Is NUS moving left?

Comment by Alex Bainbridge "Left wins control of national student union" was the headline of an article printed in the Australian on January 10, reporting on the newly elected National Executive of the National Union of Students (NUS). Since NUS's founding in 1987, the National Executive, where national decision-making power is concentrated, has consistently been dominated by the ALP. This year, while the ALP left and right still dominate the voting positions, non-ALP students won seven of the 18 positions. In addition, three of the seven NUS office-bearer positions have been won by the Non-Aligned Left (NAL). These are education, women's and environment officers. A further two positions — welfare officer and small and regional campuses officer — were won by independents. The change has been welcomed by a range of student activists. David Taylor, the new (NAL) education officer, argues that NUS will be "more responsive" to the left and that "there is no structural impediment to left intervention in the union". However, the ALP still controls the two most important positions. Roland Stephens of the ALP right (Student Unity) is the new general secretary. Among other things, this means he is responsible for overseeing NUS's national budget and signing cheques. Although other office-bearers have their own budgets, this is pretty important power. It isn't unheard of for NUS general secretaries to "forget" motions adopted by NUS conference allocating money to important campaigns like that against voluntary student unionism (VSU). Lori Faraone of the National Organisation of Labor Students (NOLS — ALP student left) is NUS president — the 10th consecutive NOLS president of NUS. President is an important political role, responsible for putting forward NUS positions. Notable examples include the announcement that NUS welcomed the federal government's funding of student organisations through DEET in the face of VSU in 1994. Without any discussion by student cross-campus groups, and contrary to the conclusion such groups ultimately drew, NUS (via its president) was able to claim that this was a "great victory" for students, which undercut the campaign. Even more importantly, 11 of the 18 voting members of the National Executive are in the ALP, so the ALP is still firmly in control. Of the other seven, one is a Liberal, one is Left Alliance, two are independents and three are from the NAL. While some on the left describe the internal character of NUS as a shifting balance of power between the ALP and the left, the advantage to the ALP of having one of their own as president is already clear. The ALP youth policy was welcomed in an NUS media release dated January 29. Commenting on the gradual introduction of up-front fees for postgraduate students — the single biggest student campaign last year — didn't seem to occur to Faraone. By contrast, she "recognises" the ALP's "commitment to retaining the current industrial relations system" as a positive non-move and "welcomes the expansion of the Triple J network by the Government" since JJJ is "an important link between young people and the decision makers in this country". On undergrad fees, she noted with "some caution" that the ALP wasn't planning up-front fees for undergrads, adding that this is "significantly more than we have received in assurances from the coalition". Regardless of whether the ALP or the Liberals win government, it is likely that the privatisation and deregulation of education will continue apace, as has occurred under Labor for the last decade. Exactly how far or how fast either of these big business parties can run on education "reform" depends, however, on the level of organised resistance by students. It is unclear exactly what campaign initiatives will come from NUS as a result of the election of left office-bearers. One possibility is an NUS national day of action in March under the banner of "student control of student affairs". Campaigning against attacks on student unions will be particularly important if the Coalition wins federal government. At the same time, the campaign budget in NUS is still very small. A circular sent by the women's officer of NUS Victoria (which represents more than 100, 000 students) to campus women's officers on January 16 states: "As a result of VSU, NUS Victoria has had to cut its budget significantly to ensure its survival beyond 1996. Thus, the amount budgeted for women's campaigns is a mere $400, which obviously limits the number of Victoria specific campaigns we can run." If NUS has no money to run campaigns, why did it charge around $700 per person (of students' money) to attend the NUS national conference, widely regarded as little more than a factional brawl? The question of NUS is an important one for the student movement. NUS, in its current form, cannot be relied upon as an effective coordinator of student campaigns. While NUS continues to be dominated by the ALP and has relative hegemony over the student movement, it remains an obstacle to the development of a movement that is capable of effectively resisting government attacks. However, the existence of an ALP-dominated NUS does not automatically mean that the student movement will be smothered. The No Fees Campaign at the Australian National University in 1994 proves this. Most students, if they even know what NUS is, certainly don't relate to it as their union nor even vote for NUS delegates at a campus level. Even after the results of the recent NUS national conference, most concede that the left is still a long way from having "taken over" NUS. Furthermore, the experience in the late '80s, when Left Alliance and others held positions, was that the ALP was still able to use its dominance to frustrate student campaigns (like the one against HECS). Resistance considers that the most important question for the student movement is how to build an effective opposition to ALP and Liberal attacks on education. In this framework, we welcome the increase in representation of the left in NUS, because this potentially gives the left an extra opportunity to build the student movement. At the same time, we recognise that an increase in left officials in NUS (even a complete takeover) would not automatically result in such an increase in student activism. We believe that the main political orientation for left activists (both inside and outside NUS) should be towards waging a consistent political campaign against Liberal and ALP attacks on education. While left office-bearers can help student campaigns (through political and financial support), the student movement cannot afford to rely on NUS (with or without left office-bearers) to organise and lead our campaigns. The student movement needs to maintain political and therefore organisational independence from NUS, especially when working with NUS on campaigns, and we need to establish whatever methods of coordination are necessary to enable us to do this. It would be a mistake to concede leadership of our campaigns to NUS in the vague hope of future control by the left.
[Alex Bainbridge is a member of the Resistance National Executive and a student activist at Newcastle University.]