Woroni Radio is looking for new team members to join our ranks in 2021! We’re passionate about uplifting student voices and need your help to continue this work. There are three positions with vacancies; Radio Producer, Executive Radio Producer, and Events Officer. Read on to learn what each role entails! The link to apply can be found at the bottom of the page.
Radio Producer
Radio Producers play a vital role in maintaining and improving the quality of Woroni Radio by providing moral and technical support to presenters over the course of the semester. The responsibilities of a producer include:
Providing assistance to presenters by helping them to develop their show ideas and hone their radio skills.
Offering basic technical troubleshooting for shows while on the air.
Updating the Jazler database at their discretion.
Attending team meetings with the Executive Radio Producers and Radio Editor.
The ideal candidate will be approachable, have well-developed communication skills, be a team player and possess planning and organisational skills. No past experience is required as long as you are keen to learn and passionate about helping our presenters create quality radio content! All training will be provided prior to commencement of the role.
This role is approximately 10 hours per week and the successful candidate will receive honoraria based on their commitment to the role at the end of Semester One.
Executive Radio Producer
This position reports directly to the Radio Editor, and has been created to better manage the creative direction of Woroni Radio. The two Executive Radio Producers will have separate portfolios and will be in charge of items such as;
Managing relations with national youth radio groups.
Exploring new platforms for broadcast.
Collaborating with Events Officers to create upskilling workshops for students.
Promoting Woroni Radio shows across social media platforms.
The ideal candidate for this position will be collaborative, ideally have had previous experience with Woroni, and most importantly be passionate about student radio. This role is approximately 10 hours per week and the successful candidate will receive honoraria based on their commitment to the role at the end of Semester One.
Events Officer
Woroni Radio was once known for its wild parties, and though COVID has put a damper on our ability to host big events, that doesn’t mean we’ll be slowing down in 2021. We’re looking for a motivated individual who is interested in developing workshop and other event ideas and has a knack for keeping events COVID-safe. As an Events Officer your responsibilities will include;
Creating events that benefit the student community.
Adhering to ANU policy in regards to events, including filling out Functions on Campus forms.
Ensuring COVID safe practices are in place for all events.
Creating safe and welcoming environments for students of all backgrounds.
The ideal candidate will be creative, conscientious and able to effectively manage their responsibilities. This role is approximately 5 hours per week and the successful candidate will receive honoraria based on their commitment to the role at the end of Semester One.
Woroni is committed to diversity in hiring. It is important that our team reflects the diversity of the ANU community so that we can better tell stories about our great student body. As such, Woroni welcomes applications from students that are from a range of diverse backgrounds and identities. If you identify with a diverse background, you are welcome to let us know in your application.
Applications for all positions will close at 6pm on Monday 25 January 2021. Interviews will be conducted from Monday 25 January to Wednesday 27 January, times allowing.
Apply Here!
Comments Off on How the ANU Spent $603,093 of Your SSAF Money This Year
If you’ve ever gone to a club’s event to snack on some pizza, snagged a goody bag (or two) during O-Week, or used any services by ANUSA and PARSA, chances are you’ve already paid for it. Every year, full-time and part-time students pay around $300 and $150 as a Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF). Pooled together, this fee amounts to roughly 5.5 million dollars that ANUSA, PARSA, ANU Sport, Woroni, ANU Observer, and the University then spend on student services.
University regulations require each student organisation to report how they spend this money. But three recipients, all university organisations, do not have such reporting requirements. The only public information on how the ANU spends over 10% of the SSAF pool are fourteen dot points on the SSAF webpage. Following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, we now know where the money goes.
The Finances
The three university organisations that receive SSAF income are: Student Engagement and Success, Student Learning and Development, and Research Skills and Training. I derived the figures below from each organisations’ 2020 SSAF bid estimates, mid-year financial updates, and their published allocations. They do not reflect exact spending, as the 2020 finances are only finalised at the start of next year, but they show how the university has allocated SSAF money to these organisations.
Three-fourths of the University’s SSAF funding goes to Student Engagement and Success (SES), totalling $440,225. SES spends around 70% ($305,325) of its SSAF on salaries for ANU staff, with two-thirds of this going to casual student positions, and 30% ($134,675) on program costs. These program costs include SET4ANU ($41,973), Griffin Hall ($28,000), Learning Communities $22,000), Student Research Conference ($15,000), ANU+ ($12,000), ANU Wellbeing Projects ($10,000), and the First Year Experience project ($5,927).
While the FOI documents do not show how SES distributed salaries this year, its 2020 SSAF bid notes an estimated breakdown in salary costs for 2019. Staff allocations include a professional full-time Student Wellbeing Co-ordinator ($122,000) and student casuals for learning communities ($58,000), the Student Research Conference ($42,000), orientation and transition ($17,500), Set4ANU mentoring ($45,000) and ANU+ ($27,498). Additionally, $8,000 was allocated to a Wilson Security bus driver for O-Week airport pick up. The 2019 salary estimates total $322,000, resulting in a $16,675 discrepancy to the 2020 SSAF allocation. In response to an email enquiry, the University did not confirm why there is a discrepancy but noted that there are differences between estimated and actual costs.**
Student Learning and Development (SLD) receives over two-thirds of the remaining amount, totalling at $112,868. SLD uses SSAF money to fund the Writing Centre ($81,868), English Conversation Groups ($15,500), ANU Undergraduate Research Journal ($8,500), and International in Focus ($7000). SLD spends 90% of their funding on student salaries, with the Writing Centre hiring six postgraduate students and the English Conversation Groups hiring three undergraduates. The ANU Undergraduate Research Journal costs pay for an Assistant Editor ($5,200) and cover other copyediting costs. The International in Focus program highlights international career opportunities for students, with SSAF funding covering conference costs.
Research Skills and Training (RST) receives $50,000 for the Thesis Bootcamp Program. In their 2020 SSAF Bid, RST notes the success of the program in helping doctoral students, especially in targeting vulnerable students at substantial risk of dropping out. RST ran this program with PARSA until 2019, when the association cut funding to the bootcamp programs. Due to COVID-19, RST delayed the camps until November and December, but estimates they will spend all $50,000. RST spends 88% of the camp’s costs, totalling $44,000, on catering and other minor items, with ANU Staff volunteering time and taking no salary. RST spends the remaining $6000 on running online journal and thesis writing bootcamps.
The Implications
We should not have to FOI the university to know how it spends our SSAF money. Yet, it is unsurprising that we must. ANU centrally manages the entire SSAF allocation process, with negotiation, bidding and distribution occurring in closed meetings between the University and the bidders. The University’s decision this year to do away with the SSAF bidding and allocate SSAF funding on its own projections is disappointing but not surprising given the overall lack of transparency.
Does the ANU have something to hide? Not really. Prior to 2020, SSAF bidders could scrutinise each other’s bids. The FOI documents do not show any fraud or mismanagement by university bodies. Some of the proposals even address student needs that other organisations have not prioritised. In comparison to most other universities, an 89% SSAF allocation to student-run organisations is exceptional. Yet, a potential reason for the University’s wariness is that transparency brings unwanted scrutiny.
A trip through the Woroni archives will unearth a decade of articles and debates on SSAF expenditure. Every ANUSA election, candidates clash over four-digit SSAF spending. Students regularly scrutinise student organisation budgets, whether through unfair calls to defund them to serious questions over corporate sponsorship. The financial transparency that these organisations provide even allow for in-depth critiques of their financial positions. While a few organisations receive more scrutiny than others, there is at least some scrutiny by students. That is not the case with the University’s spending.
In 2019 ANU Council minutes, the ANU maintains that its current method of consultation is adequate. If a student is not happy with SSAF allocations, they can email dissatisfaction to the relevant university executive. Yet, in a document publishing student feedback to SSAF allocations, the University barely engages with much feedback, with most comments ‘noting’ a response. In contrast, student organisations respond with detailed and empathetic comments. Notably, published responses for 2019 and 2020 are missing. Similarly, in an email inquiry, the ANU confirmed the survey helps guide priorities for SSAF expenditure. But they did not respond to ANUSA’s claims that the survey was irrelevant as SSAF expenditure for 2021 was already pre-set.
The Higher Education Support Act 2003 stipulates guidelines on how the University must formally consult student organisations on SSAF expenditure. In response to ANUSA’s claim of being ‘kicked out of the room’, the ANU stated it underwent several stages of informal and formal consultation with all SSAF stakeholders. The 2020 ANUSA President, Lachlan Day, noted that the ANU changed this year’s SSAF process to address delays in transferring funds and to acknowledge the difficulties of COVID-19. He maintains ANUSA’s position that bidding must take place since that, while the ANU sought feedback, it did not partake in ‘genuine’ consultation.
For 2021, ANU Council is deciding on a new SSAF process to distribute funds. This agenda item, however, was marked confidential. In comparison, the Council publicised the 2019 SSAF process. The 2020 Undergraduate Representative on ANU Council, Lachlan Day, confirmed that Council discussed a new SSAF process for 2021 but does not know why it was marked confidential. He notes that the ANU notified all SSAF receiving organisations and they gave feedback for this proposed process.
Advice from the Department of Education indicates that the SSAF allocation must be ‘transparent in process; visible; and consultative.’ Yet, this year we have seen no bidding, a pre-set allocation, and accusations of improper process by our student association. Even prior to 2020, the University showed signs of greater opaqueness over the SSAF process. The secrecy surrounding the new 2021 process and the lack of public information only further strains trust in what should be a fair process. In response to COVID-19, The ANU has shown it can be open and transparent with its finances. This should extend to the SSAF allocation.
The University needs to open its books to the same standard that it asks student organisations to. The SSAF ‘consultation’ cannot be pre-determined and should go beyond a student survey, publishing the proposed bids and inviting public submissions from the student body. Students deserve the right to question university organisations over SSAF expenditure and receive a fair and considered response. Without full transparency and democratic oversight over our student contributions, the University’s SSAF budgets risk inflating to levels found at other universities. It is up to us to make sure that does not happen at the ANU.
* I derived the number of casual student employees from the 2020 SSAF bid and the 2019 estimated salary expenditure. The University did not specify if this was correct in response to my email enquiry.
^ I used 2019 salary proportions as, while not exact, they are unlikely to massively differ to 2020 salary proportions. The University did not specify the 2020 salary proportions in my email enquiry.
**Editor’s note (24/12/2020): An earlier version of this article listed incorrect salary figures of ANU staff. This article has since been amended to correct this. We apologise for this error.
Kai Clark contested the position of Undergraduate Member on ANU Council (UMAC) in 2020.
Comments Off on ‘Do Not Expect An Easy Year’ – An Anonymous SR Comes Forward
Content warning: this article contains explicit mention of self-harm, sexual assault, suicide, passing mention of eating disorders, panic disorder and social anxiety.
It is nearly time to apply for pastoral care positions across campus. The attractions of such a role are clear. For most residential halls, the position comes with a subsidy or scholarship, a larger room, a leadership role. You have access to resources you’ve never had before, and a unique ability to shape the community around you. You can help other people in a tangible way. When you speak, your voice is heard.
However, this role is also fraught. Any person in a residential hall will be familiar with the way their pastoral care team copes as the year goes on. Term 3 brings a lack of faith in the community, Term 4 a state of burn out. Mental illness is abundant, and SRs swap stories of the psychologists they’ve been to, who was good, who didn’t get it. Most spend their last weeks dreading a knock on the door, and wishing for their contract to end.
Each year the positions are advertised afresh. The information sessions talk of portfolio responsibilities and floor events. References to pastoral are limited to a line on a document, or a single, optimistic SR speaking about the good that can be done. There is more to be said. If you are deciding to apply for this role, then you have a right to know what you are signing up for.
The first thing you should know about pastoral care is that you will be bound by a confidentiality agreement. This is a good policy, and it protects students. You will become accustomed to asking for a resident’s permission before you seek advice from staff. You will get used to letting people know that there are some things you must report. Sexual assault and sexual harassment, self-harm and suicide. Any instance where you feel there is danger to the resident or anyone else. Most can be de-identified. The rest you carry with you always, a steel trap of awful secrets.
Sometimes you can help in quick, easy ways. How do I sign up for classes? Where is the Marie Reay Building? Can you help me make a timetable? Where do I get a student card? How do I access financial support, can you drive me to the shops, how do I use the iron? You will give out condoms, and sometimes pregnancy tests, advise on good doctors, and help with extension applications.
The burden of other issues is not so light.
You will refer on to the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre so often that you start to lose faith in your community. You will know the sexual assault guidelines better than you know your course content. You will spend hours with survivors. You will be the first person to tell them that they are believed, and that what happened to them was wrong. You will hold them while they cry. After they have left your room, you will curl into a tiny ball and balance your laptop on your knees as you write up a report.
Every time the name of the alleged perpetrator is revealed to you, you will crumble a little inside. It will feel like a betrayal, and you will avoid that person in the lunch line, unable to tell anyone but the residential staff why you are no longer able to make eye contact. What will you do when a first year tells you that they were assaulted by your best friend’s boyfriend? Or when the survivor and the alleged perpetrator both come to you for support?
You’ll wonder what to do when a resident comes to you about their friend. This friend is suffering from disordered eating, or social anxiety, or panic disorder. You know this friend, but not well enough for them to trust you, and you’ll advise the student to encourage them to come and chat to you together. It will be a fruitless task, this friend does not want help, but they are burdening their fellow peers to the point of harm and it is on you to figure out what to do.
Every time a message appears on your phone asking for a chat, your heart rate will increase. You’ll prepare yourself for the worst. You will traipse back to your room from wherever you are studying, and most of the time you will hear about friendship issues, or relationship problems, or how bad that night’s dinner was. Sometimes though, you’ll bind up self-harm wounds, or make a call to LifeLine, or offer them your bed after they have a panic attack at the thought of going back to where they were assaulted. You will knock on doors, not knowing if the person inside is dead or alive.
The people will come in thick and fast at all times of the day, two chats one day, four the next, and you’ll long for a week off, waiting for the end of your role. You’ll wish you were back in second year, when others were bearing your burden. You’ll drop a course, trying to stop your grades from slipping. Studying will become impossible. You will lie awake at night considering all that you have heard, and all that you might have done.
If COVID-19 restrictions continue, your position is made harder. Employed in what you thought was a caring position, you are expected to play an enforcement role, moving people out of common spaces and asking them not to drink. What will you do when you come across a group of your residents having a beer together on your floor? What if one of those residents was in your room the night before, hugging a pillow and crying as they told you about how lonely they feel, trapped in Canberra at the whim of some state government’s border policy? How will you connect with the residents to whom you owe a duty of care when you are unable to sit down with them in a shared space?
This can still be a valuable role. It is a tangible way to make an immediate difference to your hall. With proper boundary-setting, a lucky cohort of people, and the right support, things can go well. Think about what your residential hall is offering you before you go through your interviews. To attend a hall with multiple on-site staff and small SR to resident ratios should be normal. To have proper training, consistent meetings and free psychologist sessions offered to you is the bare minimum that is required to keep a pastoral care system running. A subsidy or scholarship of some sort is essential. None of these things will stop you from burning out, but they will equip you with the skills and support you need before you wade through the year ahead.
What lies before you is unpredictable, but one thing about this role is certain. If you are applying for a Senior Resident position, do not expect an easy year.
Support services are available here:
ANU 24/7 Wellbeing and Support Line: 1300 050 327 (Monday to Friday 9am-5pm)
Canberra Rape Crisis Centre: (02) 6247 2525
1800 RESPECT: 1800 737 732
Lifeline: 13 11 14
ANU Counselling: (02) 6178 0455
Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
Comments Off on So, You Ran in ANUSA Elections. Now What?
Elections are finally over, and I think we can all give a collective sigh of relief. If you ran and weren’t one of the 38(ish) candidates who got elected, you’re probably disappointed with the result. You may have put a lot of work into developing detailed policy that no one read, or spent hours campaigning and joking that you’re now a “stupol hack” instead of studying. If you weren’t jaded and disillusioned with ANUSA already, chances are you will be when elections roll around next year and you see the same policy proposals paraded. Between bitterness and burnout, it’s no surprise that few student representatives run for re-election.
The good news is that there are many different ways to make meaningful impacts on student life without winning elections. Instead of plotting to take over Clubs Council, here are a few ideas to get active on campus.
Residential Committees
The recent Interhall Committee campaign Who Pays the Price? has demonstrated how different residential communities can coordinate to force student issues into the public consciousness. If you live in a hall of residence at ANU, you have the opportunity to get involved in your residential committees and organise activities and campaigns. There is a tendency for many candidates to run for “first year” positions and few for senior roles.
As with any of the ideas on this list, you shouldn’t run just to enhance your CV, get an honorarium or prepare for next year’s student elections. If you have the skills and passion necessary to contribute to residential life, go ahead. If not, there are plenty of other opportunities.
ANU Committees
What do meetings of ANU Council, the Academic Board and a bunch of University committees have in common? Students can attend as observers. Many of the big decisions of ANU are made in these obscure bodies and you have the ability to see how this happens. You should give notice if you plan on attending (check each board’s charter for who to email), but there’s nothing stopping you from keeping an eye on the inner workings of the university. Except confidentiality. And a lack of info on the ANU website. And that time ANU Council met in Darwin for some reason.
Lobbying Student Representatives
Unlike taciturn student observers, many student representatives actually sit on ANU boards with full privileges, from the Undergraduate Member on ANU Council to the Student Experience Committee. Further, College Representatives have a direct dialogue with the heads of academic colleges. While you may not hold these positions, there’s nothing stopping you from lobbying your representatives to, in turn, lobby those with their hands on the levers of university power. “Consultation” is a term often bandied about during elections, but you can ensure your reps actually make an impact. Arrange a meeting in person, prepare and present your issue, urge them to relay your concerns to the board/dean and follow up on action taken. It’s simple, and many reps will actually be keen to listen to someone who can give them something concrete to bring up at their next meeting.
ANUSA Working Groups, Departments & Collectives
As a member of ANUSA, you can attend SRC, College Representative and general meetings, where you can question officeholders and move motions. However, you can also get involved in working groups, where discussions from arts funding to gender equality influence the activities of the student union. As these are often poorly attended, you have many opportunities to contribute. Be warned: some working groups are more focused and effective than others. Try a few out to filter out the white elephants. You can also get involved with ANUSA’s autonomous departments and collectives, which often take the lead on organising campaign and advocacy action. If you’re from a marginalised community group, meetings are regular and open. Just check Facebook or Department Officers for more info!
Education Committee (EdCom)
EdCom is the education committee of ANUSA, tasked with advocating for education issues as well as mounting campaigns and protests on topics such as fee hikes. While it has gained a reputation for being dominated by factional interests, it has gradually become more open in recent years. Combine this with relatively low turnout to meetings and a considerable budget for campaign activities and there is significant potential for keen, experienced organisers to push ANUSA’s advocacy forward. It remains to be seen whether next year’s EdCom will be an effective force for change. Nonetheless, if you and a couple of friends have an issue you want to ANUSA to campaign on (possibly with funding), then checking in with EdCom and the Education Officer is advised.
Student Media
If you’re looking to ask difficult questions to the ANU or publish essays on the student experience, student media is for you. With actual online readerships and topics ranging from changes to university degrees to wider university policies (not to mention detailed election reporting), ANU Observer and Woroni play an integral part in keeping the student body informed about all goings-on on campus. While reporter places are limited, Woroni is always on the lookout for online and print content from students. If you want to write opinion pieces on the student experience at ANU that people actually read, this may be an avenue for you.
Truth be told, the ANU doesn’t make it easy for students to affect university policy. Most of the big decisions are made at the executive level with little to no student consultation. Barring a sudden promotion to the Chancellery, you may have to broaden your scope outside of ANUSA and ANU to have real influence by finding organisations the university wants (or at least is forced) to hear. For instance, the Young Workers Centre runs a variety of campaigns combatting wage theft that you can get involved in through volunteering on their website. You could also try emailing ANU executives directly, and if their response is unsatisfactory, reply or write a letter to the Canberra Times.
You can always run again next year, using your newfound insight into student elections. Chances are it’ll be easier, since you’ll know what you’re doing, have name recognition and have (hopefully) been keeping up to date with ANUSA and university news, rather than being thrown in the deep end. Maybe you don’t even need to focus on ANU; there are plenty of other institutions and problems out there needing to be fixed. All you can be sure about is that if you don’t do it, it won’t happen.
Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
Comments Off on The Hidden Campaign Costs of ANUSA Elections
If you’re anything like me, you’re addicted to your phone. While procrastinating on Instagram and Facebook, you likely saw a few, or a lot, of ads from ANUSA tickets, ranging from how-to-votes to specific policy positions. The COVID-19 social distancing rules killed almost all in-person campaigning usually seen during election week and the money that would usually be spent on campaign merchandise was now free to pump ads onto our feeds.
Facebook, after sustained pressure after the 2016 US Presidential election from campaigners, in 2019, spurred by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, launched the Facebook Ad Library. This database allows you to go to any Facebook or Instagram page and see what ads they have running at any given time. If they’re classified as ‘political’, Facebook also allows you to go back through the previous ads a page has run as well as the demographics that were targeted, the location of those people and how much was spent. When one has a database of Facebook ads, extra free time facilitated by online learning and a hunger to procrastinate as Week 6 looms, one just has to have a look.
An important distinction that needs to be made when it comes to ANUSA election ads is that not every ticket’s page is being considered ‘political’ by Facebook. I don’t know if this is due to them not self identifying or if Facebook just doesn’t count them as such. Either way, it means that the data we work with is in no way complete. We can still find some interesting facts with the data we have but for those non political ads or pages we’re unable to see anything more than the current ads being run. Many pages were also quick off the mark deleting their page and timing ads to expire when polls closed, though we can still see the ads if they were marked as political.
Once you take all the ads that I could find listed in the database, as well as the ones that I saw on my own newsfeed, there were at least 40 across all tickets for the whole week. Of these 40, 28 were from ‘Proud’, all of which being classified as political. ‘You’ coming second with 7, 2 of which were classified as political. ‘Brighter Together’ with 7, 5 being political, ‘Refocus’ with 5, ‘Spice Up!’ with 2, all political, and ‘Go the Distance’ and ‘A New Way Forward’ running 1.
This huge disparity between ‘Proud’ and the rest of the field is interesting. Based on estimates, they far outspent their rivals and received 14 of seats on the SRC, with one of the six executive positions, the second largest grouping behind ‘Brighter Together’. All other tickets, ‘Refocus,’ ‘Forward’ and ‘You’, only received 3 Gen-Reps and 3 College-Reps combined. Of course ‘Proud’’s success can be put down to many things but the amount spent and the sheer number of ads they ran must be taken into account.
Though ad numbers are interesting in what they reveal about how each of the tickets hopes to maximise their votes, what about the average number of impressions? Or the number of times the ad appeared on someone’s timeline? Or how much was spent on each ad? Sadly, as not every ticket or ad was classified as ‘political’, we only have good data for ‘Proud’ and incomplete data for ‘Brighter Together’ and ‘You’. Over their 28 ads, on average ‘Proud’ received around 5,300 impressions, though this was swayed by a select number of ads that received substantially more than the rest. Overall they had around 120 thousand impressions (!), around 70-90% of the total ANUSA campaign ad impressions for the week. Given the ANU undergraduate population is around 10-12 thousand I wouldn’t be surprised if almost every individual on campus saw at least one of their ads over the week. When these two metrics are considered together it’s clear to see that ‘Proud’’s ads were seen more than any other campaign. ‘Brighter Together’, from their 4 ‘political’ ads, received 1,150 average impressions, ‘You’, from their two political ads, received between 1,500-2,500 impressions and ‘Spice Up’ received around 500 impressions per ad. No other ticket had ads classified as political so we cannot compare them but it is clear that ‘Proud’ is far ahead compared to these numbers.
We can go even deeper in the specifically political ads with a geographical location. Unsurprisingly, all of the ads were shown predominantly in the ACT, though ‘Proud’ had around 8-15% of their impressions being shown in NSW. On a stranger note, it appears that ‘Proud’ accidentally first ran their how-to-vote ad to the whole of Australia, with 60% of impressions ultimately being in the ACT, 17% in NSW, 9% in SA, 9% in VIC, 5% WA, 2% in QLD and <1% in TAS. ‘Brighter Together’ also had a similar issue with their how-to-vote ad being shown all over Australia but with 21% of impressions being in QLD, 19% in NSW, 18% in VIC, 15% in NT, only 9% in ACT, 8% WA, 4% SA, and 2% being in TAS. From this, over 70% of impressions were to men. This ad was also shown to all age groups, so ultimately 20% of the impression from this ad were men over the age of 65. From what I can see only ‘Proud’ fixed this problem, limiting their how-to-vote ad only to the ACT and NSW.
The last demographic breakdown that can be made from the library is the gender and age breakdown. This is where things really “Spice Up” (excuse the pun). ‘Brighter Together’ only campaigned on issues of campus safety to women, also overwhelmingly campaigning on issues of sustainability to them, with 64% of the impressions being women. This is mirrored in ‘Proud!’’s advertising. They ran a SASH ad in English only to women, while their ad in Hindi had a gendered impression split of exactly 50/50. This is also the case with smoking areas and pill testing being strongly targeted to women in the beginning of the week. After the 25th, this changed and by the end of the week they were closer to equal. Obviously this raises questions about why this was the case. Was ‘Proud’ deliberately targeting them this way and changing it later in the week or is it Facebook’s algorithm that created this bias? Another factor worth noting about ‘Proud’ is that their policy focused ads, in the beginning of the week, appeared to be pushed to men more, while their more ‘joke’ and ‘fun’ ads were pushed more to women. As the week progressed, in the policy space, this became more equal but ultimately their ‘joke’ ads were still being pushed to women by the close of polls, some as high as 60%. In contrast, ‘Proud”’s Mandarin and Hindi ads were much more equal across the board, if with a slight favourability to men in some cases.
Finally, the big question. Which campaign spent the most? As the data isn’t complete, this question isn’t simple. Based on what we have, ‘Proud’ is far ahead, with estimates, after taking into account funding caps, having spent roughly $15-30 per ad for their whole run, but for their campaign video, the one with the backing audio ‘Feel The Way I Do’ by the Jungle Giants they spent a huge $200-299 on the one ad. This ad was by far the most seen in the campaign with over 25 thousand impressions, 90% being to people in the ACT between the ages of 18-25. From this it can be expected that they spent roughly $400-800 on Facebook ads, and their funding cap was around $900.
This move to online campaigning has been slowly happening over time as in-person campaigning areas and regulations become more and more restrictive and people realise the possibilities of online campaigning. COVID-19 has simply sped up this process. Facebook Ad library can give us important insights where election regulations need to catch up, as well as seeing who the candidates and tickets are campaigning to, even if incomplete this year, implying how they value individuals and where they think possible votes are in our community.
If you’d like to give the Facebook Ad library a try, you can find it here: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/
Just type in the name of the Facebook or Instagram page and select either ‘all ads’ or ‘issues, elections or politics’ tab.
Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
PSA: Kambri’s newest restaurant Kukula’s is damn good
Kukula’s is what Nandos wishes it was. Kukula’s is so good that I just had my second consecutive lunch there. It’s so delicious that when I ate my chicken burger in the Woroni office, three separate people commented on how good it smelled.
For those who haven’t been on campus yet, Kukula’s recently opened in the corner spot where Green with NV used to be. As a proud carnivore, I have to say this is a huge improvement.
Kukula’s is an upcoming chain of restaurants that started in Parramatta, Sydney, and now has two franchises in Canberra. The ANU store is only the third shop in this rapidly growing chain: iterations are opening soon across Australian and New Zealand.
Kukula’s unique but delicious seasoning and sauce is what makes it stand out. According to their website, Two Ceylonese friends started the first restaurant, drawing from both Ceylonese and Portuguese cuisines.. It’s certainly unique and some of the yummiest chicken I’ve ever eaten (and I really love chicken).
I really loved the art on the wall, done by Canberra artist Happy Decay. It seems that similar original murals can be found in all Kukula’s stores which is a very nice touch.
For my first meal at Kukula’s, I had the ‘No frills’ burger – yes very basic. As a first-time Kukula’s customer (and a white person), I decided to start with the mildest sauce called ‘BBQ Rib’. My anglo-saxon taste buds were very happy with this choice, and the burger was delicious. The chips are also tasty; not only are they generously sized, but they are covered in delicious spiced salt.
To justify eating at Kukula’s for a second day, I decided to get the Mediterranean salad with chicken breast. This was also delicious, and the culmination of these two great meals is what compelled me to write this review.
I also think it would be very tricky to open a business at a time like this, so be a #localhero like me, and spend all your money at Canberra dining establishments like Kukula’s.
Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
Comments Off on ANU’s Aggravating Colour Class Bias
This piece is part of the Are You Racist ANU? x Woroni series in association with the ANU Ethnocultural Department. Want to write for the series? Email anuethnoculturaldept@gmail.com with a pitch or draft.
“I’ve been financially independent for 2 years, my parents just pay my rent for Bruce Hall”
Statements coated with the blindness of economic privilege like above are regularly heard on the ANU campus. University for many can be an isolating experience, however at the ANU, the experiences of coming from a low socio-economic (SES) minority background can isolate you almost completely. The ANU is unique in that a major proportion of students are determined by their economic ability to move interstate and abroad to attend in the first place. This essential barrier knocks out a majority of low SES individuals from attending the university in a fell sweep.
In my first year as a fresh Logan Queenslander youth I felt like someone who had just landed on an alternate private school campus. ANU has the lowest level of low SES student participation at all universities in Australia, (even less than Bond University)! In a 2008 study, the national average of most universities’ proportion of low SES students was 16%. ANU, on the other hand, had an abysmal makeup of 4.53% (notably the highest number they had ever had at the time)! This is reflected in the makeup of students on the campus, many who herald from elite international and private schools that reflect an artificial monied and controlled picture of the society they come from. These students often pride themselves on growing up with a diverse environment, going to schools overseas and interacting with people all over the globe, yet they never acknowledge the falsity of this diversity. The underlying makeup is that of wealth.
Lack of low SES representation for me has single handedly resulted in an isolating cultural difference. Having parents not on the dole, connections, a financially and emotionally supportive family network, holidays around the world and the polished spoken command private schools equip you with are prerequisites for participating in this university without feeling inferior. As a direct result the voices of people most affected by situations of strife tend to be drowned out by those who choose to speak on our behalf. It is as though low SES culturally diverse individuals are a foreign specimen in a David Attenborough documentary that requires the palatable translation of richer minorities from affluent families with the right degree of learned political correctness.
Being lectured by well-meaning friends about economic responsibility when they come from backgrounds of economic stability feels like a particularly insidious salt in the wound. Worse is when this kind of patronisation of experience comes from circles and groups meant to advocate for minorities. In my personal experience interacting with these spaces, a singular identity of palatable elitist politically savvy POC-ness is championed and catered to, and the diversity of thought is stifled as a result.
In my experience of most advocacy spaces on campus, those who speak up most and try to control the narrative tend to be from privileged backgrounds. Spaces cater to one type of POC-ness. There is little to no recognition that sometimes they share more in common with the rich white girls and boys of elite colleges and halls, than the low SES ethnic communities they try to represent, oftentimes ridiculing the same communities for not being acclimated to a white palatable ethnic makeup. The beauty of POC experiences feels diluted through this controlled lens. The often ugly, unfiltered, sometimes problematic and ultimately complicated experience is diluted when only represented through this filtered lens.
Weaponisation of the very real and personal experiences of low SES POCs as a medium to garner woke validation is reductive to the experiences of actual low SES people of colour. There’s an immense irony that those that will never have to deal with the intricacies of public housing, over-policing, and a myriad of other low SES issues, are the ones who try to dictate the narratives of these experiences.
Competitional poverty is a side hobby, rather than a lived reality for many of those who attend ANU. Race and class are all comparative, and there’s always someone worse off or better off. But I think more students at Australia’s most prestigious university should use the critical lens they apply to their readings to themselves and their cohort to keep their positionality in these institutions in perspective.
Changing the way ANU students engage with the low SES issue is important. Tokenistically pointing to the lack of low SES representation during stupol season, with empty promises of change isn’t enough. Changing the culture of how we as students comport ourselves, is important in order to not make university an even more isolating experience for those already marginalised by their background.
Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
Person A has invited you to like their ANUSA campaign page.
Person B has changed their profile picture on Facebook to announce them running as a General Representative under Person A’s ticket.
Person C is running as an independent and is sending out personalised policy recaps over Messenger.
Person D is Person C’s best friend and is messaging you to advocate for Person C, both on Messenger and Instagram. They’re dedicated.
Person E is you, thrust into the world of ANUSA elections, wondering what the hell a ticket is and why everyone’s profile pictures now all have the same filter. How do you even animate a profile picture?
This is my third year experiencing the circus of electing the upcoming year’s ANUSA representatives and I’m ready to delve into some of the lessons that I’ve learnt:
If you don’t feel equipped to vote, then don’t feel pressured into it. If you’re not invested in ANUSA, then that’s okay. If you don’t even know what an ANUSA representative is, then that’s fine. I was in my second year until I registered that the people stopping me in Kambri were ANUSA candidates and not pluggers trying to sign me up to Cancer Council donations.
2. When you vote for a person, you don’t have to vote for their entire ticket. Each ANUSA representative is voted independent from their ticket. Think of a ticket as a good way to get publicity for yourself and your policy, but not like a political party.
3. You don’t have to vote for every vacancy on ANUSA. You can pick and choose which positions you want to vote a candidate into. If you just want to vote for the President position, then you can do that. You want to just vote in a General Representative because they’re your friend? You do that.
4. On that note, when you vote for a specific position, you don’t have to number your preferences for every candidate. Say there are four candidates for President, but you only want to vote for one person. You can number that person as your first preference and cast your ballot without numerating the remaining three.
5. Don’t feel the need to like every campaign page that your Facebook friends invite you to. You’re allowed to keep your feed restricted to Proud Plants Canberra and Hummus Meme pages. (Have I revealed too much about my personal interests?)
6. Voting is open for only a couple of days. This year it is open between 9am, 25th August to 12pm, the 28th of August. You can head to voteanusa.com during this time frame to cast your votes.
7. ANUSA candidates who are serious, genuinely put passion and time into their policies. If you really want to educate yourself on the best person to vote for, take the time to read individual candidate’s policies to assess whether you want them to represent you.
8. If you currently don’t have the brain capacity to read policies, you can also vote for the people with the prettiest Facebook profile picture filters and Instagram pages. Good marketing reflects their ability to advocate for students right?
Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
It’s back. The all exciting ANUSA elections have returned with astonishingly revolutionary and astounding policies that will no doubt transform the very foundations of ANUSA. This is the third election I have actively witnessed, and I await in anticipation for it all to be over and done with.
This time however, I wanted to highlight something about ANUSA elections that really gets my goat. Tickets. First of all, what the heck are they? Second, what are their roles? And thirdly, why on earth do we need them?
Shockingly enough for those who do not know me personally, I am a dumb person who was even dumber in their first year. When it came to ANUSA elections in my first year, I had no idea what they were, who to vote for or even how to vote. Conveniently enough, I had a friend who was running for ANUSA, and they explained to me how to vote and introduced me to the idea of tickets.
For you all who are not aware, tickets in the context of ANUSA are groups that run under the same principles and support each other on the campaign. So, me being the naïve first year that I was, I not only voted for her but also every candidate on her ticket. She was my friend, so the rest of the ticket should be chill, right?
It was soon after that that I realised that tickets at ANUSA have a darker side to them. They are a popularity vote. Tickets can easily invite people into the party who are influential to get their friends to vote in the elections for them and their ticket (just as I did) to improve other members’ chances of being elected. It is a tactic I learnt in my politics class and I was impressed and a little nervous to witness it in the elections for our student association.
Let us look at some hypotheticals as to how one may gain power using tickets. An easy ploy to better your chances would be to have as many people on your ticket as possible. Not only does it almost guarantee their vote, but they have also employed other people to praise their name in the elections. While this may come out of a genuine respect for one’s policies, an innate competition between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is employed. Ideally, if the feelings were genuine, then one would not even need to be running on a ticket. People would simply trust in your cause, and then advertise your policies on behalf of them.
Additionally, if someone has been ‘shoulder tapped’ to be part of a ticket, they may be being used for clout. They are a part of a community that no one else on the ticket reaches, hence tapping into another pool of voters. Others on the ticket then exploit their connections if their friends don’t appropriately research the individuals on the ticket. Typically, people on the ticket also don’t actually share the same views as the rest of the ticket, like they would like to advertise. While this is a dark portrayal of student politics, there is always a risk that people will be elected just by band-wagoning off other people’s reputation and passion in the ticket system.
So, what am I getting at with all this? At the end of the day you are voting in individuals. Not tickets. So, if you can, talk to the candidates. Do some light reading into who they are, how reliable they’ve been in participating in student welfare and what policies they’re running on. I am not saying that someone running on a certain ticket makes them any worse than others, it just means that certain people have for whatever reason, decided to run alongside them.
I would like to note however, that in addition to candidates running on tickets, you also have independent candidates, which I personally feel is a much more democratic way of campaigning. You are running by yourself; your successes and merits are your own. There is no ambiguity or misconception between members on values and ideas. Because at the end of the day, people will be voting for you, not a party.
Also, the settled nature of a party perpetuates an idea that a person may work well within the party but outside may be uncooperative. A system of independent candidates does not have this issue because candidates know they will be working with others outside of the pre-established intra-ticket relations.
There is one upside to the social distancing regulations – 2020 is the first year I won’t be anxious walking down Uni Ave, nervously avoiding eye contact with candidates…surely, I’m not alone in rejoicing this? However, I am very excited to watch the ANUSA debates in the comfort of my own home, popcorn and coke can at my side as I judge people’s policies.
Cheers and best of luck to all candidates for ANUSA 2020.
Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.
Comments Off on Who Pays the Price? Tariff Hikes at ANU Halls
One hour before a student forum hosted by the IHC regarding rent increases for 2021, ANU’s proposed options for tariffs landed in our inboxes. Under option 1, a standardised 6.7% rent increase on 2020 prices. Under option 2, a supposed ‘alignment’ of price to room and residence amenities, which would see some rooms dramatically increasing in price. Amongst the halls mandating a higher price point are Ursula and Burton & Garran Hall, which are supposedly ‘affordable’ options for on-campus accommodation, and Wamburun and Bruce Hall, who are currently operating with few (if any) senior administrative staff positions filled.
Neither of these options are defensible under the conditions they have arisen. It is regrettable and unacceptable that the ANU would lock itself into a concession agreement that prevents change and forces up the price of living on campus whilst simultaneously championing the importance of a diverse student population. The ANU PBSA agreement is one of the biggest blunders the University has made in its residential space and it will have lasting consequences for the student population.
Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) is a growing sector in the Australian economy, with investment agreements popping up at universities across the nation. At the ANU, a concession agreement (the ANU PBSA agreement) was put in place over 9 residences for a period of 30 years. The agreement is provided for investment by third party companies in the residences in exchange for a large upfront payment to the ANU. Our understanding is that a huge portion of this payment was used to fund the construction of Kambri and new residences, while allowing ANU to maintain ownership and management of the Halls. Initial statements about the PBSA Agreement outlined what a profitable and huge portfolio the ANU Halls were for the investors. Brian Schmidt also acknowledged in 2016 that increases in room rental charges must be “limited to CPI, maintained at or below 75% of market rates and subject to five yearly reviews where tariffs will be benchmarked to market rates”.
While the agreement has allowed for the construction of new facilities and buildings for students, it has three primary flaws. Firstly, it relies upon consistent student occupancy and rental revenues. As such, it is incredibly inflexible when emergencies such as COVID-19 arise and prevent students from moving in or force them to move out.
Secondly, it will involve consistent high rental increases. While at face value, the ANU’s PBSA agreement seems to have measures in place to prevent such increases, this is not the case. The ANU has refused to define the parameters by which the ‘75%’ of market rates’ limit is measured. The types of residences being referred to as the ‘market’ are yet to be defined. Furthermore, how ‘current’ the market rates being considered actually are remains questionable, with the price evaluation only mandated to occur once every five years. In comparison to rates next year, 6.7% is wildly above the benchmark set by the PBSA. However, by widening the scope of consideration to be 2018-2021, as was done at the IHC’s student forum, the University is able to justify what is an unacceptable step out of line with market rates due to smaller increases in previous years. Using a four year period as a frame of reference, prices at ANU are similar to net market increase despite this sharp tariff hike. Hence, price spikes like this one are able to occur due to ineffective accountability measures built into the agreement which prevent such drastic tariff increases.
Thirdly, it is inherently wrong for the ANU to have entered into such an agreement without student consultation, especially where that agreement creates external obligations which students must fulfil through ever-climbing rental rates. As exemplified by Brian Schmidt’s updates in 2016, the Uni was fully aware of student concern for a repeat of the 2014 rent spikes when the ANU PBSA agreement was signed. Despite this, the ANU proceeded to lock rent in a lease agreement spanning decades, and now use the agreement’s binding nature as a justification for huge spikes now being proposed. This lack of student-guided action and refusal to take responsibility for the havoc they have wreaked in residential communities is insulting.
The reasons given to explain the 6.7% calculation have also been manifestly insufficient to justify the stress and inconvenience the tariff rise will cause the student population. Especially in line with commitments to greater transparency the ANU made after the Do Better ANU movement in 2019. Justifying rent increases with claims of ‘renewals’ to be conducted at colleges and an insistence that the funds are contributing to optimising the student experience are nothing more than an attempt to save face.
Firstly, it is difficult to believe arguments that rent hikes are primarily to recover the costs of running residential halls and to cover renewal of their infrastructure. A more comprehensive breakdown of what portion of our tariffs actually contribute to maintenance and facility upgrades is needed. We have no material proof at present that these excessive spikes are actually in response to scheduled maintenance plans rather than to generate profit for third-party stakeholders.
Secondly, several halls— despite their rent supposedly contributing to this pool of money— have not seen any such improvements in their facilities. This is certainly not due to a lack of amenities that need upgrading; older halls such as Ursula and Burton & Garran have remained stagnant despite claims of campus modernisation, with key utilities like water and heating in dire need of renovation. To charge more for facilities that are far from optimal under claims of bettering the student experience is counterintuitive.
We argue the tariff increases and the PBSA Agreement will have disastrous consequences for what our Halls look like in years to come. Both B&G and Ursula Hall pride ourselves on our diversity. While Ursies attracts students from regional and rural backgrounds as the cheapest catered option, B&G’s affordability has brought in students from across the globe. B&G is also one of few accommodation options on campus which cater to those from low SES backgrounds. A rise of 6.7% or higher is simply out of the question for many students residing on campus. In our communities, this has been starkly felt. The announcement of 2021 tariffs was followed immediately by outrage and unease. We hate to imagine a future in which the ANU runs 9 homogenous communities home only to wealthy young people from Sydney’s North Shore. This future is also entirely inconsistent with the one ANU promotes itself as wanting. It claims that it values a diverse and inclusive student community— yet the PBSA agreement and its associated tariff increases say otherwise.
Tariff increases will also mean that residents stay for shorter periods in their Halls. Already, the conversation around return in 2021 has shifted; whereas the choice to return is usually, for many, a consideration of potentially filling a leadership role in 2021 or feeling fulfilled in their collegiate experience. There now arises anxiety as to whether their decision is actually determined by themselves, or by their wallets. For rent to increase at such a rate that the disparity between two consecutive years necessitates many students being unable to stay without financial assistance is alarming. In a year when encouraging a high returner rate is necessary for ensuring the preservation of hall culture, these tariffs represent the antithesis of student desires.
Similarly disgraceful is the timing of this spike in tariffs. Coming out of a global pandemic and entering into a recession—both of which will have impacted a significant portion of students living on campus, financially and otherwise—this increase is immoral and indicative of the ANU’s priorities in their management of corporate interests and commitment to students.
When these concerns have been raised by members of residential communities, the only meaningful response received has been a proposal to offer more scholarships. The IHC is yet to receive further information about what these scholarships might look like, who they would go to and whether they are in fact financially viable in the climate the University currently finds itself in. Until we have such information, it is hard to feel at ease with the PBSA Agreement and its resulting spikes in rent.
We acknowledge that the PBSA agreement is a binding legal agreement. However, we are confident that there are ways we can work within its bounds to maintain and improve the value of our residential communities. As such, IHC has formulated the following series of demands in relation to the PBSA agreement and the tariff increases:
Provision of the research and consultation done in 2016 for the PBSA’s implementation
A commitment from the ANU to include the IHC and other student leaders in conversations surrounding future rent agreements for our halls
Release of the data and calculations used to reach a 6.7% increase for 2021
Release of all planned tariff increases for the remainder of the PBSA, along with detailed calculations of those increases
Consultation on the raffle of a Bruce Hall room with the Bruce Hall community
A model of a plan to maintain meaningful diversity in every hall
A commitment to making on-campus accommodation more accessible to students from low-SES backgrounds. Putting in place more measures to allow these students to live on campus beyond the standard bursaries already offered
The creation of specific objectives in regards to encouraging and assisting low-SES prospective residents
A commitment that returning residents should have the option to be able to return to their residential hall if their returners application were to be accepted, without having to be priced out of their accommodation in later years
A calculation as to what the ANU considers to be 75% of the Canberra rental market
We hope the ANU can see the worth in having a broad range of voices echo through the B&G kitchen. We hope they can see the worth in having students from a spectrum of backgrounds wandering our campus in green Ursies rugby jumpers. We hope that they understand that you can’t put a dollar figure on what these losses will mean for our communities and we hope that they will buy into action which seeks to protect what is sacred to so many students from across the globe. We hope they are listening when we pose the question: who pays the price?
Sanjana Ramesh Kumar is the president of Ursula Hall and Meghan Malone is the president of Burton and Garran Hall. Malone is also running for General Secretary in the 2020 ANUSA elections.
The authors would like to credit their communities for their thoughts and passions on this topic, particularly Joshua Yeend from B&G. Similarly, they would like to acknowledge the hard work of the other IHC members in this space and thank them for highlighting the experience of their communities.
Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.