A proposed procedural to move to the vote is discussed. It is suggested that they don't have the votes and it will only waste time. The speaking list has already closed.

Show this thread

Honi Soit

@honi_soit

Feb 1

In the last two minutes to start agenda items, the motion "A home? Not in this economy and not with this government!" is spoken to and seconded.

Michael Grenier (Independent) proposes an amendment to add that the SRC unequivocally opposes antisemitism where it comes from. It is amenable to the mover. The motion passes with the amendment.

Akee Elliott (SAlt) speaks to the motion "Wearing a Nazi costume is no "mistake"."

The procedural was carried.

Ben McGrory speaks to Indigenous students not being invited to discuss this issue. Rand (Switchroots) proposes a procedural to leave the motion on the table for the next meeting to allow Indigenous students to be invited to contribute.

Satvik (Liberal) raises his pile of membership applications again (for at least the second time?). No one is taking you up on your offer. Please stop bringing them up.

Rand (Switchroots) introduces an amendment. The amendment is now being discussed alongside the motion.

Satvik (Liberal) proposes an amendment. Only Satvik votes for it. Are the Liberals splitting?

Deaglan (SAlt) moves the motion "Fight for more than the Voice and oppose the racist No campaign."

The motion fails.

Ben McGrory, newly elected First Nations Officer, speaks in support of the motion referencing prior Liberal support of constitutional recognition.

With lights and projectors back on, we hear against the motion from Hersha (SAlt), Bryson (Liberal), Shovan (SAlt), Cooper (Liberal) and James (SLA).

We have hit 11pm so the University system automatically switches off the lights and projectors. We hear that we haven't reached this time in about three years.

Jack (NLS) speaks to the motion that "the SRC supports the voice to parliament." Rose (NLS) seconds and speaks in support.

Lia calls for dissent. Despite speaking against the motion, the Liberals appear to not be dissenting.

Jack Scanlan (NLS) speaks to using empty space for "Messages on City Road."

Motion carries.

Victor Zhang speaks as "someone who is capable of building killer robots" to say that they don't like killer robots and let's not build them.

The motion has been amended to remove support for adopting the goals of the "Stop Killer Robots" campaign. The motion now asks to adopt the position of opposing killer robots.

Scanlan adds, for any science fiction fans, that "killer robots do be bad."

Jack Scanlan (NLS) speaks to "SRC should be against killer robots." Scanlan calls for computer scientists and engineers to stand against autonomous killing machines.

Motion carries with no dissent.

Alexander Poirier (Unity/Conservatorium of Music) speaks to the motion explaining that the University's move away from remote learning perpetuates cycles of inaccessibility to education.

Ben McGrory speaks to the motion emphasising how remote learning assists Indigenous students and lends their support to this motion.

Jack Scanlan (NLS) speaks about the little support and help given to disabled students from the University, the NDIS, Medicare and the SRC.

Grace Wallman (Switch) speaks to the Motion "The campaign against in-person learning." Wallman expresses frustration at a lack of engagement with an issue that may lead students to be forced to drop out.

Motion carries.

Motion "Critical scholarship and freedom of speech" is being discussed.

Only the two SLA members present vote for the motion. It fails.

Deaglan (SAlt) announces that "this is about a sectarian attack on Socialist Alternative," addressing the rivalry between SAlt and Solidarity (Soli), another "Trotskyist" group which is affiliated with SLA at USyd.

Tom (Liberals) says that the "right to protest is a fundamental right" and then asks why gender studies students study gender studies because their "only career option is as an academic."

Yasmine (SAlt) and Harrison (Groots) both speak against the motion. James Sherriff (SLA) argues that "overall strategic direction" of this issue should be decided in council, not the EAG.

Jack Scanlan (NLS) says that NLS is voting against the motion because it is a decision that should be made within the EAG, not in a council meeting with Liberals, stressing the importance of the EAG in organising.

Ishbel (Groots) says that they support in principle, but that they will oppose because those moving the motion aren't doing the work that the EAG is doing.

Show this thread