.
Eventually, Clarke withdrew the motion.
In a statement to Observer, King, in his capacity as a student, said it was “unsurprising” that motion 6.2 did not pass given that the final version was available less than 48 hours before the meeting started. The final version moved controversial provisions affecting independent candidates into motion 6.7.
Motion 6.7 also proposed to only allow tickets to appear on ballots where they had two or more people.
King ultimately backed motion 6.2, arguing it “struck an appropriate balance”.
“The strong turnout [of around 300 people] at the AGM reflects genuine student interest in ANUSA, which I am always pleased to see,” he said.
Motion 6.2 proposed the introduction of above-the-line voting for future ANUSA elections.
Above-the-line voting would give voters the option to prefer whole tickets, rather than individual candidates. Though below-the-line voting would remain an option, voters would only be able to pick one method.
Clarke wrote in Woroni that the current voting system is “among the most complex of any student union in Australia”. She cited that less than 10 per cent of students voted in last year’s election and argued, citing a number of other universities, that ANUSA is an “outlier” for not adopting above-the-line voting.
“This is a misrepresentation of the University of Sydney systems,” the Student Representative Council of the University of Sydney commented on Instagram.
“This article massively overstates the similarities of different University’s voting systems,” the Student Representative Council of the University of New South Wales also commented.
Elections would have changed from “being about the best people for the job to a contest between political factions,” according to King in a piece to Woroni.
Jakab, speaking against Clarke’s motion, asked, “are there other ways of engaging students in our union?”.
“We are moving ANUSA towards partisan politics,” they said. “This leads to a reproduction of certain types of power and rewards political conformity”.
Observer asked ANUSA President, Charley Ellwood, for comment, but did not receive a response.
More to come.
Graphics by Laudine Cao
This article has been edited for clarity.
Know something we don’t know? Email news@anuobserver.org or use our anonymous tip submission.
If you have an issue with this article, or a correction to make, you can contact us at news@anuobserver.org, submit a formal dispute, or angry react the Facebook post.
If you don’t have an issue with this article and want to hear more from us, we’re in the process of making a newsletter! Sign up here, and have the latest news delivered directly to you.
Want to get involved? You can write articles, photograph, livestream or do web support. We’re also looking for someone to yell “extra!” outside Davey Lodge at 1AM. Apply today!
ANU Observer 