The debate for the 20-hour OUSA positions took place in the Main Common Room last Wednesday at 12pm. The sound of microphone feedback was in the air, and the candidates debated in front of a backdrop of 1980s MTV videos. Hosts Kayli Taylor from Radio One and Caroline Moratti from that annoying student magazine grilled the candidates and rang bells to stop them talking.
Finance and Strategy: Josh Meikle (running unopposed)
Josh was relaxed and confident, as anyone probably would be if they were the current Finance and Strategy Representative and running unopposed for the same role. He had practiced a line for the debate in front of the mirror and he was sticking to it, even though it was a debate against himself.
“Finance isn’t just the numbers, it’s the stories behind those numbers as well,” he said at three different points in the debate. He seemed to be pretty confident that he would do a good job. He even extended an answer when asked how he would prevent the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, saying that the problem was the “bubble” and that the solution was having a “clear flow of information from the markets so that people aren’t trading in a false market” (based on my knowledge from The Big Short, this is accurate).
He doesn’t think he scared the other candidates away, though. On his would-be single opponent, who pulled out after the nominations closed, Josh reckoned “he looked like he was gonna be a robust opponent for the election, but maybe he was intimidated by my skinny white boy aesthetic”.
Josh studies Law and Physics, so he is clearly a sucker for punishment. “I love admin, the extent to which I do get a kick out of it, it’s not just numbers on a page, there are stories behind the numbers as well,” he said, circling back to his favourite line. “That’s the fun part, looking at what the numbers would do.” If OUSA had a spare $10,000, he would give more money to the OUSA Grants budget, whose budget had been cut, he said.
Overall, Josh is very qualified and sensible, as shown by his answer to this next question. “How many drugs would you do if you were in the movie The Wolf of Wall Street?” asked Caroline, one of the debate hosts. Josh had obviously thought about this a lot. “That’s a good question. As many drugs as would have maximised my financial capacity for whatever firm I was working for.”
The winner: Josh Meikle, but only if he is taking as many drugs as will maximise his financial capacity for OUSA.
Academic: Adam Currie and Michael Evans
Adam and Michael are very different candidates. Adam opened with a spiel about bringing back student radicalism and said that he would not be afraid to stand up to the University and protest. Michael said he felt that students should have more flexibility to watch lectures online “on their own terms” and that he had the ability to work with other people and bring a “workable perspective” to academic issues.
Adam said he was involved in the protests against cuts to the Marine Science Department. He reckoned that OUSA “should not be afraid” of the University cutting funding if they return to a culture of student radicalism, because “it’s clear they don’t value student representation at all if they do that”. Michael does not have protest experience, but has been involved in lobbying Chris Hipkins through Southern Young Labour. “My experience [around protests] is limited but these are issues I care about, have my own values, and have the ability to be vocal about that.” When asked about the x at the end of his bio, he said it wasn’t to be a fuckboy, but because it was “fun and friendly”.
Both candidates reckon university staff need more funding. Adam said “we need more staff and student representation and less cuts, to make sure they can do their jobs properly”. “I agree,” said Michael. “It’s not something I know a lot about but I would be willing to learn and I find it interesting.”
The hosts got some dancing going (with the backing track of the audience clapping in time, slowly and unenthusiastically). Adam did the floss very quickly and out of time. Michael just stuck his arms out and moved his hips from side to side in time with the claps. After the floss, the debate started to go to shit for Adam.
The hosts started talking about grades and both candidates reckoned their average grade was about an A-. Then Adam said “I finished in 2.5 years, it was a BA so it doesn’t count though. It’s not a hard thing to do.” The crowd was like “oooh”. Kayli asked, “didn’t a BA count? Didn’t you value your academic time at uni?” And then Adam tried to defend himself by saying “I did the easiest papers all the way through, things I had experience in like environmental politics,” but no one was buying it.
After a question about the Cardi B song WAP, Adam said, “I’m excited to have a WAP next year hopefully... woman as president, Michaela.” The room fell silent. Everyone looked at Michaela, who was sitting in the audience, looked mortified. Adam went on to say he didn’t know what WAP meant in another context. For the record, it typically stands for “Wet Ass Pussy”. The debate hosts turned to Michael and asked “any final words”? Michael just said “nah, I’m good”.
The winner: Michael, because he knew when to stop talking.
Welfare and Equity: Maya Polaschek (running unopposed)
The tense end to the Academic Rep debate probably set the bar pretty low for what she had to deliver, but Maya impressed us nonetheless. When asked about any party tricks she knew, she let slip that she actually knew a dance to WAP, and went on to treat the crowd with a performance of it. In a word, it was phenomenal. If she had any opponent she would have knocked them out cold with her fearlessness and charm. A clear sign that she’s ready to do anything for the welfare of her fellow students. God, the things people do for student politics.
Maya has experience as the Equity Officer for DebSoc and already works 25-hour weeks at a bar where “the people who come in are awful sometimes”. To deal with the stress, she said that she is “a big advocate for clear communication, raising issues, and going to therapy”. She feels ready to take on the infamously stressful position of Welfare and Equity Representative which, as host Caroline said, “causes people to have breakdowns”. Maya said that her role as Welfare Representative would be a good opportunity to approach equity-specific issues. “It is good to have a particular person you can go to [for equity issues], but everyone on the Exec should consider equity,” said Maya.
In a world of political snakes, Maya is a bastion of honesty. She was unafraid to admit that she was “not familiar with skunk anatomy” and unashamed to talk about a breakdown she had in a walk-in fridge at her workplace. She spoke openly about her medical history and didn’t back down from sensitive topics like race and mental health. Maya admitted right away when she didn’t know something, and brought a helpful and earnest vibe to the debate.
The winner: Maya (unless enough people vote “no confidence”, which she did remind you was an option if you really wanted to be like that).
Admin VP: Emily Coyle and Jake Perkins
Emily and Jake were at least both capable of giving cohesive answers to the questions they were asked. Emily took a more no-nonsense, hard-lined approach, even clapping back at the hosts. Jake had a bit more fun with what he was doing, but was visibly the more nervous of the two. Emily, concerned that she would sound “lame”, denied to provide a fun fact. Critic deducted a point.
Jake’s fun fact was about a dog, which I took issue with. “Dog-baiting” is a growing tactic in student politics and needs to be stopped. Jake’s story was about sorta maybe repo-ing his landlord’s dog and renaming it “Basil”, which, while extremely charming, is a classic dog-bait political move. You know that we’re all suckers for a good dog story. It’s an unfair tactic, and dogs ought to be left out of politics. They’re too good for that.
Both candidates thought their experience made them the right person for the job. Emily, OUSA’s current Academic Representative, said “I think I’m the best person because I have experience on the Exec this year” and she has the “vision and drive and passion for the role”. She decided to change roles rather than running for Academic Rep again because she has “a passion for seeing the whole exec succeed and making sure that everyone is successful”.
Jake is the current President of UniQ, the OUSA club for queer students. “I would be a great VP because I have presidential experience on UniQ, where I have honed my communication skills, and gained experience with constitutions and policies and leadership and supporting an exec,” he said. He’s also a Comp Sci student, and pointed out that this gave him the edge when it comes to excel spreadsheets. (Emily, on the other hand, said she “enjoyed sliding boxes in excel to make them bigger”.)
The candidates were also asked what they thought about OUSA taking a pro-cannabis legalisation stance on the referendum. Emily admitted that she “supported OUSA taking an educational stance rather than a yes stance because personal feeling aside, education is what OUSA should do,” even though she personally supported legalisation. Jake thought the OUSA did the right thing by supporting legalisation because it “allows the union to provide more support and education”.
Jake might have taken the lead in the excel spreadsheet arena, but he couldn’t name an OUSA policy finalised this year. He tried to name the Sexual Misconduct Policy, which has not been officially finalised. Emily could (of course) name a finalised OUSA policy, because she has been on the Exec all year. She also had a whole “three-pronged” policy on harm reduction ready to go for the debate, which she ran us through in a speedy but efficient one-minute spiel about how OUSA, the Government, and the University could “ensure that students are careful and safe when taking drugs”.
The winner: Emily, for pitching an entire policy in one minute.