By Olivia Stronach
Olivia is the 2024 Co-Officer of the UWA Student Guild Access Department, the representative body for students with lived experiences of disabilities and roles as carers.
Editors’ note: This piece will appear as a featured article in volume 95, issue four of Pelican. Conventionally, we do not publish print articles online, at least until the following issue has been printed. However, given the issues discussed here are of national significance for students, we feel it should be made as widely available as possible. You can view our print archive here.
For the first time in 10 years, the National Union of Students (NUS) held its annual Education Conference (EdCon) in Perth. Being hosted by our neighbours at Curtin University, several members of the UWA Student Guild Council attended. The majority of us were eager to hear from other students about the problems they face on their own campuses and the solutions they put in place for lessons we could apply. Instead, we were met with incessant fighting between different political factions.
The NUS is the peak representative body for all tertiary students in Australia. Each year the organisation hosts a National Conference where policy for the following year is set, as well as several other conferences (including EdCon) to discuss student affairs. The NUS has been criticised in the past for its East-centric focus, so it was hoped that being in Perth might even this out.
When purchasing my ticket to EdCon, I was asked if I had any accessibility requirements. Despite indicating yes, I received no communication from the NUS about how these might be accommodated. This was a warning of how accessibility needs would be disregarded.
The first plenary session was focused on education. Plenaries at EdCon were sessions generally intended to be a panel discussion followed by questions and discussion amongst all attendees. Unfortunately, very little productive discussion was able to take place. The NUS Education Officer was barely permitted to introduce the conference in peace. Very quickly, the entire hall devolved into senseless screaming. Earplugs began to be handed out, but little was done to bring some decorum to the conference. The panellists continued to attempt to provide updates on their work, but very little was audible over the yelling from a particular faction. When question time arrived, the yelling only increased. After questions, the session ended, and it was time for the first workshops.
The second day began with another plenary run by the NUS Welfare Officer. Behaviour did not improve. It was interesting that we were discussing welfare without even considering the welfare of the delegates in the room. Unfortunately, I was not able to ask a question about this due to the choice of one faction to communicate solely through screams. It was disappointing that they were permitted to hijack such an important conversation, particularly as we continue to experience a national cost-of-living crisis.
These plenary sessions were an incredibly inaccessible environment for attendees, primarily because of the absurd noise levels. Even with earplugs in I was still able to hear much of the yelling. Although attendees were reminded of accessibility considerations throughout the conference, these warnings were ignored. Many attendees had already experienced sensory overload by the end of the first session, with other attendees leaving with ringing ears.
The majority of Western Australian delegates that I spoke to were shocked by this behaviour. Guild Council meetings at UWA are, in the vast majority of cases that I have experienced, conducted with respect for all attendees. I understand this to be similar at other Western Australian universities. I was not expecting this behaviour, particularly from a nationally representative body.
Following the welfare plenary, I was supposed to attend a workshop by Mairead Foley (NUS Disabilities Officer). However, due to the inaccessible nature of the conference, Mairead was no longer able to present. The irony was stark; someone who should be ensuring inclusivity and accessibility for others, was not afforded this same courtesy.
Instead, I assisted Alexander Poirier (former holder of the Disability Portfolio of the University of Sydney Union and current President of its Conservatorium Students’ Association) to present a workshop with practical advice for delegates to make spaces more accessible for students on their campuses.
Initially, attendees heard us in silence. However, members from the same faction causing mayhem at the plenaries didn’t seem to understand the concept of respectfully listening. We permitted a member of this faction to ask a question, however, they made a broad statement about the failures of the NDIS. Nearly all disability advocates would agree that the NDIS should go further. The way the statement was phrased though felt like it was intended to cause an argument. This “question” was interesting, as my Co-Officer and I had previously reached out to a UWA member of this faction in order to get their support for our campaigns against the NDIS. However, we never received a response to our offer.
I found it strange that instead of allowing us to speak about issues that directly affect the experiences of disabled students on campuses, we were instead yelled at for not speaking about other issues. As the Curtin Accessibility Officer said, ultimately, we are students and not federal politicians. In my opinion, it is absurd to expect us to spend more time discussing federal political issues instead of university-specific issues.
Ironically, the faction demanding we discuss the NDIS already had a workshop scheduled on this for the following day. Despite this, they still saw fit to hijack our presentation.
The heckling of presenters that I personally experienced and witnessed other presenters being subjected to was shocking. Panellists from the plenaries were seen leaving in tears, including allegedly the NUS President Ngaire Bogemann. How is this a space we can expect disabled students to engage with, if this treatment remains so common?
I seriously question how the NUS can claim to represent all Australian students when not all students are able to participate in these conferences. Ableism was normalised. Attendees asked for basic accommodations, such as succinct questions so it was easier to answer properly, and this was openly ignored.
One panellist’s request for a concise question due to their neurodivergence was dismissed with the questioner claiming that they are neurodivergent as well; seemingly implying that it is acceptable for disabled people to disrespect each other’s needs. This was appalling to witness.
While it may be easy to dismiss this as simply another example of everything wrong with student politics, it is important to remember that the vast majority of attendees are elected student representatives on their respective campuses. It is concerning to consider how they might be treating their fellow students on a regular basis if this is the behaviour they are willing to display to a national audience. Disabled students deserve student representatives that show respect to them, not representatives that are actively hostile to them.
In discussions with other attendees during the breaks, another attendee shared with me that they had experienced panic attacks at previous NUS conferences. Many other attendees shared similar experiences, only serving to highlight the pervasive issues within these spaces. Most concerningly, I was told by multiple attendees that this conference was actually a significant improvement from previous years. I shudder to think about what a bad year is like.
Disabled students continue to experience many difficulties in their studies. Many issues impacting tertiary students disproportionately impact disabled students. These issues deserve to be discussed nationally. We cannot have effective conversations about solutions to these issues without properly addressing the root causes. Part of that is having diverse representation.
There were moments of light throughout the conference when I or the other UWA delegates were able to attend a workshop without hecklers. In those moments, I saw student unionism at its best. Students were learning from each other and sharing advice on how best to serve their communities. Luckily, I was able to learn something in those moments. The limited times this happened though only serves as a vision of what the conference could have been.
Ultimately, EdCon 2024 was a stark reminder of how far disability activism still has to come. If the NUS truly aims to represent all students, it must address these systemic issues as a priority and create an environment where every voice can be heard. Otherwise, if disabled students continue to experience systemic barriers to entry, the NUS will continue to primarily represent non-disabled students.
Accessibility issues are not new to the NUS and have been raised many times over the years. I am thankful that other students joined me in recognising these issues throughout the conference. However, recognition did not result in meaningful change. I eagerly await the day that the culture of national student politics changes, but I won’t be holding my breath.