Welcome back to the Glass coverage of the Guild Student Representative Council (SRC) Meetings of 2025. This is our coverage of February’s meeting, held on Wednesday 26 February 2025 at D106, Gardens Point Campus.
We will be bringing student coverage of these meetings throughout the year, providing insight into the Student Representative Council (SRC).
These meetings include the motions put forward by the Guild Executives and other students for the SRC to vote on – which will directly impact your university experience.
All current students can attend SRC meetings. If you want to see change on campus, we encourage you to put forward a motion to the SRC.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
You can also access the meeting agenda and documents associated with motions raised at the meeting in this folder.
AND WE’RE OFF!
The QUT Guild Council convened for its second meeting of the year on February 26, scheduled for 6:00 PM. True to tradition, proceedings officially commenced at 6:24 PM with Guild Secretary Sebastian Page acting as Chair.
In attendance: Emme Muggleton (President), Sebastian Page (Secretary), Gaurang Agrgarwal (Secretary), Nicholas Vile (Clubs and Societies Officer), Ojas Munjal (Engagement Officer), Erin Milne (Education Officer), Georgie Dobbs (Environment Officer), Manya Sharma (International Officer), Mitchell Swift (Frist Nations Officer), Samara Kyrtsanas (Women’s Officer), Lauren (Ren) Johnstone (Queer Officer), Ethan Johnstone (Disability Officer), Jordan McAlister (Engineering Faculty Councillor), Michael Pendergrast ( Engineering Faculty Councillor), Yuanyi Tham (Business & Law Faculty Councillor), Adi Yas (Science Faculty Councillor), Isabella Folley (CIESJ Faculty Councillor).
Online: Steven H. Wu (Welfare Officer), Aaron Atkinson (Science Faculty Councillor)
Apologies: None
Absent: Maya Rawlinson (Health Faculty Councillor), Sarah Vilumsons (Health Faculty Councillor).
First Up: Vacancies!
Several positions remained vacant at the start of the meeting, including Postgraduate Officer, CIESJ Councillor, and Council Chair. Candidates stepped forward to fill these roles, each presenting their vision for the Guild.
Jamie, a second-semester psychology student, ran for Council Chair, highlighting her ability to apply regulations, moderate debates, and handle conflicts. Jamie assured the Council of her ability to balance both the role and her studies. With no opposition, she was elected.
Postgraduate student in digital communication María Ramos ran for the postgraudate officer position. María cited her experience as a former Women’s Officer and student representative, with a focus on career development and mental health support. Maskeen Kaur, a master’s student in teaching, emphasized her background in student welfare and event coordination, aiming to improve postgraduate support.
Maskeen Kaur was elected for the position of Postgraduate Officer.
Elowyn Gampe ran unopposed for the second CIESJ Councillor position, using her speech to criticize the cuts to creative industries and advocate for student rights. With no objections, she secured the position.
An argument broke out over whether votes should be cast on or off-camera, with some members advocating for transparency and others arguing that not every decision needs a public premiere.
The Council voted to keep some things off-screen.
Let’s move to the motions!
Queer Collective Shifts Election Timeline for Smoother Transitions
Queer Collective Secretary Isaac Oliver moved the first motion of the night, which sought to tweak the timing of the Queer Collective Office Bearer elections. Seconded by Queer Officer Ren Johnstone, the proposal aimed at shifting the elections to October or November in an effort to create smoother leadership transitions and improve student engagement.
The argument was simple: electing new office bearers at the end of the academic year would give them a head start before the following year’s activities – mirroring how other student collectives operate. Supporters also pointed out that avoiding Guild Council scheduling delays would ensure a more efficient transition process.
With no opposition, the motion sailed through without a hitch.
Trans Healthcare Motion: The Guild Takes a Stand
The second motion of the night addressed the Queensland Government’s recent decision to pause access to gender-affirming care for trans youth under 18 in the public health system. The motion, moved by Queer Officer Ren Johnstone and seconded by Environment Officer Georgie Dobbs, called for the QUT Guild to condemn the decision and stand in solidarity with trans young people. The discussion centered on accessibility to puberty blockers and gender-affirming care, with Johnstone making their stance clear: “Puberty blockers are reversible. Death is not.”
Dobbs reinforced the urgency of the issue, linking it to broader political trends. “The far right is on the rise, and they’re coming for trans rights, migrants, and women. This isn’t just about healthcare; it’s about fighting back,” she argued.
Supporters of the motion emphasized the Guild’s responsibility to actively protect students rather than simply issue statements. “The Guild can’t afford to be passive on this,” said Elowyn Gampe, pointing to reports of over 1,000 trans individuals in Queensland that had been removed from healthcare lists.
Not everyone agreed on every detail. Manya Sharma, the International Officer raised concerns about the age at which puberty blockers should be accessible, questioning the long-term effects. Johnstone dismissed these concerns, saying they stem from “a lack of understanding,” clarifying that gender-affirming care involves a rigorous process, including psychological evaluations, psychiatric approval, and parental consent.
As the debate unfolded, one key message stood out: this wasn’t just about policy, but about people’s fundamental rights. “Denying this care is denying people the right to exist as they need to,” Johnstone stated in their final remarks.
When it came to a vote, the motion passed with a strong majority, with only two abstentions. The Guild had made its position clear: trans healthcare is a student issue, and they would fight to protect it.
Onto Motions Without Notice!!
Performing Arts Cuts: QUT’s Culture Crisis?
The Guild turned its attention to the ongoing cuts to QUT’s performing arts programs, specifically the discontinuation of the Dance Performance degree and the termination of 1,500 casual staff. The motion, moved by Erin Milne and seconded by Emme Muggleton, condemned the university’s decision, arguing that education should not be sacrificed for profit.
Milne criticized QUT’s shift towards a more corporate model, “they want to churn students out as quickly as possible, with little regard for the quality of education or the value of creative industries.” Muggleton echoed this sentiment, pointing out that executive salaries continue to rise while essential programs and student support services are being gutted.
The motion also saw contributions from Business and Law Councillor Yuanyi Tham, who questioned the source of these budget cuts, pointing out that similar reductions in arts and humanities programs are occurring nationwide.
In her right of reply, Milne noted that creative degrees are often systematically phased out under the pretense of underperformance, rather than being properly funded. She cited the University of Sydney’s recent cuts to creative degrees as evidence of a broader trend in Australian higher education and stressed the need for an urgent, student-led response. The Guild committed to launching a campaign, including a Glass Magazine article, a Week 3 forum for affected students, and a mobilization strategy to resist further cuts.
A procedural dispute arose when an amendment was proposed by Sebastian Page, seeking to enforce restrictions on Guild representatives operating their own Instagram accounts beyond those officially sanctioned. The amendment was met with resistance, with Erin Milne rejecting it outright, calling its sudden introduction an act of “bad faith.” Muggleton, however, seconded the amendment, citing an HR meeting that confirmed such a policy’s existence, arguing that having multiple accounts could breach Guild regulations.
Isabella Folley, the CIESJ Councillor, strongly refuted the amendment, asserting that no such policy had been formally ratified or passed through proper channels. She further argued that the restriction was legally unenforceable and that Milne, as the Education Officer, had every right to communicate through her personal platform.
Rather than allow the issue to overshadow the motion’s core objectives, Milne offered to discard Action 1 of the motion, effectively withdrawing the contested social media restriction.
With the amendment withdrawn, the main motion passed, affirming the Guild’s commitment to opposing the cuts and advocating for stronger support for the arts at QUT.
Shuttle Bus Motion: Accessibility or Austerity?
The final motion of the evening centered on the controversial removal of the QUT shuttle bus service, a decision that sparked widespread frustration among students. Moved by Guild President Emme Muggleton and seconded by Secretary Sebastian Page, the motion called for the Guild to actively oppose the university’s decision and advocate for the reinstatement of essential transport services.
Describing the removal as “utterly disgusting,” Muggleton criticized the lack of student consultation, arguing that such an essential service should never have been cut without student input. Page reinforced this sentiment, calling the decision “appalling and sickening,” stating that “education is a gateway to opportunity, and when essential services like transport are removed, access to education suffers.”
Concerns were raised about the broader implications of the decision, particularly regarding accessibility and equity. Page pointed to QUT’s existing infrastructure issues, highlighting that first-year lectures are already overcrowded, with up to 2,000 students expected to attend in person lectures into rooms built for 400. He argued that making the university even harder to access would push students toward alternative institutions like UQ.
Ren Johnstone questioned the university’s priorities, “you are only helping people, not hindering anything, except QUT’s money.” Meanwhile, Johnstone raised concerns about the disproportionate impact on students with disabilities, stating that “you should not be barred from your education just because you can’t access it.”
An amendment proposed by First Nations Officer Mitchell Swift suggested that alternative services should also be provided to help students travel across the hilly terrain of Kelvin Grove. Johnstone supported the amendment, calling the reliance on others for accessibility “dehumanizing” and stressing that alternative transport solutions were a necessity.
The amendment was passed unanimously.
With overwhelming support, the motion itself passed, solidifying the Guild’s stance against the shuttle bus removal and reinforcing its commitment to student accessibility.
The Guild meeting officially adjourned at 8:24 PM. For those who thrive on the thrill of student politics, watch this space. Glass will be here to report on every debate, motion, and procedural hiccup, so stay tuned, because student governance has never failed to entertain us (Also it’s always good to know what is going on with your universities’ student representative council).
