Last year, the very insular world of student politics went viral, albeit for a brief moment. A clip emerged of some sort of shouting match between around a hundred students in a lecture hall. It’s very hard to tell exactly what is going on, but there is a lot of yelling.

This clip was taken on the floor of the 2025 National Union of Student’s National Conference (henceforth referred to as the NUS and NatCon). For those not in the know about the NUS, give thisopinion piece and guide a read. The video in question concerned a conflict between Socialist Alternative and the Labor factions, both of whom blamed each other for the conference’s inability to reach quorum. The behaviour here is appalling: a mob of students yelling shame and pointing at other screaming students. The virality of the clip (boosted by Victorian Socialists Senate candidate Jordan van Lamb amongst others) focused on one point: are these really our future leaders? Is this mob of jeering students the crop from which Ministers will one day be picked?

These are fair questions but today I want to focus on something else. This behaviour is subsidised by student dollars. $34k worth of our SSAF is sent to the NUS annually, and NatCon is the NUS’s largest event. I want to examine whether ANU students are getting a fair shake from the money they spend on the NUS.

What are we paying for?

The NUS acts as a mega-sized student advocacy group. With the majority of universities having their student unions affiliated to the NUS, the NUS can act as a semi-official spokesperson for tertiary students. The size of the NUS gives it the clout it needs to advocate for student policy where governments have blind spots, such as Sexual Assault and Sexual Harrassment (SASH) policy. This is a good idea! To have students play a role in their own policymaking is important, and is arguably worth spending student money on. Perhaps the most notable win of the NUS in recent years is its involvement in the Albanese Government’s University Accords, where the NUS has claimed to have been influential in the guaranteed 40% of SSAF allocated to student unions and the creation of the National Student Ombudsman.

What are we actually getting?

This ideal version of the NUS is unfortunately impeded by numerous structural issues within the organisation. The effectiveness of the NUS in its role is hampered by three key issues: unprofessionalism, factionalism, and financial mismanagement. These issues all play into each other and decrease the reputation of the NUS that it desperately needs in order to act as an effective advocacy group. 

Factionalism

Perhaps the biggest indictment of the NUS is that they are unable to properly run their own biggest conference. NatCon 2025, a conference meant to go for four days, this year went for only two. This was due to a protracted debacle around the allocation of NUS National Executive (NX) positions. Historically, negotiating an NX allocation without creating tensions among the various NUS factions required careful compromise. Given their combined size and influence as agenda-setters, the Labor factions often had to allocate certain positions to other groups, including their long-standing rivals in Socialist Alternative (SAlt). After running the numbers, this year the Labor factions cut a deal to lock SAlt out of any positions. This predictably caused SAlt to call foul and agitate for a SAlt member to be allocated the position of Education Officer. To force Labor’s hand, SAlt pulled its delegates on the first day of NatCon. Conference rules dictate that NatCon can only go ahead if quorum is met, meaning that 50% +1 of votes must be physically on the floor. SAlt didn’t have the numbers to pull quorum by themselves.—

Bbut as this interfactional drama played out, so too did intrafactional drama in Victoria. The Victorian branch of Student Unity, incensed at the alleged wrongs of at-the-time Student Unity national convenor and NUS General Secretary, Aidan O’Rourke. Vic Unity claimed O’Rourke had too often proxied Unity votes to non-Unity factions, meddled in Vic Unity internal affairs, and signed up to political deals without Unity approval. Vic Unity, unhappy with O’Rouke, sought to replace him and purge the NSW Unity branch, of which he was a member. Vic Unity was unhappy with this state of affairs, and did the mature thing by pulling quorum. This led to the conference not starting. Delegates, despite having all travelled out to Ballarat for the sole purpose of attending the conference, were unable to negotiate a start to the conference until two days in. This led to around 50% of conference motions not being debated at NatCon.

This ridiculous and inane political conflict is but one example of the continuously destabilising effect the factionalism of the NUS has on the organisation itself. There is of course value to factionalism—this can be seen in the relatively efficient factions in the Federal Labor Party, who rarely cause a fuss like that seen at the NUS. Structuring discussions along ideological lines can be valuable, as disregarding the critical political issues affecting students today—such as university investments in weapons or the rising cost of higher education—would be imprudent. 

“However, this is not the approach taken by the factions within the NUS. The factions are often headed by young powerbrokers who, fancying themselves the next Don Farrell or Andrew Giles, are more interested in victory over their factional rivals rather than leading real change for students. In particular, SAlt appears more focused on advancing its own political agenda than on student interests, as the leaders of the quorum exert influence and their antagonism toward the Labor factions (mutually reciprocated) undermines the NUS’s ability to effect substantive progress

The NUS would do well to take after SAlt and NLS darling Vladimir Lenin in instituting a temporary ban on factions to improve its efficiency and reputation.

Professionalism (or a lack thereof)

One glance at the video should serve to demonstrate that delegates to NUS NatCon do not hold themselves to a very high professional standard. The video captured here is likely not the worst thing that goes on at NatCon; physical fights, slurs, jeers, and a seemingly long-held tradition of eating motions to stop them from passing. The only reason these things are not caught on camera is that the first motion passed at every NatCon is a ban on recording the conference; the only reason the quorum debarcle was able to be recorded was that NatCon hadn’t technically begun. This tradition of banning recording shows how delegates are aware of their appalling behaviour and seek to hide it. While all factions vote up the recording ban, one aspect of its purpose seems to be to protect the future careers of misbehaving Labor faction members, many of whom aspire to political careers.

The unprofessional behaviour extends into aspects of the conference itself. If it was not already clear from the quorum debacle that NUS delegates do not take NatCon seriously, the motions passed should show how delegates can treat NatCon like a joke. Procedural motions included a motion renaming the Business Committee to “Big Chungus” and requiring one delegate be only addressed as “Muff Muff”, amongst other joke motions.

A large number of motions also scored very highly on AI text detectors. The amount we spend on the NUS—approximately 34k—should at the very least go toward motions written by the real humans in attendance at NatCon, but that is seemingly a hard ask. The NUS’s central purpose of student-led policymaking is greatly undermined if the said policy is based on the questionable pattern recognition of generative AI rather than lived student experience.

The party culture at the NUS also presents a problem for its reputation. Parties occur every night after the conference ends, where “Unity Punch” is flowing and the smell of blue-cherry-pineapple vapour abounds. While occasional alcohol consumption is understandable, drinking on a daily basis poses challenges for the functioning of the NUS Delegates often abandon their responsibility to be on conference floor due to their raging hangovers. This being a regular problem suggests that partying all night may erode their basic competencies.

Financial Mismanagement

Value for money at the NUS is low. But it can get lower. The NUS has been consistently plagued by financial issues. NUS officeholders are appointed to their positions (many of which control finances) by a vote at NatCon. The vote to approve officeholders is factional, which can cause issues in terms of merit. While many officeholders are competent, some have placed factional allegiances above their duties as officeholders. The most recent financial scandal occurred in 2022, with 2021 NUS Secretary Param Mahal and 2020 NUS Secretary Samuel Roberts being embroiled in a financial scandal involving $9,500 that you can read about here. 

The financial issues within the NUS have a long history—way back in 2013, an independent audit found that decades old structural problems had caused large deficits in the NUS. Considering the money wasted on the two days of nothing at NatCon amounted to around $300,000, it is fair to say that student politicians may not have the best handle on your money. The NUS operates on a budget of approximately $556k, with $300k allocated to NatCon and none devoted to maintaining its own website. This is a pretty good example of the priorities of the NUS.

What can we do instead?

There’s a tension between the NUS as it actually is and the NUS as it should be. So what is to be done? Many people involved with NUS who see the problems with the organisation but still believe in it wish to see it reformed. This approach is admirable, but misguided. The previously mentioned audit has noted that the roots of the issues with the NUS have existed since its inception and have continued to exacerbate. At this point, it is better to see the NUS die and a new student advocacy group rise from its ashes—one that is less factional and more accountable and student focused.

Some would label this a blow to students, citing the NUS’s tangible wins in the university accords. I do not think this would occur. One of the problems with the NUS is that it is ineffective under Liberal governments—the party that abolished mandatory student unionism and introduced the disastrous Job-ready Graduates policy is not inclined to listen to students, let alone students primarily from Young Labor. The NUS can only effectively advocate for changes in government policy under a Labor government. But if the NUS is largely populated with Young Labor students, why are students paying for Labor students to tell the Labor Party their policy ideas anyway? If you are the type of person to spend four days out in regional Victoria to go to a political conference, you can surely go to, say, an Education Working Group within the Labor Party itself. Let the Labor students who are passionate about education policy advocate for it themselves or let the ALP create its own NUS-like structure for Labor students. Student-oriented policymaking can continue under such a structure, while student unions have more cash to spend on their own students.

To let the NUS die, ANUSA would have to disaffiliate from the NUS. ANUSA has disaffiliated from the NUS before. There is an entrenched opposition to disaffiliation, with Young Labor and SAlt ready to stack ANUSA meetings to ensure they can continue their domination of the NUS.

Students should get value for money, and the NUS is ripping them off. We should not stand for it.

Do you have a view about the NUS?  Send us your thoughts at write@woroni.com.au.