Woroni has obtained a copy of the yet to be released ANUSA Governance Review, detailing recommendations that could lead to a considerable change in the structure of the SRC. ANUSA have noted that initial consultations regarding the review took place ‘at the end of 2018,’ further explaining that ‘these consultations were compiled into recommendations by external consultants.’ 

The composition of the SRC emerged as one of the most prominent matters under review. For instance, one recommendation suggested an amendment to the ANUSA Constitution which would:

         ‘include representatives in the SRC of student clubs elected by the Clubs Council and… clarify that the Clubs Council is subject to the constitution, rules and policies of ANUSA.’

Currently, the Clubs Council Chair reports to the SRC, but is not a member of the student representative council, nor is Clubs Council accountable to the Constitution and policies of ANUSA. This amendment would, notably, allow Clubs Council to ‘form a similar electorate to the College Representative Council.’ ANUSA specified that ‘the Clubs Council Chair has indicated that they support the consultative process.’ 

Beyond this, several recommendations were made regarding the size of the SRC. Currently, there are 39 Representatives on the SRC, distinguishing it as large in comparison to other Australian universities. Recommendations 6A, 6B, and 6C however advocated for reductions in the size of the SRC.

While recommendation 6A offered little difference in the structure and size of the SRC, 6B and 6C promoted drastic changes. Importantly, all Department officers would be removed from the SRC under these recommendations. No specific reasoning was given to this particular removal in the governance review.  

A fourth recommendation, 6D, was also presented. This suggested ‘no change in overall size of SRC and change in composition.’ The amendment would allow representatives to be ‘drawn from student clubs members, with a corresponding reduction in the numbers of general representatives.’

Fewer General Representatives, College representatives, and ANUSA Executive officers on the SRC were further recommendations in 6B and 6C alike. As reasoning, it was noted that ‘one College Representative per College could be more practical’ and that a ‘reduction of the numbers of General Representatives would not reduce of impede accountability of ANUSA as the views of general members of the Association ought to be considered in the activities of the Association as a matter of usual practice.’ 

More is expected to come to light during SRC 1 on Wednesday.