– Judy Kuo and Tom Swann in interview with Odette Shenfield
When Fossil Free ANU began in 2011, it was one of the first fossil fuel divestment campaigns in the world. At the time, the coal seam gas company Metgasco was planning on fracking in the Norther Rivers of NSW. Activists from there got in touch with ANU students with news that the ANU was one of the top shareholders in Metgasco. Students were outraged at this revelation, which came at a time when coal seam gas was being increasingly scrutinised for its water impacts and the risk of fugitive emissions. From there, Fossil Free ANU developed into a sustained campaign over the past five years, calling on ANU to sell their investments in all fossil fuel companies.
Tom Swann, Judy Kuo and I represent three generations of Fossil Free ANU activists — Tom Swann helped establish the campaign in 2011 and stayed involved until 2015, I was involved from 2014 – 2016, and Judy has been involved for the past year and a half. On a cold Canberra Sunday morning, I met for coffee with Tom and Judy to hear stories and lessons from their campaign days.
Early Engagement with Fossil Free ANU
Activists frequently speak of their moments of political awakening. These stories often involve emotionally transformative, high-impact events or encounters. For both Judy and Tom, their initial involvement with Fossil Free ANU was comparatively serendipitous and modest. Both recall their engagement arising from friendships. For Judy, she became involved at the request of a friend to paint a mural for the group. Both then attended a few meetings and their involvement grew from there. Tom describes his immediate dedication to the Metgasco campaign: “I spent a fair bit of time on that instead of finishing the assignment I was supposed to do. Which turned out to be the right choice.”
The Peculiar Role of Student Activists
Tom relates several stories involving the campaign leveraging students’ unique skills and interests. In contrast to the stereotypical image of student activists as ‘feral hippies’, he highlights their capacity for rigorous research.
Describing the early campaign to get ANU to divest from Metgasco, Tom says:
“We asked very pointed questions to [former Vice Chancellor] Ian Young very politely at an event. He couldn’t answer so we followed up with a very long, very densely footnoted letter—as only students can—pointing out that despite what Ian Young said, Metgasco does indeed frack and was boasting about how much fracking it was going to do. He’d claimed Australian Ethical Investments had given the tick to coal seam gas fracking, but it had turned out that just a week beforehand they had sold their shares in coal seam gas.”
This led to an unexpected early campaign success. According to Tom, in reply to the Environment Collective’s email, Ian Young sent a two-line email informing the group that the ANU would divest from Metgasco.
Tom recalls their surprise at the email: “We were getting ready to dig trenches [laughs], and get strapped in for a long and silly campaign, and it was over quite quickly.”
Later, with the Fossil Free movement taking off across the USA, the group realised they needed to go beyond Metgasco and start pushing for a Fossil Free ANU.
After the initial win, Tom describes how the students’ research skills again proved useful.
“I remember my friend Tom Stayner pestered me to put in a Freedom of Information request to find out what was happening with the Metgasco investment and what else the ANU owned. I did that and the ANU blocked access. They said there was no public interest in disclosure, which was pretty outrageous because we were the public and we were very, very interested.”
Tom says he became an armchair expert in the Freedom of Information Act and pointed out all the ways the ANU had misinterpreted the Act. We appealed and got access.”
When the students gained access to the documents, they learned that concurrently with selling their Metgasco shares, the ANU was buying shares in a self-described industry leader in fracking, Santos. Tom recalls, “Then it was not just secrecy but hypocrisy.”
According to Tom, that was when the campaign realised the need to go beyond Metgasco and became Fossil Free ANU.
The Bellwether Moment
In 2014, while both Tom and I were heavily involved in Fossil Free ANU, the campaign caused media and political frenzy when ANU announced it would divest from seven mining companies for ethical reasons, including two fossil fuel companies — Santos and Oil Search. Then leader of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne, referred to it as a “bellwether moment” in the global divestment movement. Then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in line with several other Cabinet members criticising the decision, described the decision as “stupid”. Analysis of the decision occupied the front page of the Australian Financial Review for weeks.
Tom again recalls the serendipity of that decision: “Because they made such an unusual decision, announced it in such a weird and slightly incompetent way—they were never really able to present a fully transparent account—that was part of why the Financial Review and the Government went so feral toward them. Which, ironically ended up making it a much bigger deal than it would have been.”
In this way, what was likely not intended to be a significant divestment decision at the time became the most important fossil fuel divestment decision in Australian history.
The Challenges of Student Organising
While students may have proficient research skills, Tom also describes the difficulties in student organising. He thinks students have “a surplus of distractions … Apart study and probably work, there are so many things that are so interesting to be doing at any one time, so the campaign has to be even more interesting than all of those other things they could be doing.”
While he expresses some regret over feeling as though he did not manage to make the campaign interesting enough, he then adds that he also regrets taking on too great a personal responsibility for the success or failure of the campaign. For example, he regrets those moments when he thought that if the campaign failed, it would be because he, “didn’t make it exciting enough.”
Judy on the other hand—perhaps surprisingly for a climate activist—reflects that she would have liked to be more patient during her time campaigning. “I think Fossil Free ANU has had a tumultuous year, not because the campaign has necessarily changed as such but because the circumstances have changed. One of the things that really hurt the group was discovering about the backflip on partial divestment.”
The backflip she refers to is the revelation this year that the ANU has no longer blacklisted the companies it divested from in 2014 and has reinvested in several of them.
Judy continues, “The amount of work that went into making that happen is falling apart. That’s not to say it was a waste of time, but it shows that progress doesn’t necessarily progress.”
Tom puts it more bleakly. For environmentalists, he quotes David Brower, “losses are permanent, wins are temporary.”
For Judy, this underscores the importance of “thinking in the long-term rather than thinking in terms of losses and wins.” She also highlights the need for students to think beyond the time period of their degrees. She describes the group making a collective decision not to engage in a highly disruptive act of non-violent direct action this year on the basis that in the long-term it would not be strategic or productive. This was despite some campaigners wanting a dramatic, disruptive event to occur before they graduated. I note that it might become strategic soon, as the group has held out for a while.
Both Tom and Judy also lament the difficulties of student organising with the constant turnover of students – not knowing if the campaign will continue when core members graduate each year. On the other hand, Tom describes the rewarding feeling of seeing the campaign endure despite this threat.
“I remember distinctly, arranging for a question at the Commencement address with Penny Wong in 2014 and collecting signatures outside. I remember seeing Ian Young being so despondent that this thing hadn’t gone away. They just hope that between graduation periods, maybe those students have graduated or given up.”
Group Structure, Creativity and Creating a Sense of Ownership Over the Campaign
On the tension between flat, consensus decision-making and having an organised group structure, Tom is firm on the need for a coherent structure, recalling frustration at times regarding the difficulties agreeing on the structure of Fossil Free ANU. “If you’re outside of that it’s demotivating. People who might otherwise get involved see this mess—an effort to impose a structure with divergent views. It demotivates people who are involved and it becomes a de facto power structure anyway.”
Judy indicates that the campaign now has a greater level of structure, while maintaining a commitment to non-hierarchical organising. “Our structure was based more on different aspects of maintaining the campaign rather than hierarchy, administrative roles versus research or media. We never had coordinators or convenors.”
She also describes the vital importance of creating a group structure that creates widespread identification with the campaign. Judy compares her experience with Fossil Free ANU with her work as president of Amnesty ANU.
“Coming from Amnesty—a very established organisation—a lot of their recruiting is about bringing in new people, not necessarily people who’ll ever get involved in a core team, just creating and maintaining a general support base.”
“We tried to figure out the best group structure so people inside the group don’t burnout and people outside the group see us as something they identify with.”
Judy also sees creativity as having a unique role in generating a sense of ownership over the campaign. She gives the example of someone creating an artwork or performing a song for the campaign. In both cases, she says the creative act comes with the knowledge that, “It’s not just anyone who could’ve done that particular song or mural, it’s really your own.”
Tom similarly says the most rewarding part of the campaign for him was seeing other people take ownership over the cause.
He recalls showing up to Union Court, seeing Ray Yoshida, Steph Willis and myself sitting under the cherry blossom trees. Earlier that day, we had been told we could not do a student referendum on the question of divestment, as the ANUSA Constitution had no provision to call a referendum.
“I remember joining that conversation and you were already so far down the train of thinking. That was a cool moment! There was a momentum there and a strategic energy working through problems and owning it. And it [the student referendum about divestment] happened! Not only did we get all the candidates to support it. Not only did we talk to hundreds of people, it was the biggest turnout in a long time to the AGM– it was a beautiful moment. It was the first time the campaign made itself vulnerable in a really public way. I remember thinking – God, what if people think this is nonsense and vote against it, what will happen?”
The Problem of Burnout
Both Judy and Tom recall experiencing activist burnout. Ultimately, they both consider communication within the group to be the most important thing for managing burnout and supporting others.
Judy outlines, “Saying you need to take a break is so much better than not getting the things done you’re meant to do. You’re also better off assuming other people are burnt out than not. That’s not to say you exclude them but reaching out to bring it to light, even if they haven’t picked it up is really important. It can really help stop further disasters. When people feel burnt out but haven’t necessarily reconciled with that fact and push on, it’s not good for anyone.”
Yet, we both also recognise that the emotional labour of checking in on others often falls on the women of the group. Judy says she would advise other activist groups, “to spread that responsibility.” She adds, “It’s not necessarily a nice position to be the mother of the group in that way.”
The Humanities and Activism
Perhaps coincidentally, the three of us are all humanities students—Tom has a background in philosophy, Judy has just finished her Honours in sociology and majored in philosophy, and I majored in sociology and did a minor in philosophy. When I ask for their reflections on the relationships between activism and the humanities, their answers surprise me. In my own life, my humanities studies and my activism have mutually informed one another, in a kind of symbiotic relationship. By contrast, both Tom and Judy, immediately highlight the dissonance they have experienced between their studies and their activism.
Tom describes how his training in philosophy initially came into significant conflict with his activism.
“Organising is very quick and practical, very focused on picking up on social cues and what motivates people and overcoming personal and social barriers. You’re not asking questions for the sake of asking questions, you’re asking them to make something happen. That was exciting but really challenging for me, it’s such a different way of being to philosophy.”
Judy similarly argues that constantly focussing on critique can inadvertently lead to inertia for some people.
“Constantly looking for problems and being very attuned to what’s problematic about approaches can be unproductive. I think this is the case with a lot of humanities students interested in social change, a lot of the movements around you aren’t ideologically or philosophically perfect, there are so many errors, and assumptions made in the rhetoric used, perpetuations of dominant logics are key to a lot of social movements that we witness today.” “This isn’t to say humanities students are complacent, but the fact that they care can be debilitating, because theory doesn’t necessarily always translate to action.”
Yet, Tom also concedes that perhaps his experience of conflict between philosophy and activism merely reflected that he was “doing the wrong type of philosophy.” Over time, he said he has managed to bring the two together more harmoniously: “Finding a way to bring philosophical ideas into my activism and to be more strategic in my philosophical thinking in time was a good thing.”
Ultimately, Judy has been able to overcome this contradiction through her drive to improve and learn from mistakes, rather than striving for perfection.
“I’m of the belief that you just have to do it and it can’t be perfect, there’s always room for improvement no matter what social space you’re talking about. Doing it imperfectly is better than not, and being able to address the mistakes is better than not making them in the first place.”
Tom underscores this point, responding, “I think it’s a really important lesson for university students to learn, it’s so easy to just read the books and articles and not have a sense of what it’s personally like for those critiques to rub up against what is actually involved in getting stuff to happen.”
A Grassroots Movement Putting Climate on The Agenda
When the ANU partially divested in 2014, Fossil Free ANU spokesperson Louis Klee wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald:
[E]ven when Prime Minister Abbott refuses to put climate change on the agenda, the actions of the students of ANU have put it in the public eye once again. And the success of this grassroots movement in creating this crucial moment in Australia demonstrates that the citizens of this country are powerful voices in the debate over climate justice. It demonstrates that they are, ultimately, voices speaking with growing eloquence, urgency and authority for one thing: action to address global climate change.
After interviewing Judy and Tom, I am reminded that—despite the desire of the ANU Chancelry to see Fossil Free ANU disappear—ANU students will not give up the fight for climate justice and will continue to move the debate on climate change in Australia forward.
As three generations of Fossil Free ANU campaigners, we are each testament to the fact that while students may come and go, the campaign for a Fossil Free ANU will endure until ANU fully divests. Imploring the ANU to divest from fossil fuel companies, Former ANU Professor Simon Rice wisely said: “If the ANU can’t take leadership on something as important as climate change, who can?” I would add to this that the ANU management has only shown leadership in the past on climate change—and will only in the future—if it follows the leadership of students.
*With Densely-Footnoted Documents
