Impact. Twice Deletes Allegations of Sexual Harassment, Electoral Interference Amid Investigation

By Will Cassell

At the eleventh hour of the ANU Students’ Association (ANUSA) 2026 election, the impact. ticket has restored and then deleted an Instagram post alleging sexual harassment and electoral interference on the campaign trail.

In a statement provided to Observer yesterday, the election watchdog, ANUSA Returning Officer, Richelle Hilton, confirmed that a complaint in relation to this matter is “still actively under consideration”.

Observer spoke to anonymous senior candidates in the ANUSA election who claim that the impact. ticket was directed by the Returning Officer to delete the post when it first went live on Instagram on Wednesday.

Leila Clarke, the impact. Presidential candidate, confirmed that a direction was made, alleging that “probity acted outside their powers when they direct impact to take down the post”.

“Impact has since consulted with the returning officer and a modified version of the post has been posted,” Clarke told Observer. The allegations made in the post remain the same.

Elevate Presidential candidate, Malakai King claims that impact. “deliberately” chose to not remove the original post for forty minutes. He alleges that this, and the subsequent post, are breaches of ANUSA regulations.

However, Ms Hilton said, “we cannot confirm at this time that the impact ticket was directed by the Returning Officer to remove the post in question”.

“Currently we have a high volume of open complaints we are working through covering a wide range of tickets and candidates we will not be in a position to provide more details until some are resolved.”

In the original and subsequent post, impact. alleged that a “dirty deal” had been “signed” between the Elevate and Socialist tickets. 

Impact. alleged that The Socialists ticket has “spent this election attacking women who have been speaking out against the endemic SASH [sexual assault and sexual harassment] issues at the ANU”.

“They’ve been making the ‘what was she wearing’ argument to shout down campaigners,” the post said.

Sexual harassment is defined by ANUSA as “an unwanted sexual advance, request for sexual favours or any other unwelcome sexual conduct in circumstances in which the person who is exposed to the conduct feels offended, humiliated or intimidated”.

ANUSA lists an example of sexual harassment as “[c]omments of a sexually suggestive nature about a person’s appearance or body”.

In a statement to Observer, a spokesperson for The Socialists said “members of the Socialists ticket categorically did not harass women candidates on Impact.”.

“Political debate is not harassment, and debate is (and should be) a feature of every student election,” the spokesperson said.

The impact. post also alleged that The Socialists “has a history of calling for the abolition of the age of consent”.

Clarke doubled down in a statement to Observer. “[the] Socialist Alternative [faction] has a history of defending the Sandra Bloodworth article advocating for the abolition of the age of consent,” she said.

“This most recently occurred during the campaign, where socialist campaigners defended this verbally to impact campaigners.”

The Socialists called the post “slanderous misinformation”. 

“Neither the Socialists ticket, nor Socialist Alternative as an organisation, has ever called to abolish the age of consent,” a spokesperson for The Socialists said.

Impact.’s post also alleged that Elevate has “secretly [sold] away your preferences” to The Socialists.

Elevate has provided “how-to-vote” guides to voters, suggesting that they preference The Socialists’ candidates after Elevate candidates. In a preferential voting system such as the one ANUSA has, voters, not tickets, decide who they want to preference when casting their ballots. 

The Socialists’ spokesperson alleged that this was a breach of ANUSA regulation 3.1.2. Under this rule, it is an electoral offence to publish untrue statements or misrepresentations.

King told Observer, “[i]t has been shocking to see campaigners on ‘impact.’ so flagrantly violate the Election Regulations throughout the election period, including by leveraging non-student campaigners to slur other tickets, engaging in negative harassment, and making repeated misleading representations”. 

King thought that a “campaign ban” on the impact. ticket might be warranted. “ANUSA Election Regulations are usually enforced by warnings, and in severe cases, campaign bans,” he said.

“I have been surprised that no campaign bans have been issued this week. Given the severity of repeated behaviour, I would have thought it appropriate to issue bans to promote a free and fair election.”

“I would like to thank the Probity Team and Returning Officer, but I encourage them to take these issues seriously and with urgency. With only 1.5hrs of voting remaining, it is hard to imagine how a campaign ban would be sufficient to solve for these issues.”

Observer does not suggest any wrongdoing on any parties involved. 

More to come.

Graphic by Anushkaa Ahuja

---

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!