The student services levy is the compulsory fee for non-academic services you paid at the beginning of this year. Check your fees statement—it’s there, all $522 of it, if you’re a full time student. That levy helps fund student support services like health and counselling, the student accommodation service, student creches, career development, financial support and advice, and recreational and social services.

Back in 2009, the levy amounted to $275. Despite the protests of VUWSA and student reps on the University Council at the time, it almost doubled to $510 for 2010. Vic’s justification for the rise, reported by Salient, was that without the increase, services would be compromised, or a user-pays system introduced.

The Advisory Committee to the Student Services Levy was established last year (they settled on the acronym ACSSL after several name changes) to consult with students and make recommendations on the amount of the levy for the following year.

The overwhelming response from students during consultation in 2010 was that the levy should remain as low as possible—the $12 increase in the levy for 2011 reflects the increase in GST. The levy for 2012 is still to be set, but as Salient went to print, government regulations relating to the implementation of new legislation regulating the setting of student services levies had just been released, which may mean the 2012 levy has to be approved at a later than expected date.

But how did we get to the point where legislation is being passed in parliament to regulate how universities set their student services levies?

In a speech at Vic last year, Joyce said he would be asking universities to justify the fees students were being charged. The Ministry of Education conducted a review at the request of Joyce, and the recently-passed Education Amendment Bill No. 4 deals with some of the outcomes of this review.

While it’s nice of Joyce to show such concern for the financial welfare of students, rising student services levies are a symptom of a far wider problem, one that can’t be solved by this piece of legislation: the chronic under-funding of universities. There’s a couple of things that deserve pointing out. Levies have gone up under the watch of a National government—a National government that has, in real terms, slowly cut back its funding of the tertiary education sector. With the recession there’s been an increase in enrolments as people seek to upskill. There are more students studying, but the government hasn’t coughed up any more money to fund them—universities have been forced to limit enrolments instead, or in the case of student services levies, increase fees.

I don’t want to see levies skyrocket, but I don’t want the level or quality of essential services to suffer under the strangling forces of a piece of legislation that thinks it knows what’s best for universities and students. Throw the imminent implementation of VSM into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster.

Universities will be limited to funding certain services as specified in a piece of legislation. Students’ associations will not be able to afford to continue providing the welfare, representation and advocacy services they currently provide in a VSM environment. Universities won’t be able to step in to fill the void, because they’re not allowed to by law. Universities won’t be able to consult with students about levies, because a coherent student representative body won’t exist thanks to VSM. In the end, it’s students who will suffer.

The current government’s vision for tertiary education is short-sighted. As a result of two pieces of legislation, universities will be hard pressed to maintain current service levels in a restricted funding environment and students won’t be able to fund services for themselves. What the tertiary education sector really needs is more direct government funding. We might find then that knee-jerk laws passed under urgency will become a thing of the past.

“Send out, Salient, the swift satiric point,
To smart the sluggard mind awake,
While Freedom anywhere in bonds is pent
No compromise with falseness make.
Those freed today tomorrow forth must leap
Some further outpost there to take and keep.”
Salient, 1938

We made it. 25 80-hour weeks, 25 all-nighters, 25 issues later. We have made it to the last Salient of 2010. It’s a bittersweet feeling. I am looking forward to developing regular sleeping patterns again. I am looking forward to not eating noodles out of a cup for dinner multiple nights a week. I am looking forward to lying in bed until midday without feeling guilty. It’s going to be sweet.

Then again, I’m going to miss this place and all the craziness that comes with it. I first started contributing
to Salient back in 2008. I had no inkling I’d spend the bulk of 2009 getting mocked and abused by a bunch of boys and having stuff thrown at me across the office. I also had no idea I’d be quite so sober this year. When I first walked into this office, a nervous volunteer, I had no idea I’d end up sitting in the editor’s chair.

Despite the sleep deprivation, the coffee dependency and the general grumpiness that comes with a job like
this, Salient has certainly achieved a lot this year. We had an all-girl editor/designer/news editor line-up for the first time ever. We monumentally shifted the gender balance in student media and proved we could still make a damn fine magazine without an overdose of testosterone. We interviewed a cat. We pissed off the
people of Murchison. We won a Qantas. We won a few ASPA Awards. We covered the closure of enrolments.
We scooped the Dominion Post. We increased pick-up at Te Aro. We made an awesome women’s issue. We got people thinking about the state of our abortion laws. We came second to Critic. We worked with Ngai Tauira to make one of the best issues of Te Ao Marama in years. We interviewed the Vice-Chancellor. We stuck to our guns in not taking an editorial line on VSM. We are still talking to VUWSA. We have lived, breathed and sweated Salient. And we are all still friends.

Salient is obviously more than just the editor. It takes a dedicated and talented team to make this all happen week in, week out. And keep me sane.

Firstly, Juliette. We started this job BFFs and we’re going to leave this job BFFs. I can’t think of anyone I’d
rather spend 80 hours a week in an office with. You’ve put up with my grumpiness and rants day in, day out.
We’ve had some of the best times ever. We’ve also had to deal with some weird shit going wrong. You have
seriously been the best designer and friend I could have ever wished for. And lol, we actually made all this up!

Molly, you have been an absolute pleasure to work with. You took to this news editor gig like [insert over-used cliché here] and you’ve done an amazing job and you should be immensely proud of yourself. Now that all this craziness is over you can start sleeping properly and doing school work again. Sorry about that.

Elle, my god you’re a girl with sass. No matter what ideas I’ve thrown at you, you’ve produced features like no other in student media. You will no doubt carry on this magazine’s high standard of feature writing. And you’re far, far better at getting them in at a reasonable hour than I ever was. For that, my sanity thanks you.

Uther Dean. What more can I say? Thank you for your witty quips. Thank you for your light relief. Of all the
ASPAs we won, I am by far the proudest of yours. How you’ve managed to juggle Salient, honours and all that crazy theatre stuff you do, I don’t know.

My two chief sub-editors. Mikey Langdon, we miss you heaps. Thank you for your patience and dedication. And thank you for putting up with Ju and I, and our poor taste in music. Hannah Warren, I can’t believe how well you’ve just fitted into this office. Please stick around Salient. Mikey’s ghost will stop haunting you. Eventually.

Paul Comrie-Thomson, Lewis van den Berg-Shaw, Stuart Taylor and David Smith—in your own distinct ways
you have each contributed something different to this magazine and given it flavour.

My arts editors Kim Wheatley and James Beavis, chur. You’ve put in some hard work this year—both of you—and it has been seriously appreciated. Best of luck with whatever you pursue next year.

The news kids, Lauren Priestley and Natalie Powlesland in particular, you guys have done a stellar job and made Molly’s life easier.

Renee Lyons, your stuff has always been in on time. And you bring us the most delicious brownie in the world, and that gets you some serious bonus points.

Sarita Lewis, Rebekah Galbraith, Carlo Salizzo, Stephen Jackson, Mariana Whareaitu, Liz Willoughby-Martin,
Denise and Dave, Henry Lyons, Zoe Reid, Candy Badger, and everyone else who has contributed columns, photos, comics and puzzles, THANKS!

VUWSA, you guys have done alright this year. Maybe we should go have some beers?

A few other people deserve mention too… Madeleine Setchell and Maria Cobden, you two have been amazing to work with this year and thank you for everything.

To the gaggle of ex-Craccum editors who have constantly reminded me of how good we’ve got it at Salient—Matt, Val, and Simon in particular—kia ora. There’s nothing like being reminded of how you guys have to bring in your own computers for the year to put everything in perspective.

I don’t think I would have got through this year without having someone to vent my frustrations with over Gmail, or when shit got really bad, over the phone. Ben Thomson, you would not believe how reassuring it’s been this year knowing that there’s someone else in the same boat. Thanks for listening to all the rants.

Laura McQuillan, Jackson Wood, Michael Oliver, Rory Harnden and Keith Ng—your advice and support has been invaluable this year. You’ve all been shoulders to cry on at one point or another. And Keith, thanks for fixing our computers all the time.

To all my friends I haven’t seen enough of this year, sorry! I promise I’ll be better from here on in. But thank
you for understanding the extent to which Salient has consumed my life, and not taking it personally when I haven’t shown up to parties because I’ve been asleep.

Mum and Dad, thank you for taking so much interest in Salient, feeding me on the odd occasion I have come home and being a source of encouragement and support. Dad, thanks for not making too many comments about our over-use of the word ‘fuck’.

And thank you to all you readers. Keep reading. Contribute. Salient is your magazine.

But one last thing:This time next year, VSM could almost be upon us. However, VUWSA appears, at this present point in time, to be more concerned with defeating the bill, rather than putting in place proper measures to ensure the association remains functional under VSM. The threat of VSM isn’t going to go away, even if the bill is defeated this time around. What is the harm in preparing for VSM regardless? The structure of Salient needs a serious shake up. The less reliance we have on VUWSA for funding, the better placed we are to deal with the reduced budgets that will be a reality if VSM is imposed on students’ associations in 2012. Now is not the time to be umming and ahhing about whether or not it’s the right thing to do—the last thing I want is to have Salient operating on a similar budget, and lack of resources, to Craccum in recent years. To whoever edits this magazine next year, best of luck to you. You have an important job to do. Salient is an organ of student opinion at Victoria University, and has been since 1938. You have a tradition to uphold, but you also have the opportunity to stamp your own mark on the magazine and make it what you want to be—this will probably be your only chance to have this much journalistic and creative freedom. Just remember who you’re making the magazine for—students. They want to be informed, they want to be entertained. They want you to listen and be responsive to them. They want Salient to be something they can identify with and call their own. It is their magazine after all. And don’t, whatever you do, give VUWSA an easy ride.

I’ve been working 80-hour weeks all year. I haven’t had a social life. My life is Salient. While you may have a romantic notion of what this job entails, I can assure you, a lot of the time, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Don’t get me wrong, this is without doubt the best job I’ll ever have, but man do you have some shit to deal with. So this week, Salient rates the reasons why you should not be the editor of Salient.

The President who can’t get their column in on time 7/10

The President only has to write 400 words. And get it in by Tuesday 5pm. It’s actually not that hard. Seriously. Heck, I’ve written 2400 word features in four hours.

Not going to anything at all ever on a Thursday night (not even Vampire Weekend on your birthday) 10/10

Thursday is production night. Our deadline is 7am Friday. This means I have done 25 all-nighters this year and there is no way of avoiding it. No amount of forward planning or early deadlines will prevent the inevitable. Just cancel everything you might have planned for a Thursday now. Even Vampire Weekend on your birthday (yes, we’re still a little bitter).

You get fat 4/10

While not strictly true this year, in previous years Salient editors have been known to pile on the pounds as they follow a strict diet of junk food and not much else. This has also been known to contribute to the affliction known as ‘editor skin’ (see separate entry below).

Editor skin 5/10

Thought you were over that awkward teenage pimply stage? Think again. Sleep deprivation, a poor diet, stress and a serious lack of appropriate hydration results in a weekly breakout beginning some time around midnight Wednesday, that does not go away until midday the following Monday. Washing your face twice daily doesn’t help in this instance.

Being grumpy. all the time 9/10

Seriously. I’ve never been so fucking grumpy in my life. Also, why are there so many morons around?

Lack of romantic prospects 3/10

There is not much hope of meeting someone while you’re editing Salient, eating free noodles from VUWSA for dinner most nights, with a face covered in stress pimples. Then again, you could get lucky.

You don’t get as much free stuff as you think you’ll get 6/10

I thought I’d be rolling in free stuff and invites to swanky events. We got sent some chocolate and mini Oreos by KFC once. But that’s about it. And every swanky event we get invited to is on a Thursday (see above entry on not going to anything at all ever on a Thursday).

Having the best laid plans fall through 8/10

Just when you thought everything was going to plan—BAM! Some moron comes along and fucks your shit up. It’s really annoying. It also contributes to being grumpy all the time (see separate entry above). The
moral of the story? Just make it up as you go.

The role of Vice-Chancellor is an important one, they are the university’s academic and administrative head; the chief executive, if you will. The Vice-Chancellor is the guy responsible for ensuring the university carries its statutory and contractual functions in teaching, research and community service. At Vic, Pat Walsh is the big cheese, the one who fronts the media when admissions are closed, or when fees are increased. Perhaps because the media limelight is only shone on the Vice-Chancellor when decisions are made that appear to adversely affect students, there is an impression of aloofness, or that university management doesn’t really care about the most important stakeholders in the tertiary education sector—students.

Walsh has been at Vic since 1981. Before being made the head of what is now the Victoria Management School in the mid-1990s, Walsh was your average academic. He headed the management school for six years before being made Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Commerce. Walsh was appointed Vice Chancellor in 2005, replacing Stuart McCutcheon, now the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Auckland.

Heading into 2011, Walsh says the three crucial issues facing the tertiary sector, and Victoria more specifically, are “the issues that have challenged us for some time”. These issues, he says, stem from the question of funding.

“[Firstly] the real value of government funding continues to decline. Secondly, I think responding to the quite reasonable expectations of accountability in terms of performance, and that’s in research and in learning and teaching, and in the quality of the student experience. Thirdly, I think the relationships, both internal of course, but external relationships with stakeholders—I think that it’s absolutely vital that a university has really strong relationships, partnerships, collaborations, whether it’s research or with the City Council or with international agencies, because without that you’re an island and I think we’ve done well in that regard.”

Stemming the flow

Next year will see the implementation of a system of managed enrolment, whereby students must not only attain University Entrance, but also meet the guaranteed entry score for admittance. Walsh says that managed enrolment is a consequence of the funding situation.

“It came upon us of course because of the capped funding and therefore the capped number of students. So we are funded for a certain number of students and if we take more than that, then those students are unfunded,” he explains.

Walsh says there are two crucial factors involved in the issue.

“One is universities have been saying for years, for as long as I can remember, that as the real value of government funding declines, there’s a threat to the quality of education. And if we enrol hundreds or thousands, as we could probably, of unfunded students, then I think we’re saying well, actually we don’t care about quality, the quality of what we are providing to students who are enrolled. So it’s driven by quality, it’s driven by the funding situation, but the response is a concern about quality and that’s really the driver for managed enrolment.”

In May, the University Council decided to close admissions for the second trimester. Walsh says that a
number of options were looked into, before a final decision was made. Ultimately, an obligation to current
students won out.

“We looked at all those options. We could have simply shut down the third trimester, we could have done various creative things with the students that are currently enrolled. But we felt we, for a start, we felt we had an obligation to students who are currently enrolled and many of them had enrolled for the first trimester uncertain about what they wanted to take in the second trimester and we didn’t feel that we should not close off that option, because we have an obligation to them. The summer trimester is an important trimester, we’ve cut back on it, but we found it was still important that it go ahead, many students use it to catch up, some academic staff sometimes use it to run an experimental course to see how it goes. So we felt that on balance, the shutting down of enrolments in the second trimester was, however unpalatable, the cleanest way of doing it.”

Victoria isn’t the only university to implement these sorts of measures. Walsh agrees that this inevitably limits access to tertiary education across the board.

“And I think that’s undesirable,” he says.

“I’ve always favoured a system whereby those who meet the entry standard are able to be admitted, and we no longer have that and I think in terms of social and economic opportunities, social mobility, I’m disappointed with that. So it will limit access to universities. I know that perhaps one of the positive consequences will be that the average ability of students, the average quality will rise, and that’s a positive
consequence, but in doing that we do run the risk of not admitting students who do have the potential to succeed. I find that unfortunate.”

Juggling teaching and research

Walsh says there are always pressures on academic staff to juggle teaching and research, “but I do believe the two can be balanced”.

“I think that we’ve got evidence of that with the many staff, the great majority of staff, who do successfully
combine research and teaching. And the two are not always in opposition—the research activity of staff contributes to what they teach as well. It can be a challenge in terms of time pressures, but I think that it can be managed.”

The introduction of the performance based research fund (PBRF) has been a point of contention since its
implementation, and concerns have been raised about whether it has lead to a more competitive staff environment. Walsh however takes a more positive view.

“Well I think everyone can point to aspects of the PBRF that they disagree with, but I do think that the PBRF has had a positive impact on universities, it has focused universities—and by that I mean both management and staff and certainly councils—on the quality of research, it has lead to an improvement
in the quality of research and although there are some undesirable features, we could all list some of those, on balance I think it’s had a positive impact.”

Walsh asserts that Victoria has been maximising research opportunities in recent years.

“We have, over the last five or six years, made a number of important steps to improve research,” he says.

“We have greatly increased the budget for postgraduate scholarships—it’s gone up by a couple of hundred per cent, so we have many more Masters and PhD scholarships and I regard that as one of the most important contributors to an active research culture. The more postgraduate thesis students you have,
the livelier the research culture,” he says.

“We have greatly increased our internal research budget, so the university research fund is larger than
it has been. We have established the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, which didn’t previously exist, to provide strategic direction to research and we have established a Faculty of Graduate Research, we have what we call the portfolio advisers at the Faculties helping people with external research
grants. So our research infrastructure is much stronger, the amount of funding that we’ve allocated to research is much larger. I should also mention the increases in the library budget which have been driven by teaching and research and have benefited both, and of course we have had an internal PBRF exercise, end of 2008, beginning of 2009, and now we’re following up on that in terms of addressing research
performance issues around the university.”

In this year’s budget, National announced the introduction of a component of funding for universities based on student performance. Walsh says that this move is one universities have seen coming, though “it might put more pressure on students”.

“The educational performance funding, as the government calls it, is something we’ve seen coming for some
time and I think it’s entirely reasonable… for there to be accountability for performance, given the amount of public funding we receive,” he says.

“The particular form it has taken is something that we now have to understand, and at least understand the
data, so why have we got X per cent of students completing their courses, and Y per cent completing their qualifications and why are we higher or lower than other universities on some of these. And we just need to understand the things that contribute to those outcomes and we need to do the things that we can to improve. Some of them might be as straightforward as simplifying degree structures, for example. It might
be one of the reasons we have some students find it difficult to complete their qualification, is that the degrees are so complicated. So there’s a number of things that we can do which might not necessarily put more pressure on people at all.”

Supporting students or institutions?

Universities New Zealand, the collective voice of the country’s eight universities, put forward the proposition earlier this year that the reinstatement of interest on student loans should be investigated by the government. This is a proposition Walsh agrees with.

“I do because I think in a capped funding—the argument for interest-free student loans was developed at a time when there was not capped funding for universities. So every student who enrolled attracted funding—that’s not the case anymore. So we’re in a situation now where we’re having to turn away students and the reason we’re having to turn away students is because of limited funding. Some of that funding that we could be receiving is going to interest-free loans. So I think there’s a choice to make about whether we think
it’s a better use of public funds, public money, to provide interest-free loans to enrolled students, or to provide more places at universities for students who would otherwise be turned away.”

Some of the reason for the focus on student support is a “perception of electoral advantage,” Walsh says.

“The Labour government introduced it in the 2005 election because they thought it would be popular and it
was, and in fact Michael Cullen said it won the election for them, and the National party decided to run with that in 2008 because it feared the electoral consequences of changing it. So it’s now embedded in the system and it’s going to be very difficult to change it.”

Compounding the funding pressures has been the fee maxima policy, where universities have been limited by how much they can raise the fees students are charged. Walsh says this policy has had a particularly significant effect on Victoria.

“If you go back ten years, the government of the day introduced a freeze on fees. At that time, Victoria was caught with the policy that was implemented with fees that were low relative to other universities. Then the fee maxima regime was introduced, which said you could increase it by up to a certain amount, but because we were starting from a lower base, we never caught up, so we suffer a significant funding disadvantage, particularly in humanities and education, and we calculate that we’re about two and a half
million dollars worse off than some of the other universities, so it does place us at a disadvantage.”

The University Council recently increased fees for 2011 by four per cent, the maximum allowed under the government’s annual maximum fee movement, announced in this year’s budget. Walsh thinks that having
some limits on fee increases is not unreasonable.

“I think that it’s reasonable to have a policy framework that does put some limits on fees, and I don’t have a problem with that. I think it is unreasonable to have a policy framework that entrenches disadvantage for a couple of universities, we’re not the only one, a couple of universities compared with others. To use the Treasury’s favourite phrase, I think there should be a level playing field and at the moment it’s not.”

VSM: not just VUWSA’s Problem?

The prospect of voluntary student membership (VSM) is a concern for the university.

“We’re opposed to it, and that’s what we said in our submission. In summary, we think that students’ associations play a really important role, I know that they get things wrong and there’s criticism of them at times—sometimes entirely justified—just as there’s justified criticism of what universities do from time to time. But on balance, students’ associations play an important and constructive role, they provide significant and valuable services, many of them not visible to people from the outside, look at academic grievances for example, the representation function which is really important, and the role that clubs and societies play in helping to foster a sense of community,” Walsh says.

“We believe that students’ associations play an important role and particularly here over the last four or
five years, we have really worked to try and develop a partnership approach with the students’ association—we disagree on the obvious things—but around the running of the Student Union Building, the Hub project, the development of the Boyd Wilson Field and in other areas as well, we’ve got a really positive partnership that we think makes Victoria a better place. Voluntary student membership will reduce the revenue that the students’ association receives, no question about that, will therefore reduce the services they can provide, will limit their capacity to play an active and constructive role in the university and so we’re opposed to it.”

Walsh asserts that the university is beginning to look into contingency plans in the event the Education Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is passed into law.

“[We’re] just trying to think well, if the students’ association can’t do this, whatever it is, should we do it?
Recognising that we’re not going to get any more money… so if we decide to do something that VUWSA… currently does, then we’re going to have to stop doing something else, and that’s going to be some tough choices there.”

Walsh doesn’t think that VSM will entirely destroy the student culture or experience at Victoria.

“I think that it’s going to pose some real challenges and there may be some ways of addressing it, but we need to think those through. We look at the student experience in Auckland, where student membership is voluntary, so we can learn from what they have done, that there are things that we can do to address those problems. I’m not saying that it’s going to be doom and gloom in terms of the quality of the student
experience, but it’s going to be harder.”

It’s fairly clear that Victoria University is going to be facing some challenges heading into the future. Despite his, Walsh remains positive.

“Although the environment is really challenging,Victoria University I think is in pretty good heart, in pretty good shape,” he says.

“We’re feeling pretty optimistic about the future, not blindly optimistic, not complacently optimistic, but I think we’re travelling fairly well.”

I was in a van heading to Auckland when the report of the Education and Science select committee on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was tabled. I’d had three hours sleep, having finished work on that week’s Salient at 5.35am. Someone called me to say the report recommended the so-called VSM bill be passed with a few amendments. And I was stuck in a van somewhere on State Highway One between Hunterville and Taihape with no internet access and no way to write a story, let alone read the contents of the report. It was pretty much a student journalist’s worst nightmare. The biggest story of the year finally breaks and you are stuck in a van. A really big, white van that looks like an unused tampon.

I made it very clear at the beginning of the year that Salient would not be taking an editorial line on VSM—I’m sure you’re all quite intelligent enough to make up your own minds on the issue. It’s our job to inform, encourage debate and give you an indication of the stuff you should care about. While apathy no doubt reigns among the wider student population as to whether VSM is a good or bad thing, the select committee did receive 4837 submissions on the bill—an overwhelming majority of them opposing the bill. Why, then, has the select committee recommended by majority that the bill be passed with a few tweaks here and there? Students’ associations across the country look set to have VSM imposed on them at the beginning of 2012 whether they like it or not.

I don’t think the decision about whether a students’ association goes voluntary or not should ultimately rest in the hands of Parliament. It should be a decision made by the members of the association—the students. Last time VSM reared its head in the late nineties, a referendum was forced on each campus and, in the end, students decided whether or not they wanted VSM. Students’ associations are democratic organisations—decisions affecting members (students) are made by members (students) through the democratic process. VSM is a decision that should be made by the members of a students’ association, not a bunch of politicians who think they know what they’re talking about.
VSM will have a significant impact on VUWSA. It will have a significant impact on Salient. The extent of that impact will become clearer next year, but in the meantime, keep it in mind when you’re voting in the VUWSA elections this week. Your vote could decide whether or not Team Salient will ever again suffer the terrible affliction known as ‘van fever’, caused by spending 12 hours in close quarters.

Can’t be bothered voting in that? It’s the final week of Academic Idol! Will it be Dean Knight or Marc Wilson? Get your phones out and text ‘Marc’ or ‘Dean’ to 027 CUSTARD or email editor@salient.org.nz.

Seamus Brady, 22

Studying: History, Politics, and a brief flirtation with Japanese
Political affiliations: Has been involved with the Labour party, currently only has time for it in his spare time, of which he has very little. He says it is “easy to divorce work from politics”.

Paul Smith, turning 21 during election week

Studying: History and Philosophy, and a little bit of Politics
Political affiliations: No active party memberships, not particularly partisan.

Sarah: Why do you want to be the President of VUWSA?

Seamus: I’m standing because I’ve got the experience, the commitment and the vision to make sure VUWSA is a strong force at Victoria. I believe that someone with my experience is needed—someone who has been involved in the various stages of VUWSA, and also the planning for the future of VUWSA, and how we operate. That’s one of the core reasons why.

Paul: I’m standing because I’m a member of a club that I really like and I’ve been a recipient of VUWSA’s services over the past few years I’ve been here, and I kind of value what they do. I’ve noticed how it’s been getting better and better since 2008, and before I was even here. And I saw the challenge that VSM’s got and I think I’ve got a lot to offer. I personally think it would be a challenge for me, but also I’ve got a lot to offer in terms of a fresh look at things, so I don’t think it’s experience that necessarily entitles you to a role, but I think it’s more about the kind of vision and how you can refocus VUWSA.

Sarah: How and why does your experience qualify you to be President?

Seamus: Since [the] VSM [bill] came in, I’ve been working quite closely with last year’s President, and Max this year, and also with the Association Manager and the VUWSA Trust, in setting up contingency plans, I guess. So when VSM did come in, might have come in by now, is coming in, we wouldn’t be left with nothing—we would have something that would kick in in Orientation 2011, so that students, and new students especially, knew what VUWSA was and why they should be a member, and then why in 2012 they should remain a member. The experience has given me huge opportunities to work with the university in terms [of] building up relationships and also be involved in negotiations in terms of how VUWSA will fit into post-compulsory student unions. So, I think that’s one of the main advantages of having experience, having experience you know that you need to change and are open to change, and so I don’t think being experienced is a bad thing, I think it’s a very positive thing.

Sarah [to Paul]: Now you haven’t been on the exec. Have you ever been to an exec meeting?

Paul: For VUWSA?

Sarah: Yup.

Paul: I went to a couple in my first year in 2008, they weren’t that fun and then I went to the AGM last year, but you’re right, I haven’t been to many exec meetings.

Sarah: Given your relative lack of experience, how are you going to get up to speed with the inner workings and institutional history of VUWSA?

Paul: I think I’m passionate enough and driven enough to learn about it and to figure it out. And I don’t think the only way you can learn about it is by doing it—I think it’s a bit of a myth really. I think there’s a lot of people who will be willing to help me and get behind me and figure out how to keep the institution going, like people with a lot of institutional knowledge and those relationships. I think the constitution provides for the incoming President to spend the month of December working with the President, I’m not sure if that’s often been the case, but there’s certainly opportunities there to get the knowledge from other people and I certainly think I’m able to learn it fast enough for it not to be an issue.

Seamus: I think it’s important that you start the year [by] hitting the ground running. I don’t think a month is long enough to get to grips with sort of how internal VUWSA works—but then also VUWSA works externally with JSUB, with SSALC, with the Student Union ,with everything that sort of falls under VUWSA, so I think that’s why past Presidents who haven’t had experience previously, even just for a few months, have got to a rocky start and I don’t think they performed as strong as they could have, had they had that experience.

Sarah: What’s your vision for VUWSA in 2011?

Seamus: A VUWSA that is visible and is active around campus, that has regular events that are well-attended, well-promoted, strong student reps at all levels. This year we’ve had a huge, huge transforming of the class rep system and reps on all the various boards at the schools. It’s the first time we’ve been surveying class reps and asking them how they feel supported, what do they need, do they feel isolated and all the results from that say, yeah there’s some issues but, overall, we’re doing a great job, and VUWSA should be doing X, Y and Z and we’re taking that on board. The student representative structure needs to be strengthened and reviewed and that’s something that this exec and myself have been focused on with the working party that is going into general sort of representation. That will be a major focus as well, actually putting it into practice, consulting the students about what they think VUWSA should do.

Paul: My vision is to create a VUWSA that people are really proud of and want to pay to join, because that’s what we have to do right? It’s not just to carry on with all that we’re doing this year, and look at all the different projects that are going to make it easier for students or better for students, to the point that they’re going to go ‘I’m willing to pay for that upfront to get benefits’. I think we need to work on relationships with satellite campuses, or campuses other than Kelburn basically, because there’s lots of students there and there’s lots of students who only go to Karori or Te Aro. Obviously, there’s a need to engage with them and get them to pay membership fees. VUWSA has realised this year that that’s an issue, that’s something as well that as part of my vision I want to focus on.

Sarah [to Seamus]: How are you going to make VUWSA more visible and more active?

Seamus: Firstly; we would have a proper events calendar that properly identifed everything throughout the year, when they were happening and then actually go out and promote it—not just postering, actually using our website, using Facebook and just having the VUWSA exec actually go out and not just stay in the office and sort of hide away as they have done.

Sarah [to Paul]: How are you going to engage with the satellite campuses?

Paul: I think that’s a good point about going out and talking to them and not just hanging posters everywhere. I think it would be quite a good idea to make someone on the executive their official responsibility, or part of their official responsibility, to be dealing with those campuses and looking at ways to get them more into VUWSA, more into the VUWSA hood.

Sarah [to Paul]: Do you think that’s a viable option given that exec members have a big workload already?

Paul: I know what you mean, it wouldn’t just be one person who gets every other satellite campus, but that’s more to do with making it more official for the clubs officer or the activities officer that part of [their] brief is to look at some really good activities at other campuses, and we expect you to come up with a couple of activities in Karori and Te Aro as well. So, it’s not adding a massive workload to everybody. It’s just making it more clear that they need to engage people outside of Kelburn, not just people in and around the core or what you think is the core of the university.

Seamus: On the presence, I would be using existing staff members that we have, people like the student advocate, people like the clubs and events manager, actually stationing them, especially the student advocate, at places like Te Aro, which historically have a lot of issues in terms of work and student finance—they do a weekly clinic down there and they’re always booked and that’s something that will be happening next year. And that instead of just having one exec member burdened with ‘you have to do this every week for two hours, if you don’t do it, people won’t have service’, but actually just making an allowance within the existing staffing structure to enable that, but to also have the exec come in to support the staff down there, so students can talk to them and they can find out what people at Te Aro want and what STUDiO want.

Sarah: This year has been one of significant changes being made by the National government and Steven Joyce to tertiary education.Your thoughts?

Paul: I’m kind of pissed off actually about VSM, because they didn’t seem to listen to any students, instead they seemed to listen to just what the Act party was saying, or just to what the Young Nats were saying, not really what the wider amount of students were saying on the issue. I find that quite disconcerting, that they’re prepared to go against an entire group of people and just ignore what they have to say on the issue. It seems to me like VSM is pretty much going to pass, it seems like it’s basically a government-run committee that would send it through, and there was a Labour party minority report and a Green party minority report which couldn’t derail it. It just seems like it’s go ahead caucus. So it sucks what they’re doing to students at the moment and we really need to deal with it, and that’s why this election is important. But I think there’s a lot of space for advocacy and keep trying to get to the National [government’s] ear about this particular bill, because we can try and get clauses inserted which would make the transition easier and try and get funding from the government for students’ [associations] and these sorts of things.

Sarah: But the government has ultimately cut funding to the tertiary sector and Steven Joyce has actually come out and said there is no more money for teriary education. If they’re not going to fund institutions, why would they fund students’ associations?

Paul: I see your point, I think though when it comes down to it, when you’re dealing with governments, there’s always money if you can make it real enough to them that they’re losing votes for whatever they’re doing—they can always put money and divert it from other places if you can get right in their ear and you can get advocating—you can go you’re turning off a whole generation of students from the National Party who are going to grow up thinking you ruined their students’ associations. So I think at the moment you’re right, it’s easy for them to go there’s not enough money to help our students associations…but if you can keep advocating, if you can keep in their ears, you can try and get more stuff.

Sarah: Would you rather see Steven Joyce increase funding to institutions or supporting students’ associations?

Paul: I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. If they give more funding to institutions and that kind of stuff, it means there’s more space for Vic to help out VUWSA with the transition and to step in and provide some services we want without raising funds and that kind of shit.

Seamus: The National party should see students’ associations as a partner in tertiary education, because both of us want to see cost-effective courses, strong courses that are worth actually spending money on and investing your life into, but also Steven Joyce is interesting because it was being reported that he spoke against the National party caucus supporting the VSM bill because he saw the pragmatic side, the benefit of having a students’ association on campus because they did stuff that the university couldn’t afford to, and with his latest issue with student services fees and institutions like Victoria increasing them…what happens if the institution can’t charge a levy for a students’ association but also [has to] reduce the student services levy and they can’t add one on to the other. [Joyce] sees the pragmatic issue, but the National party did seem to listen to a vocal minority.

Sarah: What do you see as being the main issue facing the tertiary education sector?

Seamus: Well I think it’s continued under-funding. For the last 15 years, it’s been continually under-funded and the cuts they announced last year, with not increasing it by the CPI, is effectively cutting it every year by more, so it leads to managed enrolment, it leads to things like student services levies going up so they don’t have to spend the money they get for courses on student services, but it just leads to a more burdened sector that has to increase fees for students because they’re the only ones who can give more, which then increases debt, which is not what the government wants because it is just more burden on their accounts.

Paul: I think underfunding is the most massive issue and it only comes from a wider problem in terms of maybe how this government, and maybe how all governments see students. I don’t think they see them as a priority necessarily and I don’t think they recognise how important education is at the tertiary level to the future of New Zealand, so they’re prepared to let fees just increase, they’re kind of prepared to let people be turned away from universities because there’s not enough money to pay for them.

Sarah: How would you go about increasing voter turnout and engagement with the association?

Paul: I think there’s a couple of problems. One of them is sometimes—not this year—VUWSA doesn’t seem particularly credible as an organisation, sometimes we’ve had executive members do silly things. So, one thing I would do, and I’d promise that I’d do, is just be accountable as a president and to hold my exec to account so we don’t lose crediblility from that. But also I think there’s a lot of space to bring VUWSA more into people’s lives by delivering more services to all of the students out there. I’ve been thinking quite hard about having your student membership provide you with a discount card, and to work with businesses around town to get you discounts on coffee and food and that kind of thing, And if we can set up a situation where being a member of VUWSA gives everybody a big benefit, people will start to value VUWSA more. So, not only will they pay for their membership which will let us pay for Campus Angels and all the kind of services VUWSA provides at the moment, so not only will they pay for it, but they will be more engaged with it and more interested in it if they know the organisation is credible and accountable and if they know that they’ve got something invested in it and they get something out of it.

Seamus: I don’t think judging voter turnout is a very good reflection of students appreciation of what VUWSA does and sort of how much they like it. I think in the past probably six years it’s been probably more of a reflection on actually the exec as people and people not wanting to associate themselves with them and be attached to be people who get drunk and write love all over the wall and do things to vans and things like that. I think it’s increasing that communication from day one, or even before they get to Wellington. Like sending them something in November saying this is Orientation coming up, this is what is happening and this is what we’re planning to do for this coming Orientation, and the University is allowing us to join up with their mail out to first years. On the card for members, VUWSA is currently at the moment, with our sales manager and association manager, working on a discount card. Before we launch it we want 30 businesses at least and the response so far has been very good, people are keen to get on, but by the end of the year there will be a discount card ready to launch and obviously be available to new students [...]

I don’t think a membership card is the be all and end all of increasing turnout or just appreciation of VUWSA. And I don’t think we should assume that we will be charging people a membership fee [...]

Once we have assessed our situation with the VUWSA Trust, with the university and various other things we could do, I think there could be a good chance we won’t be charging a membership fee and then there’s just a matter of getting people aware of VUWSA, doing things like combining Victoria’s Orientation and VUWSA’s orientation, so people see both and it’s branded as both and just getting the message more coherent, I guess.

An extended version of this interview is available online at salient.org.nz.

ASPA. Say it out loud. Asssss-paaaa. It’s got a nice ring to it. What is this ASPA I speak of? For the uninitiated—which is no doubt the vast majority of you—ASPA is the Aotearoa Student Press Association. It’s pretty much awesomeness in a can.

Each and every student magazine in New Zealand, from Craccum at Auckland Uni to Critic down there in Dunedin, is a member of ASPA. Birthed back in the early ‘90s, the purpose of ASPA has changed very little in the intervening decade or so—we exist to share news, content, ideas and features, not to mention get drunk and swap war stories and a bit of spit from time to time.

For editors, ASPA is like one giant shoulder to cry on—there’s always someone to bitch to over Gmail chat (or if things are really bad, over the phone) when features fall through, when advertising managers conveniently forget to tell you something on deadlines day, when student presidents don’t get their columns in on time, or when the mainstream media spotlight is shining down on your magazine’s sorry little ass.

Does ASPA have superpowers? Not quite, but we sure do try our hardest to report on the stuff that you—students—should care about. We’ve seen a heck of a lot of changes in the tertiary education sector this year, and magazines like Salient and Critic have been at the forefront of a lot of this coverage. That’s right, we’ve been scooping the Dominion Post and the Otago Daily Times on everything from the closure of enrolments to the closure of Gardies.

It doesn’t look like we’re going to be running out of stories any time soon, with VSM on the horizon, and universities taking more drastic steps to balance their budgets and make ends meet. These are issues that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on students at every single university across the country. And this is where the power of ASPA lies—in our ability to work as a collective to report on student issues for a student audience.

Ultimately though, for ASPA to be the properly functioning media beast it can be, it requires the cooperation and participation of all student magazines. Why copy and paste a press release or a story from a mainstream media outlet when you have 12 other student magazines with a whole host of interesting news stories that actually matter to students just an email away?

You, too, have a part to play—keep reading the magazine you’re holding in your hands. Care about what’s happening at your students’ association and at your university. Heck, come in and volunteer and write for us! Our ongoing existence relies on your support—if you stop caring, you’ll have to look for an alternative source of entertainment to get through your Monday morning lectures.

Fees rise four percent for 2011

Fees across all courses at Victoria University will increase by four per cent next year, following a decision made by the University Council at a special meeting last Monday.

At the meeting, the University Council approved amendments to the Fees Statute to allow a four per cent fee rise, as recommended by the Finance Committee. The fee rise is the maximum allowed by the government under the annual maximum fee movement, announced in the Budget earlier this year. New Zealand School of Music fees will also increase by four per cent.

The Student Services Levy for 2011 will be held at the 2010 rate, excluding GST. The decision to keep the levy fixed at the 2010 rate follows the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between VUWSA and the university, and extensive consultation undertaken by the Student Services and Amenities Levy Advisory Committee (SSALAC).

The meeting was attended by a number of students, including several members of the VUWSA exec. Many in the public gallery wielded placards about the growing levels of student debt in New Zealand, which currently stands at over $11 billion.

VUWSA President Max Hardy and University Council Student Representative Conrad Reyners opposed the fee increase, as did Council member and former VUWSA President Fleur Fitzsimons.

Hardy told Council that a fee increase is “a vote for more student debt, for negative impacts on the life choices of borrowers, for negative impacts on our society and for longer repayment times for all students, particularly for women, Maori and Pasifika students”.

Hardy acknowledged that government policy has made it difficult to maintain lower tuition fees, and the government has a part to play in addressing the issue.

“We do not think that the issue of increasing tuition fees and sky rocketing student debt is primarily an issue between students and the university management and governance—we do not wish to create that divide…We understand that only the government can address our concerns completely,” he said.

“We do not accept that students should shoulder the burden of under-funding in the sector and be forced to pay ever-increasing tuition fees.”

Vice Chancellor Pat Walsh acknowledged that the setting of fees is “a difficult issue the Council faces annually”.

Walsh said the Council faces a clash between not wanting to impose an additional financial burden on students, and the need to preserve and enhance the quality of the university’s programmes and services.

“It’s a major issue and one that this Council takes very seriously,” he said.

“We know that 2011 will be a very challenging financial year due to the decline in government funding…If the university is going to respond successfully to the challenges we face, it is recommended that Council approve the fee increase.”

The government is still to confirm the final regulation regarding the annual maximum fee movement and the Fee and Course Cost Maxima. In the event that the government allows a maximum fee increase greater than four per cent, the fees recommendation will be taken back to Council for further consideration.

Security guards were present at the meeting, held in the Council Chamber in the Hunter Building. Last year’s fee setting meeting was disrupted by students throwing fruit at Council members, and the meeting had to be moved from the Council Chamber. Hardy understands that this fee setting meeting was the first in “eight or nine years” that has not been disrupted by student protest.

You’ll find all the important details here.

Any questions? Want the full job description and 2010 budget? Email editor@salient.org.nz

Go forth and apply!

It’s election mania! Not only are local body elections coming up, the VUWSA general elections are almost upon us. It’s the time of year when Salient staff members realise we have spent far too much time in the office over the course of the year—we are genuinely excited about the prospect of candidates making dicks of themselves, the shit fights, backstabbing, dirty tricks and bizarre campaign promises. Yes, we’ve all gone crazy. Someone get me another Bounty bar. And maybe some salt and vinegar kettle chips.

Nominations for the positions on the VUWSA exec close at the end of this week. If you’re going to stand, make sure you know what you’re getting yourself into. Do your research. Find out what the position actually involves. Read ‘When Alan Met Max’ and learn from Alan’s gaffes (you’ll find it here: If you don’t find any gaffes, don’t run for VUWSA, please). Understand what is and isn’t achievable as a VUWSA exec member. Don’t make outlandish promises. Don’t wear a flannel shirt. Doing these simple things will prevent you from becoming the laughing stock of the Salient office.

Inevitably, there will be candidates who will fail to heed this advice. Suckers. While these candidates will provide Salient with endless hours of amusement, and a raft of excellent news stories, you probably shouldn’t vote for them. The fact we’re making fun of them means they probably won’t be competent members of the exec. You’re all smart enough to realise that, right? Right? Give us some reassurance/hope/faith here.

Turnout at VUWSA elections has been notoriously low in recent years. A general sense of ‘who cares’ no doubt permeates the wider student population at Vic. What does VUWSA even do for you anyway? They’d probably chew your ear off for half an hour telling you about all the services they provide and how valuable their representation of your interests is, but in the end, if you want to get something out of it, or at least the right to complain about it, you have to be willing to participate, to vote, to get involved.

There’s no point bitching if you couldn’t even be fucked logging into the online voting system and clicking ‘no confidence’ or ‘no vote’. At least that way you can say you took part. Or something. If you don’t want to get anything out of VUWSA, and if you don’t want to be involved, I suggest you look into withdrawing and quit complaining.

The moral of the story? If you’re running for VUWSA, good luck to you. I hope you know who I am if I come up to you and ask questions. It gets really awkward when I have to introduce myself as the Salient Editor to VUWSA exec members. We chuckle about it in the office later, too.

What relevance does New Zealand First have for young people? The elderly vote that New Zealand First attracts is always emphasised in the media—what is there to offer to students?

For a start, we’ve always had a great number of young people in New Zealand First, despite the propensity of the media to keep on saying that we’ve got mostly elderly people—that’s not the demographic that we know about, but if you are calling meetings in the middle of the day, it is very likely you are going to get older people who are not working, or people who are in shift work. So that’s the character of that. You know we have had the youngest Minister in any Cabinet in any part of the Commonwealth in Deborah Morris, and we’ve got keen young people rising in universities around the country. Victoria University today is a New Zealand First on Campus opening meeting.

What sort of policies leading into the 2011 election are you hoping will attract that younger demographic; what sort of concrete stuff do you have to offer?

I want to share with the young people today just what has happened to their country, and why they’re in the pile of state that they are personally in: with the biggest one-off…educational cost being defaulting student loans [and] the fact that our country is experiencing bright flight because of economic failure for the last 25 years. The pathway that was taken back in 1984 by both Labour then National, is disastrous for this country, our country is broke, but we have got to fix it. I really want to share with [young people] why a generation went wrong, how it used to be when before that generation—we were number two in the world—and the fact that we need some sound policies, and not a repeat of the neo-liberal right wing claptrap that keeps on emitting from Treasury and out of Parliament. Because students have got 45 years as workers, or 75 years—80 possibly—years [of life]—if they’re lucky—because people are living longer in New Zealand—it’s time to take it pretty seriously, isn’t it?

In terms of tertiary education more specifically, we’ve seen Steven Joyce say he’s not going to give universities any more money. How does New Zealand First see that situation, where universities are closing enrolments and denying students access to further education?

How on earth can you prepare a young generation in an age where employment is critically related to skills and education, and economic performance nationally is relative to economic performance of a nation…? How could you possibly be allowing a cap on university intake in this country, leaving out possibly 10,000 students, whilst you allow no cap on foreign students? And that’s why we call our party NZ First and that’s why the National Party should change its name to the International Party.

A lot of your policies focus on the elderly and health care for older people. Do you think there is a trade-off between investing in the futures of young people and then ensuring there is adequate care for older people?

First of all, there are people coming to university shortly who are the beneficiaries for our free medicine for under six year olds. We brought that in, against great opposition, and it has been maintained. Second thing is we’re the first party to ever announce, and this policy remains unchanged, the universal student allowance. And the third thing is we were the first party to announce options whereby you can work off your student loan by doing certain things in New Zealand where there are…critical occupational shortages, so others might borrow that but we announced that a long, long time ago.

Immigration has been one of your big talking points—do you think current immigration policies are compromising opportunities for young New Zealanders?

The immigration policies of this country since 1988 have been a miserable failure. We were promised that if you brought in greater numbers of people, unit costs would come down, productivity would go up. All the scientific evidence, where people have come to it unbiased, points the other way—in fact a paper for the incoming Labour Minister in 2002, and that’s a paper prepared by our own department, spelled out just how it wasn’t working, that one in two were not engaged in the economy. Now, how is it all over Europe they are saying this, the UK, they were saying it in the last campaign, they’re saying it in Australia now, and all around Asia they believe what I’m saying—what’s wrong with New Zealand then? Or have we just got a group of armchair academics and ivory tower specialists so removed from the reality of all human existence, that they think their views are more important? New Zealanders are missing out on jobs and employment and all sorts of things. We’ve got 2000 doctors now from New Zealand and Australia being replaced by third world doctors…Am I on about immigration? Yes I am, but I’m not on about immigrants, that’s a big difference. You know immigration policy is a legitimate discussion in every country, I mean it was from the first time the first boat landed with Captain Cook, it has been an issue and it was an issue with the Maori people before that as well.

Do you think it is time for New Zealand to sit down and have a rational, informed debate on…

Population policy. Population policy should be focused on what the country’s economy and society needs, filling in gaps in social needs, such as medical specialists—all sorts of people are required, that’s what we always used to do. And economically, your whole population policy should be built around economics. Why else would you do it? Apart from your United Nations obligation to take so many per year, which I accept…But outside that refugee category, why on earth would you have a policy where the Minister can tell me, “well, ah, we’ve got so many people who are overstayers in this country”…In this modern computer age, here we are, we have no idea who’s here and who’s not here, in fact we’re a laughing stock, we’re ridiculous. It’s one thing to have a soft heart, but it’s no use to have a head to match, because we’re paying for it.

How can you sell the superannuation and savings policy to young people, who are reluctant to put away a bit of money when there are student loans to pay back?

It’s a fair question, but the tragedy is now that with all this mucking around whilst they ignored people that were saying “we’re running adrift here”, and with the misalignment of the taxation—what I’m arguing and what I still want to argue, is that it makes it more difficult to happen. In short I was offering an eight per cent tax cut. So if you were a student, you were getting an eight per cent tax cut and that was going straight into savings, so it would sort of be painless. That was only a packet of cigarettes a week. Not bad you know. A packet of cigarettes a week to have a far better retirement plan than we’ve got now in terms of the amount you’d get. But here’s the point—the game’s up. You students are going to be denied choice now because they’ve wasted their time, now we’ve got to start with much more difficult circumstances and we still have to save because there is no money coming from anywhere…

We’re a perverted, contorted, schizophrenic economy. So why should students save? Well let me just tell you something, the best advice I could give you, I wish I’d saved back when I was young, put eight per cent aside. Singapore’s awash with money, Australia’s awash with money, Chile’s awash with money—they have simple savings schemes, they’re all going down that path.

In the 2008 election, New Zealand First just missed out on making the five per cent threshold required for representation in Parliament. Is it time for New Zealand to look at MMP and look at lowering that threshold and perhaps tweaking the electoral system?

We knew the rules. The argument way back then when MMP first arrived was do we make the threshold four or five? I argued for five because I was concerned about the dislocation of too many parties that you see in some countries. Maybe four is fair or not, perhaps it is, but the last thing New Zealand First is going to say is that…we don’t like the rules. We accepted it, we knew we should have won easily…

You have had a long career in politics, what have you learned in your time?

I’ll tell you what I’ve learned in my time—it’s what I started with, it’s reinforced my view. Politics can be a horrible, dirty, filthy business and it frequently encourages that very type of character to emerge in it. But its saving grace is that it has the capacity to change for the better people’s lives, quicker and in a more enduring way than any other profession I know…And that’s why I’ve always believed in it.

Is there anything you would have done differently?

Yes of course, but you know anyone who regrets that would have never made a decision to do anything in the first place. There are thing that I wished I’d have done. Little things that I wished I’d have seen how significant it was, but there aren’t many of them on the big issues—the inappropriateness of the Reserve Bank Act, and now more and more people are saying it, for an exporting economy and a national savings strategy, and now they’re all saying it. Next thing they’ll say it’s their own. ‘One law for all’, who couched that phrase? We did, and the need to have a Treaty of Waitangi that people understood, rather than just made up by academics and jurists. The need for focused immigration policies, shared now by every country in the world excepting New Zealand…So on those big things, I’m proud of them.

But there are some things I wish…For example I wish that when I was very young that I’d argued for the Kirk compulsory savings regime on the basis that I know it’s defective, but we can fix it. And that’s a long time ago. But you see, nearly all women missed out, and you didn’t get the full benefit until 2028, so that’s a long way to go. But we could have fixed that instead of barrelling it over and wasting all those years we would have more money per capita now than Australia…We are broke.

Regrets—little things when you find out later, why didn’t I think that? I’ll give you an example. One night they rose in Parliament to say we’re not going to go to the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980. That wasn’t discussed in caucus, up gets the Minister of Internal Affairs—frankly I wished to this dying day that I’d go up there and said, who the hell says so? We’ve not had a discussion, I think you’re talking crap. Just because Maggie Thatcher says it, and Ronnie Reagan says it, doesn’t mean we should. But everyone went along. Those are things I regret.

Things I have learned following the Canterbury earthquake:

1. Salient would be so seriously fucked if there was a big earthquake and the Student Union Building was inaccessible. We should probably be backing up ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to a portable hard-drive each and every night, just in case the big one hits. We also need access to a laptop with Adobe Creative Suite and probably a generator. And internet. Lots of internet.
2. Thank god we have building codes and standards in this country.
3. My house would probably withstand the force of a rather large earthquake. My entire house shakes every time a bus/truck/large vehicle goes around the corner. And man did it shake that fateful Saturday morning two weeks ago. My wooden house has been standing since the early 20th century, so I figure it’s acquired a sort of natural flex thing, which will ensure it just sways with the motion of the earthquake, rather than collapsing. At least, this is what I tell myself.
4. Don’t count on TV3 to provide you with constant blow-by-blow coverage in the event of a major disaster. Just hourly updates. They’ll never win the ratings war at this rate… But they did have sweeter graphics than TVNZ.
5. I should probably start stashing bottles of water under my bed. I am already familiar with the perils of having no water. Back in 2004, Feilding flooded and the water was out—for almost a week. We drove to Palmerston North each day to shower at a friend’s place. We also stocked up on bottled water at the supermarket. And they had a water truck that drove around the streets and you could fill up huge containers with sweet, sweet water.
6. Everything I learned about earthquakes in high school geography is correct. Thank you, Mrs Jeffreys. I always knew you were right. Really. I should get on to making my ‘B Ready’ kit…
7. Don’t stand in fissures/holes in the ground. What is the matter with you? What if there’s an aftershock and it closes back up?!
8. Someone on Twitter suggested that people should get a cat, so if you notice it start to go crazy, you know an earthquake/some other natural disaster is imminent.
9. It might be time to move to a country that doesn’t straddle a tectonic plate boundary.
10. It could have been much, much worse.

This week is the Queer Issue of Salient! Special shout out and thank you to UniQ, in particular Stephen Jackson, who have done a stellar job of producing a stackload of content for this issue. Awesome work!

You’ve probably heard of Kerry Prendergast. Love her or hate her, she’s the Mayor of Wellington City. She’s the one that thought the Wellywood sign was a good idea. Yeah, her. Remember?

In a few weeks time, if you’ve been organised enough to change your details on the electoral roll, you’ll get you chance to have a say on who leads this city for the next three years. It’s democracy in action, or something like that.

Turnout for local body elections has always been significantly lower than that for general elections—and young people are even less likely than the rest of the population to bother filling out their postal ballot forms and sending them back.

While, no doubt, apathy plays a significant part in our reluctance to vote in local body elections, a general lack of awareness of the function of local councils—not to mention District Health Boards—and what they do on a day-to-day basis means that we don’t feel like we have a vested interest or reason to participate.

Then, of course, there is the perception that the council is just a bunch of old people sitting around talking schmack about rates, water, roads and other unimportant shit. But think about it: Do you put your rubbish out to be collected in those yellow rubbish bags? How about that recycling? Have you got a resident’s permit to park your car on the street outside your house? Do you frequent any of the parks around the city, the Botans perhaps? This is all ‘stuff’ the council, and we as residents of Wellington, deal with every day.

The problem is that councils don’t often appear ‘relevant’ to young people. Attempts to get youth involvement or perspective can come across as token gestures, or they’re just plain fucking cheesy. Congrats to the Hutt City Council which has had thousands of responses to their first comprehensive youth survey. One hopes that the council will take the responses on board and work on some positive, youth-friendly policies and initiatives.

There’s only one way to change attitudes—those of councilors towards young people and vice versa—and that’s to get involved, take an interest in local issues that affect you and vote. Not voting means you basically waive your right to legitimately bitch and moan about stuff.

Next week: STV—is it as bad as an STI?

Also, wanna apply to edit this smutty rag next year? Check out the ad on page 33. Applications close 22 September. Want more info? Email editor@salient.org.nz, give us a call 04 463 6766 or pop into the office.

Making yet another political comeback, granny charmer Winston Peters spoke to an audience of about 70 students—at least 50 years the junior of most New Zealand First supporters—at Victoria University before the mid-semester break.

Crushed into the smallest and least-glamourous meeting room in the Student Union Building, the New Zealand First leader took questions from the floor about a range of topics, as diverse as Wellington’s late trains, mining, universal student allowances and pig farming.

Peters’ appearance at Vic attracted mainstream media attention with TV3 star John Campbell and 3News political editor Duncan Garner present. 3News reported after the event that Peters is intending to stand in John Key’s seat of Helensville in the 2011 election.

Peters was berated throughout his 50-minute stand-up performance by Act on Campus President Peter McCaffrey. McCaffrey was accompanied by a large white sign that simply said “no”. The sign was reminiscent of Peters’ own “no” sign which he waved around at a press conference in 2008 in the midst of the scandal regarding political donations. Peters refused to autograph McCaffrey’s sign.

Ousted in the 2008 election, after Peters failed to win his Tauranga seat and the party failed to make the five per cent threshold necessary for representation in Parliament, Peters has been lurking in the political shadows—until now.

Peters’ visit was hosted by New Zealand First on Campus. At the meeting’s conclusion Peters encouraged those buoyed by his sentiments to consider joining the party.

I can’t believe it’s nearly the end of August. 2010 has flown by in a blink. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t all that long ago that it was February and my trusty designer sidekick Juliette and I were freaking out about how we had to make a 56-page magazine every week. We’re 19 issues in. Only six to go. Holy shit. Needless to say we’re kind of putting off thinking about post-Salient unemployment, but that’s a story for another day.

There are a few things that you can expect when you end up editing a student mag like this: sleep deprivation, bad skin, an unhealthy addiction to caffeine, a diet of takeaways and junk food, and spending the majority of your time in an office in front of a computer. Two things should be mentioned here: surprisingly I haven’t put on weight, and I haven’t taken up smoking. Dad will be pleased.

Despite the stress, the sleepless nights, the multiple cups of coffee a day and writing features/editorials/news stories at 2am on a Friday morning, this job is actually pretty darn fun. I get to hang out with my bff for, like, 80 hours a week. I can wear trackpants to work if I want. I get to make masks of Max Hardy. I get to laugh about buying Brad Pitt’s garlic naan on TradeMe. I get to legitimately be on my Gmail for hours on end talking to “important people” about “important matters”. If you were curious, this week’s topic of Gmail discussion has been my failure to win a free Bounty bar, despite the fact I’ve consumed at least six of them in the last two days. Thrilling stuff. Oh, to edit a student magazine. We really don’t get out much.

On a more serious note, we’ve got a more important job to do. We’re here to entertain. We’re here to inform. We’re here to keep an eye on VUWSA. We’re here to keep an eye on the university. We’re here to tell you
about what you should care about. We’re here to make your time at university a more pleasurable experience. Or something. We eat, breathe and dream Salient for you guys: the students who pick up the magazine week in, week out. Salient’s army of contributors have been doing this job for 72 years now. And for the majority of those 72 years, we’ve been doing it pretty darn well.

After the break we begin the search for an Editor for 2011. It’s the best job in the world and it’s also—at times—the worst. But that just comes with the territory. If you’re going to apply, be prepared to devote your heart and soul to this magazine for an entire year. I’m not kidding when I say I don’t get out much. But
if you think you’ve got what it takes, apply. It’s your chance to stamp your mark on a longstanding part of student life at Vic. Watch out for more details in Issue 19.

Last, but not least, special mention must go to Mikey Langdon, our Chief Sub-Editor and Online Editor. It was his last day at Salient last Thursday—he’s fleeing to Germany for a while to teach high school-age brats English. Mikey has been lurking around Salient for a couple of years now, checking our grammar and correcting our spelling. He’s spent hours and hours in the office and has gone above and beyond the call of duty in his work for Salient. I know I can speak for Jackson as well on this, Mikey has been an integral part in making Salient what it is over the past two years. He’s put up with some awful music choices (Eve, B*Witched, Ricky Martin, Ju’s awful singing—to name a few), constant mocking and late-night delirium. And for some reason he keeps coming back—probably because we pay him this year. Mikey, you’ve been awesome to work with and we’re going to miss you heaps. Keep mini fluoro cock bear safe on your travels. Our spelling and grammar is probably going to be heaps worse.
Sorry everyone.

Salient is still awaiting official turnout figures from the recent VUWSA by-election, a week and a half after the votes were counted and the results confirmed.

Salient was provided with the total number of votes cast in the by-election, but not the number of individual students who voted.

The turnout figures were requested from Returning Officer Sara Fraser the evening the results were released
Fraser responded to this email after last week’s issue went to print, saying she would be in the office “sporadically” and that she “may be able to provide them [the figures] then”.

A second email was sent to Fraser last Tuesday to remind her Salient had requested the turnout figures. There has been no response to this email.

Salient could be waiting a while, with Fraser only working a limited number of hours in the Returning Officer position. And we’ve got no idea when she’ll be back in the office. Sigh.

Sometimes it’s tough deciding what you’re going to write about in your editorial. Today is one of those days. I was presented with a few options via Facebook:

• An editorial about my friend’s friend Ed. (Who is Ed? I don’t know Ed. Is this some sick, lame joke?)
• An editorial about how awesome the editor of another student magazine is. (You’re cool, but I’m not going to devote an entire editorial to you. And the others might get jealous.)
• The annual editorial about how hard it is to write an editorial. (NO, I am not going to be the first in student media to do it this year.)
• Another editorial about the VUWSA by-election. (Read the news section, I can’t be bothered venting my frustrations on the matter twice.)
• An editorial about how I would choose my Gmail over the life of an adorable kitten. (I’m sorry, I live on Gmail, the kitten must die.)
• Chris Carter (The poor guy’s suffered enough—not cool John Key, btw, not cool.)

Inspiration, as you can see, is pretty hard to come by. I even read the editorial that’s going in Critic this week. That didn’t help either. I’m actually stuck. Decision-making sucks. Please note this is not an editorial about how hard it is to write an editorial. Really, it’s not.

The default option is to tell you what’s in Salient this week. New Zealand has long shrugged off its reliance on the ‘mother country’ Brtitain, and slowly but surely Asia, and particularly East Asia, is becoming a more important player in our political, economic and even social relations.

Debate surrounding our relationship with China is ongoing, and is unlikely to end any time soon. Questions over issues such as human rights and labour standards still linger, and influence debate in New Zealand, at least about whether or not we should be seen to be fostering these ties. The fallout from Russel Norman’s Tibetan flag protest, and outcry over a Chinese-backed proposal to buy the Crafar farms, show that there are still issues that need to be negotiated and debated by New Zealanders regarding our relationship with China.

David Smith looks into the issue of the right to freedom of expression, using the Norman protest as a case study. Why don’t we hear about conflicts in Central Asia in the news? One of the feature writers investigates why we don’t know much about what goes on in some former Soviet states—are we too busy worrying about Afghanistan and the Middle East? Not to mention we’ve got Academic Idol in there, the VUWSA by-election results and all sorts of other goodies and surprises.

You’ll see on the back cover of this week’s issue we have conveniently provided you with a sweet cut-out mask so you can pretend to be the VUWSA President for a day. We’ve even provided you with some suggested phrases, to make the experience all the more genuine.

That wasn’t so hard after all. Have a good week. Oh and I wasn’t that serious about picking my Gmail over a cute, adorable kitten.

No Confidence misses out

Results of the VUWSA by-election were released shortly before 6pm last Thursday, with a candidate elected to each one of the five vacant positions contested.

Although students had the option of voting No Confidence for Vice-President (Education) and International Officer, these positions were won by Bridie Hood with 662 votes and Paul Zhong with 604 votes.

Other successful candidates were Richard Carr as Vice-President (Administration), 317 votes; Tom Reed as Queer Officer, 298 votes; and Timothy Parker as Publications Committee Representative, 753 votes.

Bridie Hood has held the role of Acting Vice-President (Education) for the first half of 2010. When spoken to by Salient, Hood seemed overjoyed with the by-election result.

“I am very very pleased and excited!”

As Vice-President (Education), Hood says she will create stronger ties with education rep groups, faculty delegates and create a strong base at the Karori Campus, with the goal of setting up an education rep group.

Richard Carr was also pleased with his new position.

“I am honoured to be voted as the Vice-President (Administration) for the rest of 2010 and I thank every student who voted in the election.”

Carr says he is dedicated to moving VUWSA towards a more “prosperous and cost-effective future”, so that the organisation is not crippled if Roger Douglas’ VSM bill is passed in parliament.

VUWSA Activities Officer Alan Young also stood for the Vice-President (Administration) position, coming a close second with 297 votes.

As reported in Salient, No Confidence was not offered as an option for Publications Committee Representative, despite there being only one candidate for the position. This is because the inclusion of No Confidence if this situation arises is not specified in the constitution. Students still had the option of selecting ‘no vote’ on their ballot forms.

This anomaly means that a candidate could win the position with just one vote. When Salient raised this with VUWSA President Max Hardy, he said he would look into the issue.

Salient’s Academic Idol competition has not received more votes in total than were cast in the by-election, however, votes cast for the competition last week alone exceeded the 317 votes won by Carr.

Salient requested voter turnout figures from VUWSA Returning Officer Sara Fraser. Salient was told that these were on the bottom line of the first page of the results, marked total.

However, the line specified by the Returning Officer was, in fact, the total number of votes that had been cast across all positions, not the actual number of students who voted.

Assuming that a student places a vote in each of the positions, they would have cast five votes each. Given there was also the option of selecting ‘no vote’ on the online ballot forms, it cannot be clearly determined exactly how many students voted.

Salient explained this to the Returning Officer via email, but no response was received by the time Salient went to print.

On 7 April 2008, New Zealand became the first developed country to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) with China. The agreement came into force on 1 October that same year, signaling the beginning of a blossoming economic relationship between the two countries. But why has New Zealand so fervently pursued an economic relationship with China? What’s in it for us? And what interest does China have in an island nation, with a population of only four million people, at the bottom of the South Pacific?

The deal

The substance of the FTA was negotiated over a three-year period. Kefeng Chu, Director of Operations–China from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), says that the final product of the negotiations, the FTA that is now in place, “liberalises and facilitates the trade of goods and services, improves the business environment and promotes cooperation between the two countries in a broad range of economic areas”.

In addition to this, Chu says the FTA ensures “that any services and investment provisions that are extended by China to third countries in future trade agreements will automatically be applied to New Zealand”.

For most of us, this just sounds like economic gobbledigook. So what does the signing of the FTA mean in a sentence? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) summarises the FTA as this: “New Zealand and China have entered into an agreement that allows for mutually beneficial concessions in the area of trade of goods, services and investment.”

There are several specified “key outcomes” of the FTA. The most important of these is the removal, over time, of tariffs on 96 per cent of New Zealand exports to China. The FTA outlines rules to determine which products qualify for tariff cuts, along with rules to “counter unfair trade or unexpected surges in imported products from the other country”. The FTA is, in some respects, a more formalised means of building upon and expanding our already cooperative economic relationship with China.

For a number of reasons, it makes sense for a small nation like New Zealand to pursue an FTA with China. Despite the recession, China’s economy has continued to grow, even if at a slightly lower rate. China has become an important player economically and politically on a global level, and its importance is unlikely to diminish in the foreseeable future. Some political commentators have predicted a shift in the global ‘balance of power’ from the United States to China and East Asia.

In the two years since the FTA was signed, China has gone from New Zealand’s fourth to second largest trading partner. Agricultural products, including dairy, wool, oils and fats, are New Zealand’s main exports to China. Beyond the agricultural sector, forestry, seafood, machinery, aluminium and high technology products are among New Zealand’s other export products to China. Trade with China is crucial to New Zealand, and yet because of our size and relative economic unimportance, we are but a blip on China’s economic radar.

A long-standing relationship

New Zealand’s relations with China date back to the late 19th century, when Chinese migrants arrived in New Zealand seeking jobs and other opportunities. Professor Xiaoming Huang, who heads the Contemporary China Research Centre at Victoria University, says three stages are evident in New Zealand’s relationship with China. The arrival of this first generation of Chinese in New Zealand, many of whom found jobs as gold miners, marks the first stage in relations between the two countries.

The second stage, Huang explains, spans the 1930s and the Second World War period, when a few New Zealanders ended up in China. He says they developed “very good relations with the then-exiled Communist groups in different parts of China”. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) eventually took power in the Communist revolution of 1949. As a result, the relations that New Zealanders had developed with members of the Communist party became very useful.

New Zealand established formal diplomatic relations with China in 1972, recognising the People’s Republic of China led by the CCP. In the years since, the relationship with China has become, according to MFAT, “one of New Zealand’s most valuable and important”. Visits by high-level officials and politicians have been exchanged between the two countries, particularly since the mid-1990s. Prime Minister John Key has twice visited China, the most recent visit being just a month ago, while the Chinese Vice-President touched down in New Zealand in June.

What has paved the way for greater economic cooperation between New Zealand and China is the opening up of the Chinese market, a process started by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. His sweeping economic reforms ended the stranglehold that the CCP and the state held over the Chinese economy. China’s economic liberalisation and entry into the global marketplace has seen China’s wealth grow considerably, with business and private enterprise opportunities opening up for both the Chinese population and foreign investors hoping to tap into the Chinese market.

Huang says that particularly over the last ten years, and especially with the FTA, New Zealand and China have built a relationship with “more substance”—marking the third stage in bilateral relations between the two divergent countries.

“China and New Zealand, they are different sizes, [come from] different political ideological camps, different historical backgrounds, but somehow they have found common interest to nurture their relations.”

Huang adds, “What China wants here and what we want from China may not always be the same, so you do have [those] different views about the relations. New Zealand is doing quite uniquely with China.”

What are we set to gain?

The economic benefits to be gained from an FTA with China have been a major talking point in media coverage of the New Zealand-China relationship. Charles Finny, Chief Executive of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, says that since the signing of the FTA, New Zealand has been doing even better than expected.

“The modeling done before the negotiations started suggested that a high quality FTA would deliver benefits worth hundreds of millions to the New Zealand economy. The performance of our goods and services exporters since the FTA was signed suggests that the growth in our exports has probably exceeded these expectations.

“During the first year of operation, New Zealand exports to China grew by 60 per cent. This was in the face of a global recession, which saw the biggest contraction in international trade since the 1930s. Over the last year, exports to China have continued to grow strongly at around 25 per cent.”

Finny adds that New Zealand consumers have also benefited from “lower prices resulting from tariff liberalisation at the New Zealand border”.

Chu says that as a result of the FTA, New Zealand products enjoy 15 per cent lower tariffs, compared with countries that don’t have an FTA with China.

The FTA has “helped to increase the overall awareness of the potential of the China market for New Zealand businesses, and there is an increasing number of New Zealand companies who are interested in the China market or have entered the market,” Chu says.

“The FTA has also resulted in an increased awareness of New Zealand, at least in some business sectors and amongst some senior government officials in China.”

Given New Zealand’s size, exports are crucial to the economy. “In the longer term, the FTA with China will increase our exports to China,” Chu says.

“The FTA also leads to greater cooperation in the areas of customs, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and intellectual property, which will improve the operating environment for New Zealand companies and their services/products in the China market.

“There are also other areas of cooperation, such as agriculture and food safety, that have strengthened as a result of the FTA.”

In the end this will help increase New Zealand’s presence in China, no doubt having flow on economic effects for us back home.

Bumps along the road

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing in New Zealand’s relations with China. Prior to the signing of the FTA, Finny says New Zealand faced a range of barriers to goods and services exports into the Chinese markets.

“These ranged from quotas, to high tariffs to heavy regulation. Our companies also had poor protection for their IP [intellectual property]. The FTA has liberalised these barriers and increased protections for New Zealand companies.

“Our key competitors—Australia, [the] EU, US, Canada—do not enjoy the good access conditions New Zealand now enjoys.”

China does not present as much of a concern to New Zealand, strategically and politically, as it does to bigger countries like the United States and Australia. This could be a reason why New Zealand has been able to develop cooperative relations with China, but others have found it a more complex prospect.

“If you look across different countries, certainly New Zealand feels less [political problems] or otherwise in dealing with China,” Huang says.

“I suppose because we don’t have much of a strategic concern that some other countries might have—the United States, or even Australia I think—[their concerns are] bigger than just economic interests I suppose.”

However, debate does occur in New Zealand about the nature and shape of our relationship with China. And this debate goes beyond the issue of economics. Huang says that different interests and views regarding relations with China do exist within New Zealand society.

“It’s not like there’s no questions or debate about what we do with China… Particularly more recently in terms of how do we deal with incoming Chinese capital to buy land, to buy companies? How do we deal with labour issues, politics in China, values, human rights issues—all these issues. You do have different groups and interests in New Zealand.”
Interestingly, Huang doesn’t think these competing interests pose much of a barrier to New Zealand’s relationship with China—thus far the two countries have successfully made agreements based on what common ground they do share.

“They’re just a part of the policy process and general public interest,” he says.

The future?

China is going to play an important role in New Zealand’s economic future, Finny believes.

“The international financial crisis has increased China’s relative economic position globally, and reinforced the importance of China’s foreign exchange reserves and the strengths of its banking system,” he says.

“China has become more important to New Zealand, not just as a trading partner… but as a source of capital and investment funds. As a country that is a net importer of capital, we need China if we are to maintain our standard of living and improve upon this. We need a more sophisticated debate on foreign investment. If we don’t access capital from abroad, where is it going to come from?”

Finny touches on a good point, one that came to prominence when a Chinese-backed company proposed buying the Crafar farms earlier this year. There appeared to be considerable opposition to the proposal, and foreign investment in New Zealand farms appeared to hit a bum note among New Zealanders. Huang says that the issue of land purchases touches at the very “foundation of New Zealand society [and] economy in a sense, this is the way we built our system”.

John Key made it clear in an interview on Q+A that he was concerned about New Zealand farms being sold offshore in large numbers because he believes it’s “not a good thing for New Zealand”. But as Finny says, if the capital can’t come from within New Zealand, where else are we to turn?

New Zealand’s budding relationship with China is not going to be without its challenges. As ties with China grow stronger, no doubt it will have some impact on policy debate in New Zealand and how we see ourselves as a country. But New Zealand has set itself on a path that it might find difficult to turn off.

“Movement of Chinese capital around the world is a phenomena you can’t stop,” Huang says.

“[The] question is how international society can build relations so it can be useful for us. It’s a challenge.”

Students hoping to vote No Confidence for Publications Committee Representative will be sorely disappointed after it was not included as a voting option in online ballot forms for the VUWSA by-election.

The VUWSA Constitution states that where there is only one candidate standing for a position on the VUWSA exec, “you may vote ‘no confidence’ for that position”.

However, the Publications Committee is dealt with separately to positions on the VUWSA exec, in Schedule 2, 24 C of the Constitution.

This sub-clause reads “For the Publications Committee, you may vote for up to two candidates”. No mention is made in the Constitution of whether no confidence needs to be included as a voting option if there is only one candidate standing for the position.

The sole candidate for the Publications Committee Student Representative is Timothy Parker.

Students still have the option of selecting ‘no vote’ on their ballot forms.

Student culture. It’s something we’re in dire need of here at Vic.

We just don’t have any. And we haven’t had any for quite some time.

There’s not much that brings the 25,000 students at Vic together—except the fact that we are all enrolled at the same university.

It’s quite easy to walk to uni each day, go to class and go home again, without interacting with anyone. I’m fairly certain I’ve been guilty of that in my time here.

There’s no reason to stay on campus, unless you’re in need of the library or a computer. Until the opening of the coffee shop at Vic Books at the beginning of this year, the coffee has been shit, prompting many a student to venture into town for a caffeine fix. I’m not even going to comment on the state of the food on campus.

If you’ve been flicking through Salient this semester, you have probably come across Academic Idol. Heck, you may have even voted. It was an idea pioneered in 2006 under the editorship of James Robinson. So why do it again? Last time around students mobilised in their droves, voting, launching support campaigns and generally getting behind something that brought together the somewhat aloof schools in this university. It bridged the gap between students and their lecturers. For once. And that’s cool. There’s not enough of that. And that’s why we’re doing it again.

Kia ora to everyone, lecturers included, who have totally got into this Academic Idol thing. Judging by the response thus far, it’s probably going to top the 2006 competition. And I’m more than happy to put money on more people voting in Academic Idol than in the VUWSA by-election.

In the past, student culture has very much centred around the students’ association—yes, even here at Vic. VUWSA used to be cool. Read A Radical Tradition. These days, VUWSA is not the bastion of student culture it once was, no doubt partly due to the misdemeanors of some exec members that have been reported in the pages of Salient over the last four and a half years.

Voting in the VUWSA by-election opened last Thursday. To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve missed that news flash. Beyond the news pages of Salient, there hasn’t been much advertising or promotion of the by-election. You got an email about it. But you might have deleted it by accident. Or it went to your junk mail. If the email managed to make it to your inbox and survive the email cull, did you even bother to vote? I guess we’ll wait with baited breath for the results and voter turnout figures on Thursday.

For me, the low point of this entire by-election fiasco was the candidates’ forum at Mount Street last week. The forum was mentioned in Salient’s by-election news coverage and VUWSA had a full-page ad in the magazine last week—complete with glaring grammatical error—advising students the forum was on. But only six people showed up. People I talked to who were sitting on the couches had no idea there was a forum on, and politely went about finishing their lunch or beers in blissful ignorance.

More surprising was the fact that only four of the nine candidates standing bothered to make an appearance. But even if they had bothered to show, no one would have been able to hear a word of what they were saying—there was no microphone. What is the problem here? VUWSA wants students to engage, VUWSA wants students to participate, VUWSA wants students to have their say and vote. But where is the concerted action to make this happen?

If VUWSA wants students to engage, they need to get students to care. At the moment they’re not really giving students much reason to do so. Without a strong sense of student culture on campus, this is admittedly hard to do. But VUWSA needs to establish itself as part of what student culture we do have. With VSM on the horizon, this is going to be ever more crucial.

If you still don’t give a fuck about VUWSA, please at least vote in Academic Idol this week. Make dreams come true. Check out page 16.

Nominations have closed for the upcoming VUWSA by-election, and No Confidence is once again set to make a showing in the polls.

Three of the five positions to be decided in the election are to be contested by only one candidate.

Bridie Hood is the only nominee for the Vice-President (Education) position. Hood has filled the role in an acting capacity this year.

Only one nomination has been received in each of the International Officer and Publications Committee Representative positions, with the candidates being Paul Zhong and Timothy Parker respectively.

Three nominations have been received for Vice-President (Administration), including current Activities Officer Alan Young, as well as VUWSA newbies Thomas Horrobin and Richard Carr.

Tom Reed, Cruz Johnson and Kerry Brown have put themselves forward for Queer Officer.

In positions where there is only one candidate standing, there is the option of voting No Confidence.

No Confidence has made a strong showing in recent VUWSA elections. Although often close, No Confidence is yet to win a position on the VUWSA exec.

The inclusion of No Confidence in the 2009 by-election in some positions where multiple candidates stood was a cause for controversy, and resulted in the by-election being declared invalid.

There will be a candidate’s forum at the Mount Street Bar this Wednesday at 12.30pm. Salient hopes there might be free food there.

No Confidence was not available for comment before Salient went to print.

Polling begins this Thursday, and runs until 5 August. You can vote online or at polling stations across the Vic campuses.

You’ll be able to check out candidate profiles online from midday tomorrow. We’ll also be printing them in Salient next week, along with interviews with some of the candidates.

What? Who’s standing again?

Vice President (Education)

Bridie Hood

Vice President (Administration)

Thomas Horrobin
Richard Carr
Alan Young

Queer Officer

Tom Reed
Cruz Johnson
Kerry Brown

International Officer

Paul Zhong

Publications Committee Representative

Timothy Parker

Submissions on Sir Roger Douglas’ Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill are continuing to be heard in the Education and Science select committee.

Last week, former Labour Finance Minister, and former colleague of Sir Roger, David Caygill, along with his son James, presented a submission opposed to the bill.

David Caygill said that if people want to disassociate themselves from students’ associations when undertaking tertiary study, they should not be able to do so simply for financial advantage, NZPA reported.

Sir Roger was absent from the select committee hearings, which took place last Wednesday.

David Caygill said the so-called VSM bill would reduce the ability of students’ associations to serve and represent their members—the two things they were set up to do.

The select committee was questioned as to whether there is “some larger harm that needs to be addressed that justifies the disadvantages that this bill will clearly confer on students’ associations in the future”.

“We say no, that is in fact not the case,” Caygill said.

James Caygill said that nothing in the bill appeared to enhance the ability for people to freely associate or disassociate themselves from students’ associations.

He told the committee that if it was decided that legislation needed to be strengthened to enhance the ability to conscientiously object, it needed to be clear that would not confer financial advantage.

“If conscientious objection is something parliament feels it needs to enhance, by all means enhance it. But make sure it’s a neutral enhancement.”

Labour MP Trevor Mallard said that he suspected the government had realised there were “some dangers” in the bill, and that a compromise needed to be sought.

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce has indicated he will be taking a closer look at the compulsory non-academic levies that students are being charged by universities and polytechs.

In a speech at Victoria University last week, Joyce expressed concern that a number of institutions have made significant increases to non-academic levies, which fund services like student health and careers services.

Joyce said he has seen instances where students have been charged for things such as a “building maintenance levy”, “library services” or “compulsory charges for internet access”.

Joyce will be writing to the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee to formally raise the issue and express his concerns.

“I would urge universities and ITPs to tread carefully with these compulsory add-ons—I wouldn’t want to see big increases after big increases leading people to think you are avoiding fee regulation by charging in another way,” he said.

Joyce will question whether all the things that are being charged for should be compulsory for all students or not, and whether part-time students should be treated differently to full-time students.

Universities will be asked to justify the fees they are charging students.

A number of universities, including Victoria, increased student services levies for 2010. Vic’s compulsory student services levy almost doubled from $275 in 2009 to $510 for the 2010 academic year. Canterbury University increased their levy from $80 in 2009 to $600 in 2010.

Victoria University Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh is confident that the university can justify the levy being charged to students.

“By paying the levy, students are able to access the wide range of services offered for a full calendar year, for free or for a heavily discounted rate,” he says.

“These services are necessary for students to be supported through their time at university. No one can predict when they may need to access services such as counselling, health, or learning and career support. To provide this support is fundamental to offering a learning and teaching environment where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.”

VUWSA President Max Hardy says VUWSA “vigorously opposed” the increase to the levy.

“Students are the main funders, and the only users of the services, and they therefore have a right to a big say in the levy and how it is spent.”

He says he has been in touch with many students on the issue. “Some are supportive of the levy and some are not,” he says.

New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) Co-President David Do says universities need to be “upfront and transparent about how they spend students’ fees”.

He says the source of the levy increases is “government under-funding putting pressure on institution budgets”.

“Students are getting the raw end of the stick,” Do says.

Hardy says that Joyce has approached both NZUSA and VUWSA to begin dialogue on student services levies.

This week is VUWSA’s environment week. It’s kind of like women’s week, but with trees and ocean and stuff. This is the environment issue of Salient. It’s nothing like the women’s issue at all. And I’m not going to write about the environment. You’ve got the rest of the magazine to read all about that.

How about tertiary education? That’s something we all have in common.

You’ll see in the news section we’ve got a lot of coverage of Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce’s speech at Vic last week. Leaving the content of his speech aside, it’s nice to see a Tertiary Education Minister actually front up and talk to the key stakeholders in the sector.

Joyce also addressed the recent NZUSA Conference, a gesture which indicates he is at least willing to engage constructively with students and students’ associations on tertiary education issues. Joyce hasn’t shied away from student media either, which is a marked difference from the infamous Anne Tolley. Tolley got herself a bit of a rep last year after Salient, Craccum and Critic embarked on the so-called ‘Great Tolley Hunt’ in an attempt to track her down for comment. Kia ora Steven, kia ora—thanks for talking to us, even if we don’t always see eye-to-eye on your plans for tertiary education.

One of the main talking points of Joyce’s speech is the compulsory fee charged to students for non-academic services, AKA, the student services levy. The mainstream media has jumped on the levy bandwagon of late, helped in part by a One News story featuring a student who said they were “bullied” into paying the compulsory student services levy and students’ association membership fee. Together these fees add up to about $700, which is no small sum of money, but it’s important to remember what exactly it pays for.

Let’s take the student services levy. The $510 you forked out at the beginning of this year—go and check your fees assessment, it’s there—funds stuff like student health, the counselling service, accommodation services, disability services, student learning support services, financial support and advice, recreation services and crèches, among others. These are essential support services, and without them, many students would find studying at Vic even more of a challenge, if near impossible.

I would suggest that many students don’t fully understand what the student services levy pays for and provides—with a greater understanding of the services provided by the university, which are there for our benefit, we may see fewer instances of students feeling outraged that they are forced to pay a fee for services they say they don’t need or don’t use. In the end, while you may not be using the services yourself, you probably have a friend, flatmate, neighbour or classmate who has made use of the services funded by the student services levy. You never know when you might find yourself in financial strife. You never know when you might need to see a doctor. Heck, you might just want some help on an essay to try to up your grades.

We need to tread carefully on the issue of compulsory fees for non-academic services. We need to think about affordability. We need to think carefully about what services are not only of benefit to us personally, but are of benefit to fellow students. We’re pretty much one big family after all. We’ve gotta look out for each other.

But a couple of final environment-related things: thank you to Zack Dorner, VUWSA’s environment officer, for all his hard work for this issue. You seriously rule and everything was in by deadline. My job/life was made so much easier. Thank you to everyone who contributed articles.

This week we’re doing a limited print run of only 3000 copies of Salient, instead of the usual 5000. Share the magazine around, give it to your friends, put it back in the baskets for someone else to read. It’s our way of easing our environmental burden, even if it’s just a little bit.

VUWSA has narrowly dodged a constitutional bullet by revising the date for the first polling day in the upcoming by-election.

Had VUWSA proceeded with the original date for the first day of polling, the by-election would have breached the rules prescribed for the conduct of elections outlined in the VUWSA Constitution.

The constitution states “not less than fourteen office days before the first polling day a notice calling for applications for any position or positions to be filled shall be posted on the Association noticeboard”.

VUWSA had originally scheduled the first day of polling to be 22 July. Nominations for the vacant positions opened 12 July. A notice was placed on the Association noticeboard on the ground floor of the Student Union Building late last Monday afternoon.

The notice was placed on the noticeboard only eight office days before the first day of polling. Had the date for the first day of polling not been changed, the by-election would have been unconstitutional.

Early last week, Salient asked VUWSA President Max Hardy if he was confident that the by-election met all the obligations outlined in the constitution.

The following day Hardy told Salient there the date for the first day of polling would be changed.

The dates for the by-election were set by the election committee. The election committee is appointed by the VUWSA exec, and consists of three past VUWSA exec members or returning officers.

This near-miss follows in the wake of the botched July 2009 by-election, which was deemed invalid by an independent panel following a complaint by a student.

It was found that the 2009 by-election had not been conducted in accordance with requirements set out in the VUWSA constitution. The panel determined that the inclusion of “No Confidence” in electronic ballots did affect the election outcomes in some positions.

The Returning Officer had not provided Salient with the revised polling dates before we went to print.

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce has signaled that the academic performance of universities and other tertiary education institutions, and how well they prepare students for life after study, will play a more important role in determining levels of funding.

Funding tied to employment outcomes and the online publication of high-level performance information were among the incentives for the tertiary education sector outlined by Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce in a speech at Victoria University last week.

Joyce signaled that over the next two years, tertiary providers will move to a system where funding is “based on how well they perform academically by preparing their students for life after study”.

Initially, a maximum of five per cent of funding will be performance-based.

“Ultimately, I want to see funding linked to employment outcomes, not just internal benchmarks,” Joyce told the audience, which included Victoria University Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh, Otago University Vice-Chancellor David Skegg and other key stakeholders in the tertiary education sector.

“This will send a strong signal to students about which qualifications and which institutions offer the best career prospects—and that’s what tertiary education has got to be about.”

Victoria University Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh said there is merit in considering funding being linked to employment outcomes.

“I feel very confident from the graduate outcome surveys we undertake that our students go on to be useful and productive members of society,” he said.

“There will need to be discussion to be had about exactly how we would do it, but the general principle is not an issue.”

VUWSA President Max Hardy cannot see how such a policy could work in practice.

“I think it shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of tertiary education. We are not just here to train to get a job. Getting a job is not he best indicator of success,” he said.

Joyce said the government is committed to “incentivising educational performance” and providing students with adequate information to inform their decisions surrounding tertiary study.

The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) is about to begin regularly publishing online performance information for tertiary education institutions.

“This information, along with what’s already out there, will empower students’ decisions with the best possible information about course quality, cost, academic requirements and the likely impact on future career prospects,” Joyce said.

“I am sure it will also be a big reputational incentive for tertiary education organisations.”

Walsh supports the publication of high-level performance information “as long as the information is accurate, the measures are relevant and the presentation is of value to current and future students”.

New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations Co-President David Do says the information needs to be relevant to students.

“It can’t just be targeted at what the ‘average student’ would want to know, otherwise it runs the risk of only catering to a certain group, and potentially only those who are already well represented in higher education,” he said.

“Information would also have to be simple enough so that students will actually use it, but complex enough so that it doesn’t create perverse outcomes.

“The educational performance measures—course and qualification completion, retention and progression, are relatively crude measures of what constitutes ‘quality teaching and learning’. They can only paint a basic picture of quality teaching and learning and don’t at all address the reasons behind why some students drop out of education.”

Joyce acknowledged in his speech that increased demand for tertiary education, in part caused by the economic recession, has prompted some universities, Victoria included, to restrict enrolments.

“While universities have always restricted enrolments in some courses to some degree, it would not be ideal to see too much of this at this time.”

However, extra funding for the tertiary education sector is not on the horizon.

“It is highly unlikely that there will be any significant cash injections in the foreseeable future,” Joyce said.

Abortion. If you read the women’s issue of Salient earlier this year, you may have noted we devoted quite a bit of time covering the topic, the problems with New Zealand’s current abortion legislation, and the implications this has for women seeking an abortion.

We had an interesting response to the stories we printed—both guys and girls wrote in commenting they had no idea about the process involved in getting an abortion, and the legal hurdles that had to be overcome. As expected, pro-life advocate Ken Orr from the Right to Life lobby group added his two cents on the Salient website, not to mention an entire post on the Right to Life website was devoted to their response to the articles run by Salient.

Abortion will forever be a contentious issue. It will always divide opinions. There will always be those who will oppose women having access to safe, legal abortions. There will always be those who will oppose women having the right to make their own choices when it comes to their reproductive health. The emotive nature of the abortion debate has made legislators—i.e. parliament—reluctant to touch the issue. Such reluctance has not only prevented law reform, it has also prevented informed, constructive debate about the future of New Zealand’s abortion laws.

Labour party MP Steve Chadwick’s recent proposal to introduce a law to legalise abortion is a bold, and necessary, step in the right direction for the reform of New Zealand’s outdated legislation. Chadwick is currently trying to assess support for such a bill to be introduced to parliament. Her bill would see abortion taken out of the Crimes Act, and instead considered as a health matter, with women legally able to access an abortion up to 24 weeks into their pregnancy.

Furthermore, under Chadwick’s proposal, women who choose to have an abortion would be encouraged to do so earlier in pregnancy, and there would be increased access to medical (non-surgical) abortions. If Chadwick’s proposal takes flight and gets the required support, it would bring New Zealand law in line with that in Victoria, where abortion was decriminalised in 2008. According to data from the United Nations, 67 per cent of developed countries have abortion on demand. Surely it’s time for New Zealand to catch up with Victoria and other developed countries?

It’s time New Zealand had an informed, reasonable discussion about abortion. We can’t keep on pushing the issue to the sideline—the ‘deal with it later’ mantra isn’t exactly an effective policy option. We live in a liberal, secular society. We are a country that promotes human rights and personal freedoms. And yet we still have a 30-year-old law that prevents women from making the choice to have an abortion. Women should have a right to make that choice. Women should have the right to seek a safe, legal abortion. Women should have autonomy over their own reproductive health.

It’s our sex-themed issue this week. We’re not just dealing with the act itself, but also various issues associated with it—contraception, the sex industry, sexuality. There’s only so much we can cram into 56 pages, but we hope you find it an interesting read. There’s some pretty meaty issues to mull over, discuss and debate. Sex means different things to different people—there’s no right or wrong way to do it, and there’s no right or wrong view on it. Whatever you think or feel, be proud of your views, and stand by them.

P.S. Don’t forget to get your nominations in for Academic Idol! For more details see page 21.

The dates for the by-election to fill the vacant positions on the VUWSA exec have finally been set.

Acting officers were appointed to fill the vacant positions at the start of the year. Several positions, including Vice-President (Administration) and Vice-President (Education) were uncontested in the general election for the 2010 exec held in September last year.

Nominations for the vacant positions are open from 12–16 July.

Campaigning will take place in the second week of the trimester, and students will be able to vote online and at polling booths from 22–29 July.

The vacant positions are: Vice-President (Administration), Vice-President (Education), Queer Officer, International Officer and the Publications Committee Representative.

Salient will be bringing you full election coverage over the next few weeks.

International Officer resigns

Alice Pan resigned from her position last week as VUWSA International Officer.

Her resignation was effective immediately.

Pan resigned so she could focus on her studies in trimester two.

The vacant position will be contested at the upcoming VUWSA by-election.

Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping was present at the official launch of Victoria University’s Confucius Institute at a ceremony at the InterContinental Hotel last month.

The ceremony had been scheduled to take place on campus, however, it was moved to the vice-president’s hotel after Green party co-leader Russel Norman’s run in with Chinese security outside parliament.

Confucius Institutes are not-for-profit centres within foreign universities designed to support the teaching of Chinese language and culture.

The vice-president said the launch of the Confucius Institute at Vic is “another milestone in education and cultural exchange and cooperation between China and New Zealand”.

The Institutes operate in partnership with a Chinese university. Victoria University’s Confucius Institute is a joint venture with Xiamen University.

The Institutes are financially supported by the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban), part of the Chinese Ministry of Education.

Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh said Vic prides itself on being an internationally engaged university.

“Our graduates need to be prepared for a global job market and to make a strong contribution to a multicultural society that New Zealand has become.”

The New Zealand Research Centre of Xiamen University, another joint venture between the universities, was established in December last year.

I didn’t think I’d ever have to attend another exec meeting. How wrong I was. While you were off studying, sitting exams and holidaying, I had the pleasure/misfortune of attending not one, but two exec meetings. Without further ado, all the highlights of two exec meetings rolled into one super duper extra special Eye on Exec.

Meeting One

Max Hardy was, well, tardy—three minutes late. Nevertheless, the entire exec was in attendance—shock horror! Welfare Vice-President Seamus Brady left a bowl of lollies on my extra special media table. I asked if they were poisoned.

The first thing that struck me about the new VUWSA Meeting Room was how warm it was. Which is why I was puzzled to see one Fraser Pearce wearing a scarf AND hat. Indoors. The next logical next step my thought process was to picture the entire VUWSA exec in matching hats and scarves.

It was a “reasonably light fornight” for Tardy. He met with Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh. They discussed a range of matters including the decision to close admissions for trimester two (there have been some exemptions granted), police on campus and the National Government’s Budget, among others. James Sleep asked lots of questions.

Correct formatting and exec members not doing their required number of hours were frequent talking points during the presentation of work reports. Seriously, how hard is it to follow a template? Fraser, sort it out. Furthermore, wondering out loud if you had sent in the right work report doesn’t look good. Many promises were made by execeteers that they would make up their missed hours over the holidays. Fraser assured us he’d be “working his butt off”. In the midst of all this work report hoo-haa, it was clarified that exec meetings DO count towards the number of hours worked each week.

In other important news, the VUWSA Trust has had its artworks valued, and they are currently investigating the feasibility of early childhood centres on campus. There has been another resignation from the Trust, leaving it a bit of a sausage fest, with no women. Hardy himself said the financial stuff relating to the Trust was “not that interesting”. However, Student Job Search is moving to the Wairarapapa, leaving Vic sans face-to-face SJS service. Interestingly, because of the move, students have lost their jobs. Ironic?

Sadly I had to leave at this point. I had been told it’d be a short meeting, alas, it turns out it wasn’t to be. Luckily for me, I could just read the minutes of the rest of the meeting at the next exec meeting I got to attend.

Meeting Two

This week I was late. Not that I missed much. Given it was the middle of the holidays, people were all over the show. Some people were overseas. Some people were at home. The meeting didn’t start well. Fraser Pearce hadn’t sent around a pile of papers for sports grant applications. In the end, everything was in such a muddle that they were all deferred, with discretion granted to the executive officers for approval.

As usual, work reports were a bit of a fiasco. Fraser Pearce talked heaps during Alan Young’s work report. The much-talked-about poker tournament is still being talked about, but not a lot seems to have happened. Alice Pan got to hang out with the visiting Chinese delegation. Caitlin Dunham got mentioned in parliament. Fraser Pearce—seriously, formatting. Again? Fraser still doesn’t know how many hours he needs to make up. He was meant to have done this for this meeting. Fail. He has been sternly instructed to get his shit sorted for next time. The absent James Sleep’s work report came under close scrutiny. He hasn’t made up the hours he said he’d promise to make up over the break. Oh yeah, and he’s going overseas. Good one.

In presidential news, two VUWSA staff members have resigned—changes ahoy. Half yearly exec reports are due 9 July. There’s an NZUSA change document in the works. A number of associations are recommending structural changes to NZUSA. Salient’s BFF Harriet Gigglygoo (OUSA Prez) really wants change, apparently. Some VUWSA exec members aren’t so keen on some of the proposals. Oh yeah, and the VUWSA Association Manager’s performance review is getting underway, as well as an interim review of the change process.

The moral of the story? Get someone else to go to exec meetings.

The Court Report, which starts filming this week, is a new current affairs series that will see key players in New Zealand’s legal system discussing the latest justice issues and court cases, complete with audience input.

The show will be filmed at Vic’s Law School, and will be hosted by high profile defence lawyer Greg King.

Some of King’s more (in)famous clients have included convicted murderers Clayton Weatherston and John Barlow. He has taken cases to the Privy Council, and since the establishment of our own Supreme Court, he has presented the only two successful murder appeals.

So what attracted King to the legal profession in the first place?

“My father was a prison officer, right through my youth, in fact he’s only just finished this year. And I think from that bred a real interest in the dynamics of criminal law,” he says.

King studied at Otago and was admitted to the bar in 1993 and worked for Judith Ablett-Kerr. King regards his time with Ablett-Kerr as his “apprenticeship in criminal law”, and he says his three years working with her was a “baptism of fire”. He’s been in Wellington 14 years now, practising on his own account. Without doubt, King’s a legal high-flyer.

There are a couple of reasons why King is excited about hosting The Court Report. “It… really appeals to my kind of core values, and the reason why I’m in this industry in the first place. I think it’s a really timely opportunity to actually get into informed, detailed and accurate debate about legal issues,” he says.

“I guess my motivation was hearing the mind-numbingly stupid comments that people make who just don’t have any idea about how the justice system works, on talkback radio and so on. I just sit there in my car listening to it and just wanting to pull my hair out at some of… really, the ignorance.”

What King really wants to achieve out of The Court Report is “high-level informed debate that properly represents the competing issues”.

Why should you tune om at home, or head down to Law School and be part of the live audience? “We’re dealing with how the law impacts on people, so anybody living in our community has the law impact on them in some way,” King says.

“So hopefully greater insight and greater understanding of how it all works will be a benefit to everyone.”

The Court Report will be screening on Thursdays at 9.35pm and Tuesdays at 2.35pm on TVNZ 7 from the 15th July.

You can head down to Law School and see it live in the studio audience on Tuesdays in LT2.

It’s a pity I’m writing this before the event itself. Now I have to write about it before it’s happened, as if it’s happened, because you’re reading this after it’s happened and it’s all just so confusing. So confusing in fact, I’ve confused myself.

 
Friday was ‘Hug a Ginga Day’. For those of you who are a bit out of touch when it comes to commercial radio, or you don’t watch Close Up, Hug a Ginga day is a promotion run by The Edge radio station. If this is the first you’ve heard about it, you have clearly been in hibernation during all this nasty weather. I don’t blame you, I’d rather be hiding out in bed all day, too.

My attention was first drawn to this offensive/hilarious promotional stunt—depending on which side of the taste fence you sit—when a couple of my friends RSVP-ed to an event on Facebook. Another couple of friends ‘liked’ a page, which now appears to have disappeared, exclaiming about an interview with the father of two red-headed boys on one of New Zealand’s leading current affairs shows. Intrigued, I undertook some more investigations.

I watched the now-infamous interviews on Close Up. I read some of comments on the TVNZ website. I sat at my desk and mulled over it. And I just can’t work out where I sit in this debate that seems to have polarised that nation, or at least Close Up viewers. To briefly summarise the arguments of both sides: the dad was concerned that Hug a Ginga Day would make his kids even more of a target for bullying. Dom from The Edge Morning Madhouse said it was a fun event, all about showing gingas some love and respect. It’s a hug, not a punch in the face or a kick in the teeth. Or something.

I’m a red head. And to be honest, there is a part of me that really objects to this whole ‘Hug a Ginga Day’ thing. I hate the term ‘ginga’. Why? It’s been said to me countless times with not exactly the nicest of intentions. There have been occassions where I’ve been walking along the street, a car has driven past and one of the occupants has yelled ‘ginga’ at me. Woah, never heard that one before, buddy. If he followed up his initial, clearly derogatory statement with “would you like a hug?”, I’d probably refuse. The term ginga, for me, has a whole bunch of negative connotations, and I wouldn’t immediately associate the term with love or respect for red heads.
Also, I know what it’s like to be the red headed kid at school. 11-year-old me would have dreaded going to school last Friday. I imagine that the usual taunts would only be intensified on such a day. Why not just go ahead and put a bunch of flashing lights around each red-headed kid at every single New Zealand school, just to draw a little more attention to them? Dom can plead all he likes that Hug a Ginga Day is about celebrating red heads—for many red heads, it’s pretty fucking tough to celebrate something that has caused you to be singled out from the rest of your peer group, and be subjected to various taunts and bullying.

But I don’t find the concept wholly offensive. This may come as a surprise to some, but I’ve got a sense of humour. I can see the fun in Hug a Ginga Day. It’s nice to be celebrating difference. It’s nice to be celebrating red heads. I hope future me ventured out on Friday and got hugged lots. I like hugs. Maybe I’ll find my one true love. Maybe I won’t. Maybe the guy who yelled at me from his car will walk up to me on the street and ask for a hug. Sadly, he ain’t getting one. The rest of you can. But just remember, gingas deserve respect 365 days a year. Not just on the day The Edge says so.

Salient plans to purchase it and install it in the atrium as a monument to The Muppets

The infamous window-tinted, mag-wheeled, black-painted VUWSA van remains in storage at a mechanic in Otaki, after it broke down in late January.

However, VUWSA has decided to cut its losses and sell the van, deeming it too old and unnecessarily accessorised to be worthy of repairs.

The van broke down just out of Otaki while it was being used by the VBC. The VBC was traveling to Bulls for the Campus A Low Hum music festival that was held over Wellington Anniversary weekend.

Salient understands that the cam belt broke, causing extensive damage to the van’s engine.

VUWSA President Max Hardy says that by selling the van, they will be trying to recoup as much of the $22,222.22 that was spent upgrading the van as possible.

“I think we can now put the shameful VUWSA van controversy behind us,” Hardy says.

The van upgrade involved numerous modifications, including fitting it out with a sound system, mag wheels and window tinting.

In 2009 the exec apologised to the student body on behalf of VUWSA for the actions of 2007 President Geoff Hayward and Education Vice-President Paul Brown. It was agreed by the exec that it was the actions of Hayward and Brown that led to the misuse of student funds associated with the van’s upgrade, and not the exec as a whole.

That exec also apologised for the subsequent suppression of the van expenditure document by the 2008 exec.

Since the van broke down, it has been stored at a mechanic in Otaki, which has come at a “small cost” to VUWSA, Hardy says.

VUWSA has negotiated for a van owned by the Joint Student Union Board to be available for use by VUWSA organisations such as Salient and the VBC. This van will also available for booking by student groups through VUWSA.

Hardy says VUWSA has negotiated this arrangement “as part of its plan to come up with the most cost-effective way of delivering the service to both students and VUWSA organisations”.

Following the breakdown, Hardy says alternative arrangements were made for student groups needing to use a van through Piggy Packer Rentals. VUWSA has made use of the university’s vans, as well as other forms of transport.

It is not known how much it would cost for the van to be fixed.

Salient will be holding a memorial service for the van next trimester, should its bid to purchase the van fall through.

It is the end of the trimester. Assignments are due. Exams are coming up. You probably have an immense dislike for university right about now. Stress. Pimples. Eye twitches. Sleepness nights. A lot of this probably due to the fact you’ve exceeded the recommended number of energy drinks to consume in a 24-hour period.

Nevertheless, it is at times like these that it is comforting to remember why you’re at an establishment like Victoria University—you’re here to get a tertiary education, an education that will one day hopefully improve your employment prospects and see you contribute positively to New Zealand society. Or, at least that’s the lofty, idealistic reason why you’re at uni that you may not have thought of.

The relatively open access to tertiary education that New Zealanders have enjoyed seems to be under threat. In recent weeks both Victoria and the University of Otago have implemented measures to manage enrolment numbers for the rest of 2010. Vic has closed all new domestic admissions for 2010, while Otago has capped enrolment numbers across a number of programs. Other universities are looking to introduce similar measures to deal with increasing numbers of students in the current limited funding environment.

But why has it come to this? Why has Vic been forced to shut the door on new domestic students, a decision that the University Council itself said it was reluctant to make? A number of factors, including the economic recession, increased demand and limited funding from the government and other sources, have prompted universities to consider new measures to cope with the challenges facing the tertiary sector.

And the door was shut

As has been reported in Salient, the University Council decided not to accept any new domestic undergraduate admissions for the rest of the year at a recent public meeting. The decision came in the wake of predictions that student numbers were going to reach 110 per cent of the cap funded by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) under Vic’s investment plan.

Following the council meeting, Chancellor Ian McKinnon explained: “The university has no further capacity for new undergraduate applicants this year. In simple terms, if they [student numbers] go above 100 per cent, the university forgoes funding and incurs costs, and this has an immediate impact on the quality of the university.”

Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh told Salient after the meeting that “There is no enthusiasm for this decision, it was made to meet our legal obligations and to protect the interests of current students and staff.”

Salient reported that Vic enrolments are 20 per cent higher than they were at the same time last year. Increased student numbers has been a common trend across all tertiary education organisations (TEOs)—not just Vic. To an extent, this increase in student numbers could have been forseen: not only are the products of a baby boom in the early 1990s hitting uni age, job losses caused by the recession have led to many people heading back to tertiary study to upskill. Unfortunately, it appears that the current government has not provided universities with adequate additional support to cater for this influx of students.

Chair of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (NZVCC) and Auckland University of Technology Vice-Chancellor Derek McCormack understands why Vic made the decision.

“New Zealand universities are committed to maintaining the international quality of their teaching and research,” says McCormack. “That is why they have, unfortunately, had to restrict student numbers—in order to maintain quality.”

Co-President of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) David Do says Vic’s decision is unfortunate, given its impact on prospective students.

“We feel that on a practical level they shouldn’t have done it this way, because students had not been given proper notice that the entry requirements were changing, and that’s going to affect their plans for moving into education.”

VUWSA President Max Hardy, student representative Conrad Reyners and former VUWSA President Fleur Fitzsimons voted against the motion to close admissions. Hardy was reported in Salient as saying that “such an unattractive decision should not have been made without first having all the appropriate information”, while Fitzsimons said the decision “felt very panicked and lacking detail”.

The fact that New Zealand universities are feeling forced into making such decisions has raised concerns about current levels of tertiary education funding. How does the government fund our universities in the first place?

So where does Vic get its funding?

The majority of the university’s funding comes from government grants, with the next greatest proportion coming from domestic tutition fees—then international tuition fees. Figures in the 2009 Annual Report show that Vic received about $137 million in government grants last year. Domestic tutition fees made up almost $65 million of the university’s revenue, while international tuition fees accounted for about $25 million. The university’s total revenue for 2009 amounted to approximately $281 million. The figures show clearly, government funding makes up a significant portion of the univerity’s total revenue.It is the role of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) to oversee the allocation of government funding to universities, in accordance with the policies implemented by the government of the day.

The role of the TEC

Established under the Education Act of 1989, the TEC operates the tertiary funding system generally, while also overseeing the planning process and the performance of tertiary education organisations. According to its Statement of Intent, published online, the primary aim of the TEC is “to give effect to the government’s Tertiary Education Strategy (TES)”. The government is required to publish the TES under the Education Act. The TES provides a basis for all the government’s decisions relating to tertiary education. The TEC is bound to ensure that these are implemented across New Zealand’s eight universities, 20 institutes of technology and polytechnics, and hundreds of other tertiary education providers, such as training organisations, wananga, and schools.

The TEC’s board of commissioners provides guidance to the Minister of Tertiary Education about how best to allocate the $3 billion that the government commits each year to funding the tertiary education system.

In order to receive funding, a tertiary education organisation must have an Investment Plan, which it devises in collaboration with the TEC. The plan must outline the following four details: how a TEO will work towards achieving the government’s priorities as outlined in the TES; the TEO’s mission and role in the tertiary sector; the programmes and activities it runs or undertakes; and its proposed outcomes, including performance indicators.

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce says that in terms of allocating funding for places for students at universities, “The TEC will work with universities (and institutes of technology and polytechnics) to determine the areas of high demand. In doing so, the TEC will seek to allocate according to the priorities of the Tertiary Education Strategy.”

In the event a TEO is found to be shirking its responsibilities, outlined in its investment plan, or it is behaving in a manner contrary to agreements made in the plan, the government is within its rights to restrict funding.

The impact of Investment Plans

The limitations placed on Vic by the investment plan with the TEC were one of the reasons behind the decision to close new domestic admissions for the rest of 2010. Vic was rapidly approaching the enrolments cap it was allowed for 2010.

Walsh explains that all universities have an investment plan, which outlines enrolment targets on “not only how many students [can be enrolled], but also how many of those students the government will fund”.

“In our Investment Plan, we give an undertaking to manage domestic student enrolment numbers between 97 per cent and 103 per cent. We will not receive government funding for any domestic students we enrol in excess of 100 per cent.”

Basically, if the university exceeds its cap, it carries the burden of funding those students itself—without extra funding from the government. Walsh reiterates that universities have a legal obligation to implement their individual investment plans.

Through the implementation of individual investment plans with universities and other TEOs, the government effectively manages how many New Zealanders can access tertiary education each year. In the past this appears not to have posed significant problems. However, it seems the government has not adequately prepared for the recent influx of students entering into tertiary education.

Walsh says that universities will have to seek funding from elsewhere in order to deal with the greater numbers.

“Because we are working in a capped funding environment, revenue from the government will be relatively fixed, and this means universities will need to look for additional revenue sources to meet any increase in expenditure.”

Walsh does say that New Zealand has “one of the most generous student support funding arrangements in the world.”

“The government spends a lot of money on tertiary education but it’s about finding the balance between money spent on students and funding for the institutions,” he says.

“Policy frameworks need adjusting to get that mix of funding right. Interest-free student loans, open access and capped funding don’t mix in a recession. In addition, universities work within a maximum fee system which limits how much they increase fees.”

McCormack says “the current system is far from ideal”. He points out that most tertiary programmes take more than one year to complete, “but funding is only secure for one year at a time”.

“The investment plans that universities agree to with the government [via the TEC] are three-year plans,” he says.

“Any decision by a university to accept additional students must take into account the pipeline consequences into subsequent years, in a situation of funding uncertainty over those subsequent years, with no guarantee of funding beyond one year at a time.”

President of the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) Dr Tom Ryan says that the TEU believes that the investment plan cap should be lifted, to allow greater numbers of enrolment into universities and other TEOs during the recession.

“We note that across the ditch in Australia, the government has said clearly that it wants more people getting degrees,” says Ryan. “It’s one of the policies they’ve introduced during the recession as part of their $1 billion extra spending on tertiary education. So it’s a pity that the [New Zealand] government has maintained the cap.”

The Budget: an exercise in treading water

Joyce points out that the changes announced at the recent Budget have allowed for the creation of more places for students at universities.

“We have refocused tertiary education funding to create approximately 4900 EFTS [equivalent full-time students] above previous baselines from 2011—a record number of core tertiary places,” he says.

“For universities, this means 1,735 additional full-time places compared to what was previously budgeted. As a result, the number of places in universities will be 765 greater in 2011 than this year’s record number.”

Joyce adds that the government has also increased spending on tuition subsidies—the Student Achievement Component (SAC)—which is the government’s contribution to the direct costs of teaching, learning, and other costs driven by student numbers.

“Around $40 million per year will be invested to increase tuition subsidies by 2.2 per cent, with approximately $23 million of this funding going to the university sector. The increase will support quality tertiary education.”

Also announced in the Budget was the end of the fee maxima policy, which allowed course fees to increase by a maximum of 5 per cent a year. The policy has been been replaced with the Annual Maximum Fee Movement (AMFM), which will allow TEOs to increase course fees by up to 4 per cent—but it only applies to fees for 2011.

Joyce says the change should give students more certainty about future study costs. He says AMFM removes the “distortive effects of the previous policy, which meant that providers with higher cost courses (with fees at or above the maxima) were unable to make increases in fees to offset the increases in the cost of provision”.

Do points out that AMFM gives no indication of what system will be in place for 2012.

“The minister has only set a fee limit for next year, and I think a lot of students are worried about how high their fees could go if there are no limits.”

Despite Joyce’s reassurances that the government is prepared for the influx of future enrolments, some remain unconvinced.

The 2009 Budget saw a number of cuts made to the tertiary education sector. Finance Minister Bill English backpeddled on prior commitments to increase funding made under the previous Labour government, and various scholarships and other funds were cut to save money.

The cuts have continued in this year’s budget, says Ryan.

“To a large degree, what was announced specifically in this year’s budget continued what the government introduced last year,” he says. “So it’s more the general government’s direction [that] has reduced the spending in tertiary education.”

McCormack agrees. “The 2010 Budget has primarily been an exercise in re-allocating existing money to achieve a limited number … of additional places at our universities.

“At the same time, per student funding is declining in comparison with university cost increases, and money for initiatives to make up for this shortfall, such as the tripartite salary funding, has been withdrawn—as announced in Budget 2009,” he says.

“The cumulative impact is that funding has been decreasing in real terms over time, and this most recent budget does not turn this trend around. Holding the line—or indeed going backwards—makes it harder for universities to prepare their students to be able to make the valuable contributions to New Zealand that are needed to ensure future growth.”

Do says New Zealand is beginning to fall behind Australia when it comes to tertiary education funding.

“The Australian government has put a significant boost of investment into universities and also student support,” he says.

“In contrast, last year’s budget in New Zealand saw cuts to several funds in tertiary education. So we feel the government should be actually increasing investment, and not keeping it stable or reducing it.

“We would have hoped that the government would do further work on addressing underfunding and student debt, but, unfortunately, this budget treads water,” Do says with a sigh. “It’s fairly lacklustre.”

‘Less’ can only go so far

Many in tertiary education have called for increased government investment in the tertiary sector, particularly given the recent emphasis placed on increased funding to be invested in research, science and technology.

McCormack comments, “As New Zealand’s universities constitute the most important part of the research sector, this funding may lead to new opportunities for university research. But is does beg the question, why hasn’t the government also matched this investment with direct funding for university research and teaching capability?

“If knowledge leads to prosperity then surely universities, as creators of knowledge, should be key drivers in the government’s plan. [Instead], the government has been talking about financial constraints, doing more with less, driving efficiency, holding the line, etc. with respect to the budget for our universities.”

NZUSA agrees with the NZVCC about the need for increased public investment.

“Even though the government wants ‘more from less’, there’s only so much you can do with the same amount of money,” Do remarks.

If government funding is not increased to match the demand for places at universities, access to tertiary education could ultimately be restricted, with universities unable to fund places for more students themselves.

NZUSA believes that this denies New Zealanders a basic ‘right’ to access tertiary education. Over time, this will result in fewer skilled graduates emerging from the tertiary education system. Do also points out that limited enrolments will likely affect minority students, or those from lower decile schools or lower socio-economic backgrounds.

“We need to think about the people who might be put at risk,” he says bluntly. “We think that the government is making the wrong choice when it comes to what way it is spending its money.

“It should have increased overall funding so that more New Zealanders can access education.”

The search for a sustainable solution

Joyce defends the actions that have been taken by the government in the tertiary education sector.

“All universities have informed the TEC that they will continue to manage their enrolments according to their current funding levels throughout 2010,” he says. “There is no extra funding available in 2010 and TEOs are all committed to managing within their means.

“In Budget 2010, the government provided a price increase to tuition subsidies. This will mean that universities will receive $23 million more in government funding in 2011 than in 2010.”

Regardless of the Budget’s immediate impact on tertiary education, it’s clear the government still needs to find a viable long-term solution to the continued calls for greater direct investment in TEOs. Universities are already turning to alternative sources of funding to try to cope with the demands of increased student numbers, while maintaining a high level of quality.

If more funding is not forthcoming, will universities be forced to consider more drastic measures to ensure they live within the means outlined in their investment plans? The fact that Vic and Otago have already taken reluctant steps should be a clear signal to the government that action needs to be taken to ensure that New Zealand’s universities are adequately funded—so that those who want to take up tertiary study can do so without worry of restriction.

Hello. You’ve stumbled upon Salient‘s second ever online-exclusive issue! Well done! That’s right, Salient does indeed have a website, and it is pretty darn cool. Have a poke around. Click on some stuff. Read. Comment. Then go and ‘like’ our page on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Put us on your RSS feed. Add us to your favourites. Go on, you know you want to.

Why an online issue? Let’s turn this into a numbered list:

1. It has come to our attention that not all of you out there know Salient has a website. So part of making the mag online-exclusive this week is about drawing your attention to salient.org.nz’s all-round awesomeness.
2. Salient on the googlenetz is a heck of a lot more interactive than the paper magazine—you can comment on stuff, like, straight away! None of this hassle about making the Tuesday 5pm letters deadline, or the frustrating wait to see your garbled messages in print. If you don’t like something, you can say it. If you want to add more info, you can. If you disagree, you can say why. Right then and there. Some of the beauty of the website is the immediacy and the scope for comment and debate. Just use it wisely.
3. The more of you students we have trawling through the site, the more attractive it becomes for advertisers. Advertising revenue is crucial to Salient’s survival—especially if the VSM bomb drops and VUWSA is compelled to slash Salient’s funding.
4. Online media is the way of the future. Print media is dying, or so they keep saying. In a few years’ time, if many media commentators’ predictions come to fruition, you’ll probably be wondering why the fuck Salient was ever printed on paper anyway.

Big ups to Catch Design who keep our website looking super hot—we’ve got a bit of a makeover in the works, so keep an eye out. It’ll be even easier to use and navigate, not to mention it’s gonna look super pretty!

Spread the word, tell everyone you know Salient’s online this week. Some of you are probably going to write us letters telling us an online-exclusive issue is a crap idea. Some of you are probably going to think Salient is only going to be online forever and ever—before you go making comments, writing letters and staging protests, it’s okay, we’ll be bringing you 56 pages of papery goodness next week.

Oh and congrats to everyone who graduated last week. I hope you had as much fun running around in your bat cape as I did.

Dear Steven Joyce,

I’m graduating this week. I’ve spent four years studying at Victoria University, and I’ve rather enjoyed my time at this fine institution. I’ve learned lots of things, made lots of friends, and lots of doors have been opened to me as a result of studying here.

But I’m worried. Last week Vic decided to stop new domestic student admissions for trimester two this year. The door was shut. Quite firmly. No more new students this year. There’s no more money. Vic can’t fund any more domestic student places. Prospective students are, effectively, being turned away and told to try again next year. Good luck. May the force be with you.

You see, the thing is here Mr Joyce, the university is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. It can’t rake in any extra cash from domestic students—the fee maxima policy prevents it from doing so. Fees can only ever increase by a maximum of five per cent each year. While this keeps the average fee-paying student and their student loan relatively content, it begins to put a strain on the university’s financial books.

To add insult to injury, at the last Budget, National effectively cut funding to universities, by removing consumer price index-based funding adjustments. A whole host of scholarships and other tertiary education funding was axed as well. In the name of fiscal responsibility amidst the global financial crisis, sure the cuts were justified, but job losses saw many people return to study. Increased student numbers were only to be expected. Inevitably, universities have been trying hard to shoulder a lot of that burden generated by increased demand. But events last week showed they can’t anymore. Not without more funding from the government.

Vic closed new domestic admissions full stop. Otago capped enrolments across a significant number of courses. It is understood that other universities are looking at similar measures. What’s a prospective student to do? Jobs are hard to come by. Paula Bennett seems to hate people on the dole. The options are pretty limited. It’s time to step up Mr Joyce.

The people who will be turned away from universities had an entirely reasonable expectation that they could enrol at a university and commence their studies. Doesn’t New Zealand pride itself on open access to education? Shouldn’t we be encouraging more New Zealanders to upskill and gain tertiary-level qualifications? Isn’t this good for economic prosperity, or something?

Universities have been crying out for more direct investment for years. No government is yet to take heed of this cry. Mr Joyce, this is your chance to make a difference. It’s your chance to stamp your mark on the tertiary education portfolio. It’s your chance to fund universities, the hot beds of innovation that they are, appropriately. The same doors that were opened to me should be opened to other young people too.

I, like many others, will be wearing my graduation gown while you sit in parliament listening to Bill English announce the 2010 Budget. I cling to a slither of hope that maybe, just maybe, you’ve been listening to what universities have been telling you all this time—they need more money. Please. Don’t deny others the same access to a university education that both you and I have enjoyed.

Kind regards,

Sarah Robson
Very, very nearly a graduate of Victoria University of Wellington

Editing Salient can result in further educational opportunities, surprisingly

Former Salient Editor James Robinson has been accepted into one of the best journalism schools in the world at Boston University.

If you weren’t around these parts in 2006, you probably won’t even know who James Robinson is. He was the Editor. And a fine one at that.

James is heading to the United States to commence his Masters in Journalism in August, but before then he has some extreme fundraising to do.

Still short of the “magic number” required for financial security, James is offering his services to charity in exchange for donations to his own cause.

“I have been a pretty big fan of this charity work so far. It has all been great, and I’ve met so many smart people who could probably be making a lot of money, but are choosing to make a huge difference,” he says.

James applied for seven schools, and got into five—something he’s pretty chuffed about.

“The recession has driven people back to school, and as a result of this schools were reporting 50–80 per cent increases in applications. So it makes a five from seven success rate very pleasing.”

Of course, Salient played a helpful role in James’ success.

“Salient has helped me in so many ways. It helped me realise that showing up to work and doing something you love is one of the most important components of a happy life,” he says.

“Salient almost overshadows my whole university experience. It was such a big part of my life so far.”

James is pretty excited about heading to Boston.

“I want to see about ten million bands—Pavement, September 18, at my university! I’ve lived in Wellington on and off for eight years, and it is time to ply my trade somewhere new—a new place, new rules, new opportunities.”

James had told Salient that we would be able to find “millions” of handsome photos of him in the Salient archives. You can see from the image accompanying this story that the search yielded no results.

If you want to donate, or see handsome photos of James, head to http://educatejames.co.nz.

*James was, without doubt, the coolest Editor of Salient ever back when I was first year.

I’m from a family with a background in farming. Although I lived in town, and my parents aren’t farmers, there’s no way of escaping the agriculture sector when you live in a rural service town like Feilding. Heck, my dad is a rural contractor, not to mention I spent a great deal of my childhood at my grandparents’ farm not far out of town. I fed lambs in the backyard, I trudged through paddocks in gumboots, I collected eggs from the chook house. My rural roots run deep, however, they don’t run so deep that I feel compelled to turn my back on life in the city to become a farmer’s wife. Visions of green grass, hay bales and fuzzy white sheep may seem appealing for a fleeting moment, but the romance of the countryside isn’t enough to compel young people to ditch everything to pursue a life on the land.

Farming has never been the sexiest of professions, nor has it gained popular acclaim among primary school children in the “what I want to be when I grow up” stakes. Nevertheless, it is farming, and land-based industries more broadly speaking, that have been the backbone of the New Zealand economy for decades. The agriculture industry generates 64 per cent of our merchandise export earnings—making it New Zealand’s largest and most important industry. Further in this vein, New Zealand is the world’s largest dairy and sheep meat exporter.

Agriculture Minister David Carter acknowledged in a speech last June that the agriculture and horticulture industries are “the only two major industries in which we have sufficient scale, market share and supply chains to be truly competitive in international trade”. If the New Zealand economy is so dependent on agriculture, then why are we seeing declining numbers of students enrolling in agriculture-related qualifications, at both secondary and tertiary level? Why are young people turning their backs on the profession that is the very lifeblood of our nation?

The economic reality

When it comes down to it, it is upon agriculture that the New Zealand economy relies. It is an industry where New Zealand excels, and can excel further in the future. However, there appears to be a turn away from promoting agriculture and other land-based industries as a cornerstone of our economic development. This is not a recent phenomenon, says David Rose, Health and Education spokesperson for Federated Farmers.

“In the 1980s and 1990s there was a real push at government away from the [agriculture] sector in the belief that tourism and services were the ‘new black’. They haven’t been, as agriculture has increased in importance.”

It is plain fact that agriculture rakes in far more money for the New Zealand economy, compared to glamour industries like film or tourism.

“The creative industries received exposure far beyond their capacity to offer careers or employment,” Rose says.

“The fact is that agriculture is not just being on a farm, but covers all aspects of a $24 billion industry and encompasses [everything from] wine (horticulture), cheese (agriculture) to mussel fritters (fisheries) and even that roof over your head (forestry).”

Figures provided by Federated Farmers last year clearly illustrate the ongoing importance of the agriculture sector to New Zealand. Farm productivity has outstripped every other sector of the economy for many of the last 27 years. Much of this economic success is down to the work being done in Crown Research Institutes, universities and by companies like Fonterra.

Need further proof? Federated Farmers again stated last year that the total estimated spend of all inbound tourists for 2008 represented a mere 31 per cent of Fonterra’s revenue for the year ended 2008. Agriculture is important, alright?

The problem of education

Despite the economic prosperity and promise associated with New Zealand’s agriculture sector, there is no avoiding the fact that the sector is failing to attract desperately needed young people. In October 2008, the Primary Production Committee presented a report to parliament on the declining numbers in agriculture education. The report states in its introduction that the committee was “concerned about what appeared to be a drastic decline in students” in the agriculture sector.

The committee was informed that between 2003 and 2007 “the number of students studying agriculture and horticulture at a secondary school level dropped by 13 per cent”. You can study agriculture at NCEA Levels 1, 2 and 3, and as of last year, agriculture is offered as a scholarship subject. The problem is, however, that agriculture is offered in less than half of New Zealand’s secondary schools.

At a tertiary level, numbers are looking a little more hopeful. The report states that the number of students studying agriculture and related subjects have “increased substantially” since 2000. However, much of this growth has been at the certificate level, as a result of new requirements associated with purchasing agriculture compounds. At the diploma and degree levels, the report paints a slightly different picture: “diploma enrolments have fallen by almost 30 per cent and degree-level courses by about 12 per cent”. A study by Massey University around the time of the release of the report found that graduate numbers in the “agriculture, environment and related studies” category fell between 1999 and 2005, but numbers have been on the rise again since 2006.

Certainly, a number of problems face the agriculture sector in terms of attracting people to study the subject. These problems are in need of a solution, as the sector potentially faces a future shortage of qualified graduates who can take up research, scientific, finance, consultancy and other related positions that are essential to the development of the agriculture industry in New Zealand.

Farming’s just not cool

Those who haven’t spent much time on a farm, or have little to no knowledge of what agriculture actually involves, may have a slightly skewed idea of what is actually entailed in a career in agriculture. In fact, there’s a lot more to agriculture than just being a farmer, milking cows and shearing sheep, says John Beech, the Head of the Agriculture Department at Feilding High School.

“[That’s the] perspective that we’ve had over the years—that [agriculture] is just for dummies to go in to,” Beech says.

“It’s more than that, and there’s a huge opportunity out there in the academic scene for students, not just milking cows, but in academic stuff like university, consultancy, Fonterra and all those sorts of places.”

The Primary Production Committee also acknowledged in their 2008 report to parliament that the agriculture sector suffers from a few image problems. Poor public perception could potentially be one of the factors putting young people off taking up study in agriculture.

“There is a widespread perception that a career in agriculture is unfulfilling, involving too much hard work for little reward, and a farming career in particular is better suited to non-academic people,” the report states.

This perception is largely incorrect, but it does have a popular following.

Current Vic student Aggie Galloway says that agriculture is seen as “a bit of a bum subject”. Galloway studied agriculture at Feilding High School, and was awarded an NZQA scholarship in the subject last year.

“I don’t think [agriculture] appeals that much. I suppose it doesn’t really seem like a hugely viable way to make money, even though it is,” she says.

Many of those who end up studying agriculture at Feilding High School come from farming backgrounds.

“A lot of kids who [study agriculture] come through from the hostel, a lot of them come from farming backgrounds, and of course Feilding is a rural community—it is a service town for a rural area,” Beech says.

Chelsea Hirst is also an ex-Feilding High School agriculture student, who is now studying first year Agriculture Science at Massey University in Palmerston North. Although she doesn’t have a farming background, many of her classmates do.

“The majority of people doing the agriculture papers that I’m doing, they’re from farms. The people who are getting into [agriculture] have had experience in some way or another, whether that be on a farm or at school.”

It seems that agriculture is a field that those who are unfamiliar with it are put off dabbling in. Misconceptions about what a career in agriculture involves, and an ill-informed assumption that it is “for dummies” is doing little to attract people to undertake study in the sector, ultimately hampering the development of the industry in our green isles. So what can be done to buck the trend?

Attracting people to the paddock

Agriculture is given little to no status by secondary schools in New Zealand. Generally, the subjects chosen during high school will go some way to determining future study and career options. Agriculture barely rates a mention on the lips of careers advisors, thus it comes as little surprise that students are uninspired when it comes to thinking about a potential career in the sector.

Rose says that there is “a real lack of knowledge about agriculture among careers advisors and parents, who do not consider the career as they have no personal knowledge of it and do not talk about it”.

The introduction of agriculture as a scholarship subject has given it greater academic standing at a secondary school level. Beech says teachers of the subject pushed hard to get scholarship introduced, but there is still some way to go in terms of providing support and resources for teachers.

While agriculture is a subject that is pushed and encouraged at Feilding High School—the school owns two working farms—Beech says it is left in the dust by other schools.

“I guess it comes down to teaching staff,” he says.

“If you’ve got someone with a passion, then it gets pushed, and if you haven’t, it just gets forgotten about.

“I haven’t got any silver bullets or answers for the problem, but maybe the government needs to put some more resources into making an awareness that it’s out there and doing a bit more marketing of it.”

Of course, agriculture is just one of many subject choices available to secondary school students. Given the smorgasboard of options on offer, some who decide to head into agriculture at the tertiary level may find themselves without the basic subjects that are a foundation for agriculture.

“There is also the reality that agriculture is science, so needs preparatory subjects, which some students have failed to acquire,” Rose says.

Federated Farmers has also endeavored to encourage young people to get involved in the agriculture industry. Rose says many of the initiatives currently in place are only a few years old. Considerable promotion work is being undertaken by levy-funded industry organisations, such as Dairy NZ and Beef and Lamb NZ, in schools. The Federated Farmers Farm Day is targeted at urban-based primary school children to widen their horizons towards agriculture.

“We have others like Jacqueline Rowarth from Massey University, who visit secondary schools to talk with passion about the exciting agriculture industry and how students could be involved,” he says.

“More should be done to promote agriculture from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, as there is only a finite amount of time and resource we have as individual farmers. We can only do so much.”

A host of scholarships are also available to young people looking to undertake agriculture-related study at a tertiary level, Beech says. Hirst has received two scholarships which will go some way to funding her studies at Massey.

“If you want to do a tertiary qualification in agriculture, or horticulture, or forestry, or any of the primary industries, you’re just about guaranteed to get your degree paid for,” Beech says.

Equipping young people with all the correct information and subject options will ensure, at the very least, that students are aware of the study and career opportunities in the agriculture sector. Failure to attract more students to agriculture will only worsen the current shortage of graduates facing the sector.

What next?

Given the importance of the agriculture sector to the New Zealand economy, it is essential that the workforce is rejuvenated in the coming years. If this does not happen, the consequences are dire. If New Zealand is to remain a world leader in agriculture, the sector needs to attract the best brains this country has to offer.

“The age profile for farmers is growing and productivity improvements have helped, but the simple fact is we do not have the number of skilled entrants coming into the industries to sustain performance,” Rose says.

“A strong New Zealand must have a strong agricultural sector, as everyone’s standard of living depends upon it.

“Think of it like this—12,000 dairy farmers directly contribute a quarter of New Zealand’s exports. We are truly lucky that our temperate climate allows our world-leading unsubsidised farmers to export our top-quality food to the world.”

Beech also has concerns about a potential shortage of graduates for the future of agriculture research in New Zealand.

“I suppose when you think of the agriculture industry at the moment, it’s facing a few hurdles. There are issues with effluent, there are issues with carbon trading, there are all sorts of different things, animal welfare and stuff like that.

“Now if we haven’t got the bright young people to research in those areas and find some answers to some of those challenges, then we are going to struggle,” he says.

“A lot of countries out there are concerned about the environment, and if we’re not doing it right, and we haven’t solved some of these problems to make our agriculture industry a bit more cost-effective and yet environmentally friendly, then these countries are not going to take our [exports] and that’s going to be a problem.”

If your BA isn’t going so well for you, perhaps it’s time to consider a change. Maybe there’s a career for you in agriculture? Agriculture graduates are in demand, and are likely to be far more employable in a whole host of different aspects of the industry. Remember, there’s more to farming than just milking cows and shearing sheep. In the end, agriculture is the lifeblood of the nation. It is one of the few industries where we are a true world leader. If interest in agriculture among young people continues to decline, where does that leave our most profitable export industry?

Job prospects for graduates of agriculture-related tertiary qualifications:

• Research, science and technology. Fonterra, for instance, employs 350 researchers here and abroad.
• Banking and financial products.
• International trade.
• Trade diplomacy.
• Infrastructure, for example, water storage and broadband.
• IT.
• Industrial applications.
• Retailing—the multi-billion dollar support industries.
• Fertiliser. Ballance and Ravensdown, both cooperatives, are involved in exports too.
• Shipping, distribution and logistics.
• Food technology.

I’m a feminist. Stop your cringing. I shave my legs. And my armpits. I like to buy clothes, shoes and nice underwear. More often than not, if I’m wearing a skirt, it’ll be short. Don’t worry, I wear tights, my legs are far too pasty to be exposed to the general public. I love my Madame Hawke coat, not to mention my Moochi dress that I’ll be wearing for graduation. That said, I drink beer, swear a lot, and I’m pretty sure I hang out with more boys than girls. But I still consider myself a feminist.

I believe that New Zealand’s abortion laws need to be reformed, to ensure that women can safely and legally access abortions. I believe women should be given the same employment opportunities as men, and they should be paid just as much as men for the jobs they do. I appreciate the battles fought by our feminist foremothers to ensure that we have access to the pill and other forms of contraception without the need for the consent of a husband. We can get bank loans and own property. We can be the CEOs of major companies, we can be mothers, prime ministers, doctors, professors. We have the luxury to be able to choose our own career path, we can choose whether or not to have children.

I have a feeling that a lot of young women are reluctant to identify themselves as feminists. Partly to blame for this are the frequently misguided stereotypes associated with the women’s movement. More often than not, those feminists who make the most noise and kick up the biggest fuss over the most minor of things, are the ones that gain the most coverage and ultimately dictate the way feminism is perceived by society at large. I assure you, not all feminists are angry, men-hating, bra-burning, middle-aged women.

There is a more moderate face to the women’s movement. Many of my friends are proud to say they’re feminists—these are the same friends that I go shopping with, drink wine/beer/cider with, party with, gossip with. We’re all educated, we’re all opinionated, we’re all ambitious—and we all believe that there are still battles to be fought in society to ensure that women, not just in New Zealand, do attain full equality with their male counterparts.

This week is the women’s issue of Salient. Student media is, typically, dominated by boys—and Salient has been no exception to this. This year is the first time in Salient history we’ve had an all-female editor/designer/news editor line-up. Despite this, I still feel there is a place for a women’s issue. This year, we’re going for a bit of a different approach. We’ve got some interviews with young women who are all making it in their chosen careers. We’ve got a feature about vaginal reconstruction, and one about Disney dames. We’ve got an account of one young woman’s experience of an abortion. We want to make you think. We want to change what you think it means to be a feminist. Are you a feminist?

Caitlin has done a fantastic job organising Women’s Fest. Do head along to some of the events this week!

Last week I went to the launch of the Auckland University Students’ Association’s annual women’s magazine Kate. This year Kate was edited by the super wonderful Rosabel Tan, who has kindly allowed us to reprint a couple of the features that appeared in Kate in this issue of Salient. Congrats to Rosabel on her fantastic magazine, it’s an awesome read. If you’re interested, head to kate-magazine.blogspot.com for a look-see!

How did you first get into politics, and did you always want to be a politician?

I was always interested in issues, always observed—I guess—things around me. But I wouldn’t say that I ever aspired to be an MP, or woke up one day and decided that that was going to be my career goal. I was a volunteer for Labour for over ten years before I became an MP, and in lots of ways I still see myself as a volunteer for Labour, I’m just doing what I used to do in a very different way. I certainly always admired the role though, and it was certainly a job that I thought was a very privileged one. When the opportunity arose to put myself forward for the list, I gave it a lot of thought because I knew the sacrifice that was involved and what a difficult job it was, but I guess at the same time, from having watched it from afar, I thought it would be a really privileged role to have.

What was it like when you first entered Parliament, particularly being a young female MP?

I guess when I first came into Parliament, everyone is equally daunted… It felt like everyone was on an equal footing. It is a very daunting place to come and a very daunting job to take on when you first come in. I had read those stories of women who had preceeded me from decades ago, and the difference and the contrast from what I faced and what they faced was quite stark. They were coming up against a lot of really practical things, exclusion by not having ladies toilets in all parts of the building, having areas they couldn’t enter into and just the culture of the place. We have at least come far enough now that Parliament is a very very different place. But that doesn’t mean that there still aren’t challenges. I think for women, be it young women or women in general in Parliament, some of those challenges still exist and I think we still need to work hard to make sure Parliament is a place where women, at any stage of their career or life, feel like it is a role that they can take on, and at the moment I think we still have to do a bit of work to make that a reality. 

What have been some of the successes of your parliamentary career so far?

I think success is measured in a different way when you’re an opposition MP, it’s a bit different than being in government. We spend a lot of time holding the government to account and making sure people are aware of the impact of changes being made. One of my areas is youth justice and youth unemployment. We’ve seen youth unemployment rise to record levels, and I’ve seen part of my role as making sure the government is held to account in addressing the struggle young people are facing, and have faced in the recession. Last year I held a youth job summit to highlight the fact that the government hadn’t focused enough of its attention on young people. One of the other things I guess has been a big focus for me of late is becoming Labour’s candidate in Auckland Central, which happened about eight weeks ago. It’s an enormous step, to come into an area and take on the job of representing the party in a marginal seat.

What do you want to achieve in your parliamentary career?

Return a Labour government… Seeing what the government has done in the period that they have been in power, there will be a lot of rebuilding Labour will need to do. There are things that I’ve become really concerned about, and I’d like to be part of a future government that will focus on this, is the lack of attention that has been paid to our future generations in the short-sighted decisions that have been made. Some of the examples of that are the suspension of payments into the superannuation fund, the slashing of Kiwisaver, an emissions trading scheme which subsidises heavy polluters at the cost of future taxpayers, which of course does nothing to make sure New Zealand is playing its part in reducing our impact on climate change. So I think we’re letting my generation and the generations behind me down at the moment, and we need a government that’s going to make some bold decisions on our behalf and we haven’t seen that. That, I think, will be one of the biggest challenges a future government will have to take on and I’d hope to be a part of that team.

What do you think are some of the main challenges facing young women today, and how could these be overcome?

I still feel like, in some of the conversations I have with young women working in different areas, particularly those who have moved into positions of responsibility quite young, what I hear from them is that young women still feel like they’re making either/or decisions—they’re being asked to make sacrifices rather than choices. I know it’s a very grand objective, but I would like to see us working towards a country where young women don’t feel like they’re making either/or decisions, but do feel like they’re being supported to make the choices that are right for them, rather than the sacrifices we ask them to make now. That all sounds very abstract. I worked in the UK for a number of years and saw there the efforts they were making to try and make work-life balance more of a reality, rather than just a slogan—to try and make workplaces genuinely family friendly, and to remove the guilt attached to making some of those choices that might be right for us. That’s something we should be striving for.

What has your involvement been, broadly speaking, in the wider debate about abortion and reproductive rights?

I think my full awareness surrounding the greater need for women’s reproductive rights globally came after I moved to Ireland in 2003. Born and raised in the US, I took for granted Roe vs. Wade and the fact that if I had the means, I could pretty readily access family planning and abortion services. In Ireland, the constitutional right to life of the mother is equated with the right to life of the ‘unborn’ (a term that has yet to be defined), making abortion a criminal offence in most situations. Now technically after the Supreme Court ruling in the X case (1992), when a 14-year-old rape victim was interned within the state and refused permission to travel to the UK for a termination, a woman is allowed an abortion where her physical life is at risk, including the threat of suicide (as X claimed she was suicidal in order to be allowed to travel). However, a woman would go a long way to find a doctor that would risk their professional licence (and who is sympathetic to the woman’s situation) to perform the actual procedure. Thus, most women continue to travel to the UK, and thanks to cheap RyanAir flights, to the Netherlands, Germany and Spain for an abortion.

It was shocking to me that in a country, albeit one based on traditional Catholic beliefs, could in the twenty-first century continue to criminalise and stigmatise women in such a stringent and blatant manner. As a result of this awakening, I became involved in a pro-choice group in Cork—Cork Women’s Right to Choose Group. We campaigned, protested and leafleted on the rights of women to bodily integrity and choice. I also researched the issue as part of my doctoral research on Irish women politicians and their engagement with feminist issues, using abortion as a litmus test.

Together, these experiences instilled in me the need for a holistic approach to reproductive rights and abortion. By this I mean that sexual and reproductive rights do not begin and end with abortion, but need to take into account the gamut of women’s sexual and reproductive health needs throughout their life cycle—sexual education, contraception, maternal health, abortion, cervical screenings and vaccinations, et cetera.

What is ALRANZ and what does ALRANZ want to achieve? What do New Zealand’s abortion laws currently say, and what are the implications of the legislation for women wanting an abortion?

ALRANZ stands for the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand. As a group we are dedicated to decriminalising abortion and improving the medical practices that surround this procedure. There are several goals inherent within this statement. Primarily, we argue that abortion should neither be considered a criminal offense nor legislated for within the Crimes Act 1961. I think most women in New Zealand would be shocked to discover, as I was when I moved here, that there are only four grounds for a legal abortion up to 20 weeks’ gestation (after 20 weeks the grounds are more strict): when the physical health of the woman is endangered; when a woman has become pregnant as a result of incest; a severe foetal abnormality; and in instances of [harm to] mental health. According to Statistics New Zealand, 98 per cent of abortions fall under the latter category of [harm to] mental health. This has also been commented on by Justice Miller as part of the Right to Life v. Abortion Supervisory Committee case (which is waiting to be heard in the Appeals Court in October 2010), where he queried the legality of abortions being performed and the certifying consultant’s liberal interpretations of the law.

Firstly, this means that New Zealand women who need or want an abortion for any reason must fall under one of the four headings above. This does not include sexual violence or rape, although that will be taken into consideration. The ongoing court case throws this into relief, showing how inconsistently the law is being applied and how much more restrictive it could be.

Secondly, the process is inequitable in terms of availability and accessibility, and [is] also convoluted. Specifically, the process entails that the woman first visits her GP, before being referred on to two certifying consultants who determine the legitimacy of the woman’s claim under the four grounds. If one of the certifying consultants disagrees then the woman is referred on to a third consultant, whose opinion is meant to be final. ALRANZ asserts that not only does this not follow best medical practice, but it is also unnecessarily complicated, erecting barriers to good health care and further disadvantaging already vulnerable women.

I think aside from these facts, the underlying message is that women are not to be trusted to make choices surrounding their own bodies. Personally, I find this repugnant.

What are some of the problems with the current legislation?

The current abortion law is legislated for in the Crimes Act, which I just mentioned, in tangent with the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 (CS&A). The CS&A sets out the remit of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and the process of the certifying consultants. Virtually, it was a bad law to begin with, cobbled together based on a need to find some consensus. There has been a noticeable lack of political will to engage with the issue again, and as a result a bad law has been allowed to fester.

These laws were also put in place at a time when only surgical abortions were available to women. Now with advent of medical abortions, women can take two pills—one an antiprogestin and the other a prostaglandin—[at] up to eight weeks’ gestation and remain in the privacy of their own homes if they choose. However, the CS&A does not reflect such changes and is written primarily for surgical ones. I think it is important to note that while Family Planning has applied for a licence to perform medical abortions, they would still have to follow the legal rules outlined above. The woman would still have to go through the certifying consultant procedure, the pills would still have to be administered in a registered medical facility and women would still have to meet one of the four grounds.

Another serious fault with the legislation continues to be the lack of consideration for circumstances outside the four restricted grounds. For example: what happens when a woman, who is taking some form of contraception, gets pregnant as a result of contraceptive failure? Is she to be punished for responsibly engaging in sexual activity? And if she is, then how long are we going to tolerate the underlying assumption that women are not supposed to be sexual creatures (i.e. the virgin/whore dualism), and just merely seen as physical and culture reproducers? Personally, as a woman, I want to be determined by more than my ability to reproduce.

Why is ALRANZ advocating for legislative reform to guarantee women access to safe, legal abortions?

ALRANZ firmly believes that it should be a woman’s choice. The current abortion law is not even close to meeting that standard. It continues to criminalise women for their reproductive choices (and by extension their sexual choices) and sends out the message that women are not to be trusted with making decisions relating to their bodies. I find that rather hypocritical, given we are supposed to trust women as mothers to this unborn/foetal life, yet we do not trust them to say, “Wait, I am not prepared for or I am unable to care for another person at this moment in my life.” Isn’t that the more responsible decision? Shouldn’t the ability to make hard decisions also engender trust?

Are there any countries where ‘liberal’ abortion legislation has been introduced?

Many countries, including Canada, Spain, Portugal, the UK and the Netherlands, have fairly liberal abortion laws. In the main, the flood gates have not opened up and women are not racing to have abortions just because they can. That is an argument made against liberalisation in Ireland—all women will be doing it if allowed! Usually, liberalisation makes the procedure safer and perhaps less stressful for the woman herself, given that she might not have to jump through hoops to prove her need for the abortion. Again the focus here is trying to ease the distress of the woman involved and making sure she gets the best medical care possible.

Are there any examples of countries or states where more restrictive abortion legislation has been introduced, and to what effect?

I think this is an important question, mainly because New Zealand women have been ‘lucky’ (and I say that lightly) to date that more certifying consultants have taken such a liberal view of the law. Living in Ireland, I saw the rancor and vitriol that accompanies most abortion-related discussions. Yet, the voices that you never hear are the women themselves. Lots of the women that are forced to travel for an abortion have never left Ireland. And for the Salient readers who have been to London and ridden on the Tube, it can be an overwhelming experience for the everyday commuters. Can you imagine being pregnant, probably having to take time off from work under the guise of some excuse, getting on a plane for the first time and then being faced with having to navigate the London underground? Doctors are not allowed to make appointments for Irish women, so they must contact a clinic and make all the arrangements for themselves…Often Irish women are later on in their pregnancies when they do present themselves at the clinic, given the time it takes to raise the necessary funds and getting the time off from work. If the woman gives an Irish address, she will be given antibiotics as standard procedure, as they realise that the woman will not seek after-care once back in Ireland. I got an email the other day appealing for funds for a woman who had her travel/abortion plans disrupted as a result of the Icelandic volcano. She did not have the funds to reschedule the trip over again! Can you imagine the stress and anxiety of that—not knowing if you will have the means of getting the care you so desperately need?

This is what a more restrictive abortion regime looks like—silence, recrimination and the feeling of being disowned from your country. Abortion is often referred to as “an Irish solution to an Irish problem”. In other words, they export that which might disrupt or transgress the Irish cultural imaginary—a rural, traditional, Catholic culture. But what does it mean for these women? What burdens do they live with as a result of being treated so atrociously? And why is the right to life of the unborn more valuable than the right to bodily integrity and autonomy of these women?

I have a great background on my computer. It states: 77 per cent of anti-abortion leader are men. 100 per cent of them will never be pregnant. I don’t believe anyone has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body. I respect those who disagree, but they have the choice not to have that procedure if they find it immoral. I would not have any or very limited reproductive choices if the pro-life side had their way. Why do they get to choose for the rest of us?

A few weeks ago, I read an editorial in another student magazine in which the editor gushed about the president of the resident students’ association. This president, the editor decided, was doing a half-decent job. The editor and the exec are still talking and are on reasonably amicable terms. The students’ association has patched up their relationship with their university. For the most part, this exec is doing their job effectively.

 
That particular editorial led me to ponder the performance of this year’s VUWSA exec. Max Hardy, stop freaking out. I assure you now, it’s not all that bad.
 
As soon as Roger Douglas’ bill was pulled from the ballot in September last year, everyone knew that 2010 would be a crunch year for VUWSA. I was at the first reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and as a number of Salient stories were getting cited in Roger’s speech (do vans or psychic hotlines ring a bell?), it seemed to me that it was primarily the misdemeanours of VUWSA execs past that were the justification for voluntary student membership.
 
VUWSA’s reputation has been tarnished by a number of years of mismanagement and the actions of a few rogue exec members. And this year’s exec is trying very, very hard to fix that reputation. A tough ask. And under no circumstances is Salient going to give them an easy ride.
 
But, to be quite honest, there appears to be a different atmosphere at VUWSA this year. While there are still a number of management issues that desperately need to be resolved, the exec don’t seem to be making dicks of themselves in quite the same fashion as their predecessors. Caitlin, Zack and Seamus are three exec members who strike me as being fully committed to their portfolios, they work hard and they make a valuable contribution to VUWSA. Kia ora guys. 

Yep, there’s a couple of exec members who need to sort their shit out, attend meetings and actually fulfill the number of work hours required of them in their positions. Nice to see that following a news story in Salient last week, there was a full turnout of exec members—all with written work reports in hand—at the exec meeting on Wednesday.

So maybe Salient can claim a small victory in terms of whipping the exec into shape, and reminding them of their obligations to those to whom they are ultimately accountable—you the students, and by default, the members of VUWSA. It’s part of our job to keep them accountable. It’s part of our job to ensure that your money is being well spent. It’s part of our job to keep tabs, watch, take notes and report.

On a lighter note, my designer and I are celebrating our 22nd birthdays on production night. Yup, an all-nighter on our birthday. Thanks to everyone who popped into the office with treats. You guys made our day. Oh and thank you VUWSA (or more likely, Max and Seamus) for the thoughtful gift you left outside our office door. We really appreciate it. <3

Students left out of loop

Fees for international students at Victoria University will rise across most programmes in 2011.

An increase of three to seven per cent for most tuition fees was approved by the University Council in a meeting last Monday.

Tuition fees for Humanities and Social Sciences will increase by seven per cent, undergraduate Commerce fees will increase by six per cent, while fees for Architecture, Law, Science, Foundation Studies, undergraduate Engineering, and postgraduate Commerce and Education will rise by five per cent. A three per cent rise will hit Design, undergraduate Education, postgraduate Engineering and Study Abroad courses.

“We carefully assessed factors such as market conditions, student enrolment trends, price sensitivity, fees charges by other universities, and inflationary pressures before making our recommendation to Council that fees be increased for 2011,” says Pro Vice-Chancellor (International) Professor Rob Rabel.

“Council members took into account a number of facts and heard from an international student representative before deciding that international fees be increased,” Rabel says.

The comparative analysis of fees charged by other New Zealand universities showed that Vic, in most courses, was not offering the most expensive tuition fees, and was at the cheaper end of the scale for Arts, Science and Commerce undergraduate courses.

There is also scope for fees to rise a further one per cent, if the anticipated GST rise to 15 per cent is confirmed in the Budget to be announced on 20 May.
VUWSA President Max Hardy says the justification for the fee increase is “exceedingly weak”.

“I think most students expect that their fees are based on the cost of providing the courses they are paying for, but instead it looks like they just pick numbers out of a hat. I was quite surprised by the lack of analysis.”

Hardy says that the university should involve students in decisions about fee setting.

“Students want a quality degree and are prepared to pay for it, but most would assume that the amount they pay bears some resemblance to the value of what they receive.”

He adds that VUWSA will be ensuring the university “implements a more robust fee-setting process in the future”.

Rabel says the university “does not consult directly with students on international fees; however, the issue was debated by the Finance Committee, which includes a student representative, before the final paper was prepared for Council.”

Hardy is the sole student representative on the Finance Committee. Hardy was absent from the meeting where international fees were discussed, due to his Uni Games attendance.

“I put in my apologies for the meeting well in advance and asked if another student could attend in my place, but I was told this was not possible.”

A student from the Philippines says she is disappointed by the fee increase.

“Part of the appeal of studying in New Zealand is that it’s so affordable compared to other countries.”

Full details of the 2011 international fees for each programme will be available on the Victoria International website within the next month.

The fee increases summarised:

- Tuition fees for Humanities and Social Science will rise by 7 per cent.

- Tuition fees for undergraduate Commerce will rise by 6 per cent.

- Tuition fees for Architecture, postgrad Commerce, postgrad Education, undergraduate Engineering, Foundation Studies, Law and Science will rise by 5 per cent.

- Tuition fees for Design, undergraduate Education, postgrad Engineering and Study Abroad will rise by 3 per cent.

- A few selected programmes will be exempt from fee rises.

- If GST is increased to 15 per cent in the Budget, there will be an additional increase of 1 per cent.

Last production day the internet in the Salient office cut out—mysteriously—for about an hour. No internet means, basically, no Salient. Not to mention no Gmail chat, Facebook, Twitter, and no way of sending the final magazine file to the printers in Tauranga. The internet did come back up—finally—after a number of frantic phone calls to the VUWSA Association Manager, as well as the printing company to arrange potential back-up file-sending plans if the internet failed to be revived. At least this time around the internet cut out during business hours. We won’t talk about the time it happened at 1am. On a Friday. Six hours before deadline.

When we didn’t think our luck could get any worse, this week the power cut out. Your power probably went out too. Along with the other 84,000 households, businesses that found themselves suddenly sans electricity. We wonder what we’ve done to fuck off the gods of technology so much for some crisis to strike the office on our deadline day two weeks in a row.

While the rest of Wellington was plunged into darkness and chaos (and gutted for the two Dom Post photographers who were stuck in a lift together for an hour), the Salient office was primarily concerned with how on earth we were going to feed ourselves.

We have a stack of Mi-Goreng noodles on the floor (thanks VUWSA), but without power, there’s no way to heat them up. We could go and buy food—no hold on, no cash and there won’t be any functioning EFTPOS. There’s my soup in the fridge—wait, same deal as the noodles, no microwave, no delicious homemade pumpkin soup.

You might be thinking, “Weren’t they freaking out about the fact they have a deadline and a magazine to make?” Well yes, we were freaking out a little. Then someone brought me beer. Rational thinking ensued. If the power is out across all of Wellington, at least we have a really good excuse for not sending the file off in time. Not to mention the fact we could get a reasonably good news story out of it (see our handwritten effort in the news section).

I text the Editor of Critic—the student mag at Otago—to exclaim about our predicament. I thought he’d sympathise, or something. Most helpfully, he texted me back saying the New Zealand Herald was reporting that the power would be back in an hour. Thank god. I was missing my Gmail. And everyone was complaining about how hungry they were. Then they get all hyperactive and lose focus and it’s all downhill from there.

It’d be really great if next week, oh great technology gods, you didn’t feel the need to frown upon Salient so much. Or at least do it on a Monday or something.

The New Zealand Government has signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, a non-binding declaration that recognises the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, among other rights.

The signing of the declaration in New York last week signals a U-turn by the current government, after the Labour Government refused to adopt the declaration in 2007.

The Labour Government, at the time of the declaration’s adoption, said that it was at odds with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal framework, and the Treaty of Waitangi.

The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, to maintain their own languages and cultures, and to protect their natural heritage and manage their own affairs.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples told the UN that there were no caveats to New Zealand’s support of the declaration.

Prime Minister John Key has however played down the significance of the signing of the declaration, saying it will have no practical effect.

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira told Radio New Zealand that the declaration would be used by Maori to bolster claims before the Waitangi Tribunal and in courts.

Act party leader Rodney Hide says Act is “shocked and appalled” by the government’s decision to support the declaration.

In parliament Hide called Key “naïve in the extreme” regarding his comments that the declaration would have no practical effect in New Zealand.

Hide was also critical of National’s decision because he saw it as a breach of the “no surprises” policy.

It’s Anzac Day this Sunday. Some of you will make the pilgrimage to the dawn service at the Cenotaph. Some of you will probably be nursing hangovers of various intensities. Some of you will probably wake up and forget that it’s Anzac Day and head to a store, only to find it doesn’t open until 1pm. Anzac Day means different things to different people.

To be honest, I had never attended a dawn service until I was asked to speak at the Feilding service when I was 17. A student is selected from my high school each year to speak about what Anzac Day means to them, and what relevance Anzac Day holds for young people in New Zealand. It was one of the first times that I really had to think about what Anzac Day meant to me, and what impact World War One in particular had on my family.

My great grandfather served in the Great War, and fought primarily on the Western Front. He fought in battles like Passchendale, Ypres and the Somme. The Western Front would prove to be much more of a bloodbath for New Zealand soliders than Gallipoli, as thousands and thousands of men lost their lives in the trenches. He was one of the lucky ones to come back alive.

My great grandfather never opened his war medals. Upon his return to New Zealand there were no pubs open within a convenient radius of the wharf where his ship docked. This inconvenience prompted his decision not to open his medals—it was a protest, a simple act that expressed his dissatisfaction with what he deemed to be a common courtesy: have a jolly pub open for the returned servicemen. The least they deserved after all they witnessed was a drink.

The scars of war do not fade quickly. Many of those men who returned from war had personal demons to battle. The memory of war, the trenches, death would remain with them for the rest of their lives. For many of those who returned, alcohol numbed that pain. But it was not just the men themselves who would grapple with those emotional wounds of war. Family members and friends would struggle to understand their experiences. Many men never spoke again of what they saw. It took a personal toll, on the men and their families alike.

While milling around after the dawn service in Feilding in 2005, one woman came up to me and thanked me for remembering those men who returned. Although my gran couldn’t make it to the service, she wished me the best of luck. She assured me I’d do my great grandfather proud.

For me, Anzac Day is about remembering not just those who lost their lives in conflict. It’s also about remembering those who came back, but were never quite the same as they were when they left. It’s about remembering the impact the war had on their families, and the legacy this leaves for succeeding generations. War touches many lives. It touches many families.

One time last year, Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff visited the Salient office. In his honour, then-feature writer now-Editor Sarah Robson (Rarah and Sarah are obviously not the same person) baked Phil a banana cake. It was a banana cake so delicious that even Vice-Chancellor Pat Walsh indulged in a piece.

Legend has it that this cake came to be known as Goff Cake. You too can share in the legend.

125g butter
230g sugar
2 eggs
1 cup mashed banana
1 tsp vanilla
1/2 tsp baking soda
260g self-raising flour
6 tbsp water

Cream the butter and sugar.

Add eggs, beat well.

Add half of the flour and baking soda.

Add the banana and the vanilla.

Fold in the rest of the flour.

Add water.

Bake at 180 degrees for 40 minutes.

If you’re wondering about the existence of a Key Cake, well, the Prime Minister hasn’t graced the Salient office with his presence yet. When he does though, we’re thinking chocolate cake.

Handy hints
Haven’t got any self-raising flour? Do not despair and do not run off to the shop to buy some. Instead of using self-raising, use one cup of plain flour and one teaspoon of baking powder. For this recipe, it’s two cups of plain flour and two teaspoons of baking powder. Huzzah!

In the last issue before the break, Salient reported that boxes of spray tan were being handed out free of charge in the quad.

Salient can now report that the spray tan was the same spray tan that was delivered in large quantities to VUWSA for Orientation last year.

For those curious, the spray tan was the Garnier Amber Solaire no-streaks bronzer “light”, a multi-directional self-tanning spray that contains natural apricot extract and vitamin E.

The spray tan is easy to apply to the back of the legs and leaves a luminous, even and natural-looking tan. It dries instantly.

The spray tan has been in storage since Orientation 2009, and it was made available to students at no cost to free up storage space.

“I love it when my cervical cancer is discunted!”—23-year-old female

An email inviting young women to participate in a trial of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil has been circulated with an unfortunate spelling mistake in the subject line.

The email with the subject line “Discunted Cervical Cancer (Gardasil) offer to trial female participants 21-26 years”, sent by the Immunisation Advisory Centre (IMAC) at the University of Auckland, was received by an Auckland womens’ group.

IMAC Research is calling for women 14- to 26-years old, who have not received a dose of Gardasil, to participate in a study to explore how to make injections more comfortable.

Women aged between 14 and 20 can get the vaccine for free, while those over 20 years who participate in the trial are offered a “discunted” rate of “only $50+ GST for the first dose and $99+ GST for the second two doses”.

Well you don’t want your health to be ovary-priced, do you?