Every year, Pelican fact-checks Guild Groups policies, both to contextualise them, and see if they’re making any outlandish claims. This year is no different, but I want to apologise in advance for the repetitiveness of some critiques; a lot of policies involve funding reallocations, which is just a matter of what you as a voter think should be prioritised, and a lot involve decisions that ultimately rest with the University, or even beyond.
This isn’t unusual, most policy programs involve a cost, and we’ll try to give a little insight financial impact or the general possibility of University acquiescence to any particular stance.
You’ll also notice some overlap or policy similarity, especially between Spark and Revive, so try to suffer it if we sound like we’re repeating myself.
The Guild has helpfully assisted us in this process, giving a basic outline of feasibility for policies, to help us figure out if anyone’s building castles in the sky.
Spark:
Starting with Spark, we’re approaching this from an incumbent angle, currently holding the Guild Presidency. Some of these overlap with ongoing programs, which makes sense as an incumbent but pads the program slightly. Many rely on the University to acquiesce, but there are a few fresh ideas in their ticket.
On infrastructural promises;
Spark’s mostly promising feasible changes, or the continuation of ongoing discussions. Cameron hall renovations will already be necessitated by the installation of the lift, a gaming centre has been in the pipeline in parts for a minute, and a Guild Sports Hire is certainly feasible. Opening a REVO comes down to Uni considerations, but its been in talks with its UWA Alumnus owner. Most unlikely is a containers for change collection point – it’s been tried in parts before and hasn’t flown, and at best the Uni might be convinced to give it another try.
On Cost of living;
There’s a few policies here that come down the Uni, either through financial pressure or simple realm of responsibility; Bursaries for unpaid placements and Smartrider credits are financially a stretch for the Guild alone (Bursaries more than credits), and whether the Uni would step in is unclear, especially on the Smartrider issue given it already pays to support the 950. Bursaries overlap with another policy, advocating for placements to be paid – whilst tricky to negotiate a compromise with the Uni, there’s a reasonable chance that with some delay, this might be achieved. Other policies are straightforward and feasible – Hygiene hubs for instance.
On Academics;
A little overlap, a cost of living special consideration is possible through negotiation, with it needing to go through the Academic Committee. Similarly many of the other policies fall on uni discretion; Mandatory Practice papers (tricky to get professors on board with this), club experience on official transcripts, mandating a respectful relationships module. The module is in the works, but everything else is up in the air.
On Campus Culture;
Some big swings are surprisingly feasible, drug testing, night markets, platinum tickets for freshers to attend club events, and a change to SOC to introduce a ‘new club’ grant package, all of which are well within Guild’s wheelhouse. The least feasible is grants for UWA University Club Venues – these are often very pricey given they require staffing, and compete with external bookings on difficult nights; it could work with the Uni, but a bigger swing than the others.
Revive:
Revive didn’t do particularly well in this article last year, and brings a reduced policy platform this time; some still overlap with existing programs, and others are brought over from the Curtin Guild. Overall their platform is feasible, though there are a number of policies that simply aren’t workable.
Cost of living;
The big $5 meal policy is already partially in place, so revive would be expanding upon that. $1 cereal portions are possible, depending on staffing and variety, it might break even around $1.50. Extending student discounts builds on an already widespread program across campus, cost of living workshops have an unclear content but are certainly host-able. Two of their impossible policies kicks in here though, discounts at Broadway being the first. If you could get a nominal discount, they might just inflate their nominal prices, and previous attempts revealed a pit of enthusiasm from Broadway businesses. Secondly, free public transport to Uni. Depending on who you target, this one’s tricky; the state government is unlikely to be moved by the Guild, especially given the huge investment in the upcoming ferry service, and the university already pays aforementioned contributions to Transperth for the 950.
Campus Culture;
A few interventions in the Tav feature here, including cheaper beer & social sports, ping pong equipment, Hard Rated on tap. A cost to these obviously, with Hard Rated potentially having to knock off another beverage to appear. Likewise, lunchtime Tav performances might require a remix of the Tav calendar. A creator zone and student gallery are all possible given a location. Subsidising first aid training, mental health first aid, digital club resource banks are all possible to organise through SOC for clubs, or in size-capped classes for the general student body.
Infrastructure;
Revive takes an accountability focus; livestream equipment in the council room is a borrowing from Curtin, and could add on to planned additions of screens to the council room, easily possible. If people don’t want to watch that, then their policy of monthly guild recaps is very feasible given it’s discretionary what the president wants to post. A ‘know your rights’ campaign requires a lawyers’ oversight, but is possible, however a substantial workload is their promise to translate student resources into other languages – it’s doable, but requires adequate cultural sensitivity oversight. A policy firmly beyond the scope of the Guild though is a recycling drop-off hub, the Guild is not equipped for that kind of waste management, at best the Uni could be convinced to add onto their program in some capacity.
Academics;
These mostly run into the same brick wall of the Academic Committee, which while not hugely obstinate, largely gets the final say and has to mediate between the interests of professors and the Guild. To that end, mandating things around increasing assessment clarity (one assumes via requiring rubrics), Sample exam questions, model answers, and unit outlines on time are likely to be difficult to push professors into accepting. Alternative participation marks might be possible depending on negotiations, but its unrealistic to expect a return to in-person enrollments as the uni is very unlikely to retreat from its digital systems.
Lift:
Lift is running a slim policy portfolio, which makes sense for its slimmed profile, but its got a bit to poke at.
Late night library access is already in discussions, the barrier to which is UWA security complaining that they can’t police the additional areas sufficiently. Perhaps budgetary increases or successfully convincing the Uni to adopt Lift’s policy of increased lighting around the main throughfare would help. In those libraries, instant coffee and noodles is a bit of a tricky, both through cost, and the libraries themselves not being so fond of having those sort of things in place. New pool tables for the Tav would just come at a cost.
Further festivals on the Oak lawn would require re-shuffling; there’s 6 in the next 4 weeks, so it’s not currently an empty schedule and accommodating extra requires addressing existing events.
Free headshots are very feasible, and a careers website is something the guild could put together, or add as a section on the current platform.
Live lunchtime music in the refectory is very achievable; so is running a consultation booth around Uni. Difficulty comes up in aforementioned ways when discussing past exams and marks having to be released on LMS, as well as on Parking. Most groups have stuck away from parking this year, given the inherent difficulty in fixing it. Lift has brought a policy of switching red bays to yellow ones after midday, which is theoretically possible, but must be negotiated with the Uni and Campus Management, and is of limited broad-scope impact.
Overall a core of feasible policies, encased in a layer of aspirations that rest with the uni.
Social Justice
Social Justice doesn’t really have policy positions, more stances on certain issues, often in a very birds-eye sense. Their big issues are Advocacy for Palestine, and mobilizing the student guild and broader student body to this end, pressuring the uni over divestment, and the government as a voting block. The Guild can mobilise the student body, but only to the extent that the student body is interested, so the effectiveness of this is unknowable, and whether it would come at a cost to a focus on campus issues.
They also campaign for freer speech on campus following Uni crackdowns, though they’ve attacked Guild for talking more about AI policy than Gaza in council previously, so their definition of freer speech and conversational priorities are quite expansive. Their forceful campaign tactics are also widely blamed amongst clubs for catalyzing the University’s sweeping repression of student speech, so the efficacy of their advocacy on the issue might be complicated by that history.
Global:
Running on a ticket of limited aspiration, Global typically work within ISD and an OGC or two to influence the current administration to support international students; historically this means they’ve a close relationship with Spark, and run a slightly smaller policy range.
Their main ideas are regular social events and monthly cultural exchanges, as well as events being made multi-culturally accessible, all of which are very feasible. Student artist exhibitions are very possible, self defense stalls are with a little effort, alumni panels also. Educational events on indigenous culture for international students, and mandatory instructional videos for specialised computer programs (think R, Blender, Autocad, degree-specific software) require the university to come to a sympathetic conclusion.
Harder is regular course audits and improving close captioning for lectures, requiring the Uni to impose extra monitoring on professors in audits, and to purchase better software for close captioning.
Hard as well is to get the University to improve the Concierge’s verified accommodation listings platform, which is somewhat underperforming. The Guild would likely struggle to create a similar platform independently.
On representation, its well within its range to push departments to confront and crack down on discrimination, and to lobby the NUS to push against work restrictions as well as create better formal communication with the national body.
G.a.G:
These policies are a little on the looser side, so I’ll try not to labour the point;
Roulette wheels in the Tav is 1) illegal due to licensing, 2) draining money that could be spent by students on beer. Halving the student fees and putting it onto black will also raise the obvious issue of total destitution if lost, beyond the obvious issue of getting the authority to draw out half the Guild’s yearly budget.
A Compulsory gambling statistics unit is, to put it mildly, ‘unlikely’ to gel with the Uni.
Encouraging greater ‘fun’ via increased drinking may run into some liquor licensing issues if taken too far.
Less serious guild politics and less paperwork might struggle with procedural and legal requirements that necessitate a level of gravitas unbecoming to a party based on humour.
Capitalist Union:
Their policies run into a few issues; Interfac sports betting hits the same barriers as Roulette wheels, and the policy of refusing to pay $65,000 to the NUS is contextualised by the fact the Guild only paid $15k to the NUS last year. Assuming complete domination of the Guild they could maybe disaffiliate, but otherwise deeply unlikely and misleadingly presented.
The trickiest one is kicking activists out of decision making; the most literal way you could take this is disaffiliating SAlt and preventing them from operating in the Guild village (which given Uni crackdowns would remove their only allowed operational space), but if they’re referring to council, its both very difficult and very undemocratic to remove people elected in part upon an activist element, which refers to almost every group except Lift, who all take activist stances beyond the scope of the Uni in regards to Gaza, the government, etc.
That’s all the groups for this election; Hopefully know you’re a little bit wiser about which policies are possible, and which ones are enticing but elusive. Stay safe out there, and consider your vote carefully.
We hope you’ve found this fact check informative, if you have any more questions, you can DM us on instagram, @pelicanmagazine, or email us at [email protected]. Candidates positions were taken primarily from their social medias where you can follow up with them as well.
We’ve tried not to misrepresent anyone, and limit any bias or value commentary when assessing the feasibility of these policies – we apologise if anyone thinks that we’ve failed in this endeavour, those same communication channels are open for complaints.