By Jack Cross
Political misinformation is nothing new and it would appear that even Guild elections are not exempt. Let’s run through some of the more common gossip that crops up around this time of the year.
Voting misconceptions
There are two common rules around voting that are often misunderstood, particularly by new students.
Firstly, it is not the case that you have to be a Guild member. While this would make sense, since it is a Guild election, the franchise actually extends to all enrolled students (Guild Election Regulations 2024, s 620(1)(a)). This affects only a small minority of students, as Guild membership rates are usually around 97%, a remarkably high level of participation. Regardless, all UWA students are invited to participate, and there is no need to become a Guild member to have your say in the election.
Secondly, although you are definitely encouraged to, it is by no means compulsory to vote. Candidates have in the past been penalised for suggesting this is the case, and if you hear of any candidate making such a claim then it should be reported to the returning officer.
Further, although not strictly a misconception, many voters are unaware (or at least don’t really realise) that they don’t need to vote on all ten of the ballot papers they are issued. So if you’re in the ballot box just to support a friend, you can opt to only cast a vote in the election for the specific position they are running for.
Finally, it’s silly to be fatalistic about the outcome. At UWA results are typically stable year-to-year with one group consistently winning most office-bearing positions, but these are by no means guaranteed, and a strong campaign by one particularly good candidate can lead to changes. There are also 13 ordinary councillor positions to fill which are highly competitive – a group can win all office-bearer positions and still end up with a minority of ordinary councillor positions. There are also National Union of Students delegates to be elected, which are likewise competitive and often more evenly split between the overall “winner” and the other groups. Relative to other Universities, UWA’s elections have a high turnout, with a genuinely competitive ticket; it might seem like there’s an annoying amount of parties, but it’s a sign of a vibrant student democracy, with everything to play for.
Candidates want to be elected because they are paid
This is a very, very popular misconception. There are, however, only two representatives that are paid: the Guild President and PSA President. In the case of the former, they are obliged to take a year away from study to work full time, and receive the minimum wage for a full-time employee in exchange. The latter is required to work part-time, and receives the equivalent pay.
There are no other elected Guild representatives that receive any pay in the form of wages or stipends.
On a related note, there’s a popular claim that Guild representatives are “corrupt”. This probably emerges because the Guild is often seen as opaque or difficult to understand, and it’s easy to ascribe wrongdoing to something not fully understood. Alternatively, there might be confusion between a student union and a trade union: the latter can be quite corrupt (see, for example, recent news regarding organised crime and construction unions), but student unions are not quite the same thing. The Guild’s expenses are regularly externally audited (the audit report is presented at each year’s OGM), and student representatives cannot claim expenses beyond reimbursement for approved expenses they have paid out of pocket. This claim is more likely to be made out of malice due to a distaste for Guild politics than it is to be based on any serious evidence.
[X] group is from [Y] political party
This is actually generally true for most universities across Australia, but it is not true at UWA. We’re fortunate to not have strictly partisan elections.
At most large universities, and especially in New South Wales and Victoria, it is common to see electoral tickets run along partisan lines, typically Labor Right, Labor Left, the Liberals, the Greens, and Socialist Alternative.
At UWA, although some candidates and current representatives are definitely members of political parties, we do not have strictly partisan tickets except for the Socialist Alternative-run Social Justice ticket.
[X] group is funded by [Y]
This one is a little less popular but has resurfaced this year. It makes little sense as external groups would have little to gain by financing a campaign for a student union, but is nevertheless popular, sometimes even amongst candidates.
However, candidates are strictly limited in the sorts of material they can use, how much of it they can produce, and how much they can spend in that process (Guild Election Regulations 2024, s 622). Other types of spending that might actually be useful, such as digital advertising, are strictly prohibited (s 622A(a)).
On the other hand, there is some sort of spending that can’t fully be captured – for example, there is no way to prevent a group spending money on its branding. This, however, can have only a trivial impact on an election compared to the sort of funding that is actually regulated (physical material visible on campus).
The Guild/[X] group has failed to do [Y]
Students like to say the Guild has failed to do something even outside of election time. Parking is a great example (and source of endless bemusement amongst representatives): students absolutely love blaming the Guild for the shortage of parking, even though parking lots are university infrastructure, and their supply is not something the Guild is consulted on. (The Guild has done some advocacy work to reform the parking system – they do not, however, get a say in whether more is built.)
The truth is that the Guild’s scope is more complex than everything or nothing. A lot of election promises are inevitably focused on advocacy, whether that be with the university or an external body (the Public Transport Authority is a popular one). Sometimes this advocacy is successful, such as the reform to special consideration, and sometimes it is not. This can’t be reliably predicted ahead of time.
Similarly, although groups like to argue that another group has failed to do something, this is not exactly a coherent argument. Because one group tends to take virtually all office-bearing positions and gains a majority of votes on Council, there’s limited opportunity for the groups with only one, two, or three representatives to implement their policies. That doesn’t mean they get a free pass for not doing anything all year, but it does mean they shouldn’t be expected to implement their election promises if it’s out of their scope. To give an example, none of the minority groups – that is, GLOBAL, REVIVE, LIFT, and Social Justice – should be criticised for failing to implement one of their 2024 policies for the Education portfolio, because the President of the Education Council is Jay Williams from SPARK.