By Nick Soudakoff
CANBERRA — At the centre of a heated debate here in the campaign against the Liberals' attacks on education has been the question of whether or not students should occupy the ANU chancellery building. Members of the International Socialist Organisation (ISO) have argued in each Education Action Group (EAG) meeting over the last month that occupying the chancellery, which they say will "close down the university", is the only option left for the campaign.
The ISO argue that campaigning against the chancellery, and in particular occupying it, will generate a political crisis for the Liberal government. Therefore, they say, student activists on each campus should focus on their own chancelleries as the best way to "stop the VCs bringing in the cuts" (Socialist Worker, September 6).
The ISO should check their facts. It's not the VCs who are bringing in the cuts, but the federal government. The VCs were at first strongly opposed to the education cuts, and some still are; this helped broaden the campaign in its initial stages. In addition, the Senate has not yet voted on the budget.
The alliance between students, the NTEU and vice-chancellors against the cuts fell apart quickly because the VCs generally support student fees and HECS, are prepared to implement the governments cuts and do not support the NTEU's pay claim. So the VCs will and should come under pressure from the campaign. But the question is: at what point should this happen, and should it be the only tactic pursued by the campaign?
At this stage, the campaign should still be focused mainly on opposition to the Liberal government. With surveys showing a majority of people opposed to the education cuts, maximum pressure needs to be put on the Senate opposition parties to block the cuts. Otherwise, we are letting the ALP (Democrats and Greens) off the hook and accepting — without opposition — that the cuts will go through.
Opposing the budget cuts doesn't mean letter-writing to the Senate. It means mobilising the largest number and broadest range of people against the cuts. At the same time, campaign activists realise that while the HECS changes may not go through the Senate, it is unlikely the budget cuts will be stopped because the ALP supports education cuts. So the campaign needs to be an ongoing one.
The VCs will be part of implementing the cuts, but so too will be public servants in DEETYA and the universities. At the same time, the Liberals will be planning further attacks, such as on Austudy, for the May budget next year. This means the education campaign should focus on a variety of actions: against the Liberals; convincing the CPSU to put bans on implementing the cuts; pressuring the VCs.
The notion that occupying chancellery buildings around the country will bring universities to a halt and cause a political crisis for the Liberal government is ludicrous. If the VCs want an occupation ended, they will simply send in the cops, like they did at UQ earlier this year. Further, if the occupation is advertised in advance, as the ISO advocate, then there will be so many cops outside the chancellery entrance, students won't even get a look inside, as happened on August 29 at ANU.
Socialist Worker printed a round-up of the August 29 demonstrations titled "ANU students show how to fight". The article argues that ANU students showed the way because they marched to their chancellery building.
But what really happened? When the call was made to march to the chancellery, half of the 300-strong crowd didn't follow. The demonstrators were blocked by police from entering. Many students felt the action was unsuccessful.
The same article says there is a chance for ANU students to unite with the NTEU because the union members are likely to strike for their pay rise. It is hypocritical of the ISO to talk about united action with the NTEU when they argued that the chancellery should be occupied, regardless of strong opposition to this proposal from the NTEU.
One of the main strengths of the education campaign so far has been the alliance between the NTEU and students. The August 29 demonstration did not coincide with an NTEU strike, and the action was weaker for it. While in all alliances there is give and take, a line of action should not be pursued without considering how it will impact on united action in the future. The ISO should look at what is really meant by "united action" between students and workers — that is, unity in action rather than just sloganeering.
The proposal to occupy the ANU chancellery also alienated student activists from the University of Canberra. Most of them who came to EAG meetings did not agree that an occupation was the best next step in the campaign. As a result, students at UCAN did not demonstrate at all on August 29.
The ISO have pursued their "occupy the chancellery" line despite strong opposition from both the NTEU and education campaign activists from UCAN. The result has been to severely weaken the education campaign, to impair its ability to build the broadest alliance against the Liberals' attacks.
The question of whether to occupy the chancellery is secondary to and flows from the question of what sort of campaign can defeat the education cuts: a campaign that seeks to educate, empower, politicise and mobilise the broadest support possible, or one based on actions which involve a smaller number of students and damage the broad support the campaign has won?
[Nick Soudakoff is a member of the ANU Resistance club and the Education Action Group ticket's candidate for Student Association president.]