By Jack Cross
All the groups make very nice promises to voters about how much better things will be when they win the Guild. As a voter, it can be hard to tell whether these promises are things that can actually be done, or if they’re just fibs to nab your vote.
Fortunately, Pelican has put together an assessment of all the key policy promises for you, with the generous assistance of Guild management and staff.
In this article, we’ll assess the feasibility of campaign promises from the three main contenders for office-bearer positions, that is, SPARK, LIFT, and REVIVE. AI Party, as a self-described joke party with no serious policy, has not been included. Pelican was unable to locate any policy platform from Social Justice, who have not responded to any of our inquiries during this election.
It is important to note that no group has released any sort of costings for their policies. The Guild has finite resources, and any commitments to fund additional services would require funding to be taken from another program. Although an idea might be achievable, it may not be implemented if the Guild cannot fund or it or decides there are better ways to use its resources.
SPARK
You can read SPARK’s policy statement on their website.
Guild staff told Pelican virtually all of SPARK’s policy proposals were realistic and achievable given the necessary time and budget.
On the other hand, proposals for “pay as you go” social sport, subsidised essentials in the Guild Student Centre, a Guild Village op shop, and free pregnancy tests will be more complex and require substantial negotiation with other stakeholders. Free pregnancy tests in particular would need extensive costing to understand how the Guild would finance the program, and how large it might be. A proposal for a new “Satellite Campus Officer” office-bearer would take longer and require the approval of the UWA Senate, but would be entirely achievable. Finally, SPARK’s proposal for a “Guild Connect” portal “to find professional mentors, research supervisors and tutors” is feasible, but would be a long-term project.
The only particularly over-stated promises in the group’s platform are three policies which are ultimately the decision of the University, not the Guild: to give students a five-day extension on an assignment once per semester, to prohibit any individual assessment item being weighted over 50%, and to give students their exam results. Ultimately, anything can be advocated for: but UWA has historically rejected any attempt at self-certification or self-awarded extensions, and the latter two are perennial campaign promises made by several groups which have never seemed to make any progress. These can be advocated for but are unlikely to be achieved in a single term.
Overall, the SPARK platform is achievable and well within the Guild’s power to achieve – and you’d certainly hope the group has a good handle on this, considering they’ve had three terms to figure it out.
REVIVE
You can read REVIVE’s policy document on their website.
Although many of REVIVE’s policies are achievable and reflect the Guild’s influence, many of their promises are either confusing, implausible, or already underway. A big downside of producing a big policy document is that there are more policies for us to scrutinise, and unfortunately for REVIVE, they can’t hide shoddy policy from Pelican’s keen eyes no matter how many bullet points they use.
For a start, Guild Presidential candidate Luke Alderslade’s headline policy to collaborate with UWA on career opportunities for students is already a project the Guild continuously undertakes. From their policy statement, it is unclear what else REVIVE would have the Guild do to move further towards this. Likewise, the promise to live stream Guild Council meetings is achievable, but rings somewhat hollow: there are no circumstances in which Council will publicly discuss commercially sensitive matters, and all other content is already recorded in the minutes. Although this might satisfy students who are particularly enthusiastic about Guild politics, there wouldn’t be any real change in how transparent Council is.
Another headline policy is the promise to advocate for the 950 to be free from UWA to the CBD. Pelican understands that Transperth has been approached numerous times before with this proposal, and have flatly rejected the idea. Again, anything can be advocated for, and REVIVE has only promised advocacy and not guaranteed that the idea will be implemented. But even if REVIVE is elected, students should not expect a free 950, now or any time in the future.
The proposal for a points program to reward students catching public transport is outright impossible. It would require integrating the Guild’s database of members with UWA’s student card system and with Transperth’s SmartRider: the technology to do this does not exist, and it is doubtful Transperth would allow its systems to be used in this way. Guild staff were also sceptical of the proposal to offer discounts as a reward for using public transport, stating it was doubtful Guild outlets could afford to offer further discounts.
Sending out a report from the General-Secretary with the Guild’s spending (either monthly or quarterly, both are used in REVIVE’s document) would likely mislead student’s about the Guild’s financial position: due to the large variation month-to-month (especially months including breaks), the Guild’s position can and does swing wildly. Budgets are produced twice yearly, and it is only at this scale that the Guild’s income is aggregated enough to be useful.
There is already a requirement in UWA’s assessment policies for students to have their assessments returned within a certain timeframe. REVIVE recently stated on their social media that they knew this requirement existed and simply meant to say they would enforce it. How they intend to enforce a UWA policy on UWA staff is unclear.
Promises about improving security staff, such as student consultation, hiring a more diverse team, and gender-based violence training would all require the cooperation of UWA.
Likewise, the Accommodation Concierge is a UWA service, and the Guild cannot “invest in resources and expertise” for the program. Unless REVIVE intends for the Guild to set up its own version of the service, which is definitely doable but would duplicate UWA’s service and require more Guild staff.
Likewise, the academic gown hire program available during graduations is contracted out by UWA to an external provider, and it is not something the Guild can “expand [and] made cheaper”.
Guild staff were wary of the proposal to reintroduce the Containers for Change program, stating that last year’s trial failed as students would not separate rubbish correctly. This included food waste being placed in Containers for Change bins, leading to a hygiene risk in some cafés. Any reintroduction of the program would either need to convince students to sort waste correctly or to find a provider who is willing to collect the bins daily (which is uneconomical). The promise of “financial incentives” for students who recycle is vague.
A proposal to stream live sports in the Tavern has also been tried in the past: aside from the obvious problem of the Tavern being closed on weekends (which is when most live sport takes place) when no students are on campus, previous attempts have shown there is little interest from students.
REVIVE also promises to “threaten withdrawal of all Guild money from the UWA investment pool” if its demands around the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” policy are not respected. This is impossible and prohibited by statute. Although a REVIVE Council could certainly make this threat, there is no way it could make good on it. Its proposals to create a boycott list for Guild outlets is certainly possible, but would almost certainly drive up costs to students (since Guild outlets already use the most economical supplier, any changes in supplier would only be to a more expensive option).
A weekly free sausage sizzle is possible, but would detract from Guild outlets and clubs who run similar events. Introducing e-scooters onto campus is a decision for UWA Campus Management, not the Guild, and Guild staff were unclear if they were even allowed under campus by-laws.
The proposal for a clubs’ guide has already been produced – despite REVIVE’s claims otherwise – and is being considered by clubs now as part of a feedback process. The proposal to make the respectful relationships module compulsory for all club executives has already been outdone by the current Council, who are currently working to make it compulsory for all students.
Other ideas are plausible but would simply take longer than a single term, such as a proposal to establish a “Schools Council”. The multifaith prayer room has also been discussed for years, including by this year’s Council, but won’t progress unless UWA offers space or to cover the expense of setting one up in Guild Village.
The REVIVE policy document, despite its length, is a very mixed bag. Although much of it is achievable, many of its headline policies are just entirely out of the Guild’s control.
LIFT
LIFT have not produced a policy statement and the following has been compiled from their social media posts.
For a group that has campaigned on a “back to basics” theme, LFIT’s policies would almost all require the cooperation of UWA rather than the Guild.
Its promises to mandate a tutorial after 5 PM for every level three class would require negotiations with and the approval of UWA’s Academic Council, which would take several years. In the same category are proposals for self-certified special consideration (as mentioned earlier, something UWA has previously rejected), simplified unit outlines, and mandatory provision of past exams for revision.
The proposal to solve the parking crisis by banning first years would have to be signed off by UniPark, and the idea of hybrid red (staff) bays that become yellow (student) bays after midday is virtually impossible since a red bay is part of the employment contract for many UWA staff. Promises to make psychologists, counsellors, GPs, and physios more accessible is vague and it is difficult to understand how the Guild could help with this situation given these services are all provided by the University. Similarly, a proposal to provide free sanitary products in all female bathrooms would require the cooperation of UWA, since all bathrooms are under their management.
LIFT has also campaigned on “cutting red tape” for clubs hoping to hold events. Guild staff are unclear what exactly could be cut: UWA requires certain documentation to use campus facilities, and the process has already been significantly streamlined in recent years. “Tav Wednesdays” are also being reviewed following the Tavern renovations – a LIFT Council could certainly revamp them, but it’s unclear what this means. More outdoor furniture is already on the way with a budget set aside for its acquisition.
A promise to make the Reid and Barry J Marshall libraries open 24/7 is already the intention of UWA once renovations are finished, and it is unclear how EZONE could be made all-hours given the complex is radically different to libraries and would need very different resources.
Although LIFT’s campaign promises would definitely make students’ lives easier and more convenient, unfortunately many of them are simply not things the Guild can achieve alone. Many of LIFT’s headline policies would require an extended period of negotiation with UWA to put in place, and may not be achieved within a single term.