Disconnected Voices: a NatCon '24 Retrospective

The National Union of Students (NUS) National Conference (NatCon) asserts its role as the collective voice of Australian higher education students, yet this year, the event didn’t fully realise this ambitious goal. Tasked with unifying and addressing the diverse concerns of Australia’s student body, NatCon holds a pivotal role in student advocacy. However, beneath the surface, the gathering frequently devolved into factional infighting, with political manoeuvring often overshadowing the substantive topics at hand.

While political discourse undeniably has its place within the student advocacy arena, it should not dominate the conversation or become the focal point of such gatherings. The reality is that the majority of students are not entrenched in any particular political party, and their concerns span a broader spectrum than factional ideological conflicts. The primary objective should be to unite students across all faculties, not as factions bound to specific agendas.

On crucial and sensitive matters, such as global solidarity movements like "Support Palestine" or calls to "Condemn Australia’s Inhumane Refugee Detention Practices," debates tend to centre more on which faction can claim moral superiority rather than on formulating practical, actionable solutions to the issues directly affecting students. In such instances, discussions often become pretexts for factions to align with global causes, rather than efforts to address immediate concerns. This lack of focus on student-centred dialogue often leaves attendees feeling frustrated and disillusioned, with the debates frequently detracting from the humanised aspects of these motions.

Thus, unsurprisingly, the more than occasional failure to engage in thoughtful conversation around pressing, on-the-ground issues, contributes to students feeling overlooked and invalidated. For those already grappling with personal hardships, the absence of practical change is not merely disheartening – it is emotionally draining. Students seek immediate tangible support that can alleviate the burdens they bear in their daily lives. Instead, they are confronted with endless cycles of moral posturing that offer little in terms of relief. The emotional toll is significant: students are not merely participants in an event, but individuals contending with grief, anxiety, and survival. 

Furthermore, the NUS and its events are often inaccessible to many students. The language used in motions and debates is frequently dense and laden with jargon, creating a barrier for those who are not deeply embedded in political discourse. This exclusionary culture alienates students who may not have the time, energy, or inclination to navigate such a politicised environment.

Then there’s the sheer volume of the event, which is just... overwhelming. The National Conference, typically held in places like Ballarat, feels more like a marathon than a forum for productive discussion. It’s loud, long, and expensive, and if you didn’t arrive exhausted, you’ll certainly leave that way. For students from rural areas or those on tight budgets, the financial and logistical strain of attending these events is a serious barrier. And once you’re there, the marathon begins: days stretching on for what feels like eternity, packed with back-to-back sessions that leave little room for reflection. By midday, the combination of fluorescent lighting and the collective hum of rising frustration often drives attendees to seek refuge outside or back at home.

NatCon seems to operate under the assumption that the quantity of discourse inherently translates into quality, resulting in a diluted experience. Even well-intentioned motions are often overshadowed by the fatigue induced by endless ideological clashes.

But the most troubling aspect of this event is the culture that has become normalised, one of disrespect and political grandstanding. The environment at NatCon can be grating… to say the least. Political factions spend more time attacking each other than engaging in constructive discussion. Dissent is often shouted down rather than debated, and respect for differing opinions is, well, not always on display. 

The result is an atmosphere where the loudest voices, often the most strident in their political positioning, dominate the conversation, leaving the quieter, more thoughtful voices unheard. 

The motions presented by students at these conferences are undoubtedly commendable, reflecting the passion and ambition of young people eager to advocate for change. It is encouraging to witness such enthusiasm directed toward important issues, ranging from social justice to human rights, as students strive to make their voices heard. Yet, at times, the conference loses its way, as ideological debates eclipse the concerns that should be central to the conversation.

Ultimately, NatCon must strive to better fulfill its core mission. Rather than serving as a genuine representative event for students, it has evolved into an institution driven by factionalism and political agendas. Although the NUS has made significant strides in advocating for certain causes, its broader mandate (to represent and address the needs of all students) continues to be a work in progress. If the NUS embraces its role as the collective voice of Australia’s student population, it has the potential to transform into a more effective, inclusive body.