This year I’m thankful that this vision has been shared by a team of writers in a multiversity, which to my mind is becoming increasingly commercially oriented. These writers have described the abhorrent way the government treats refugees such as Ali Panah, the loopholes of the Work and Income system, the contradictions of American foreign policy, the waste of taxpayer money on organ donation incentives, how to invest your student loan, the democratic implications of the Electoral Finance Bill, how the economy is designed to enslave us, why VSM is a bad move, how television is the drug of a nation, and why coolness is the new conformity. I’d like to think we have contributed to meaningful debate on campus. For at least one who considered the editor “a bit of a dick who’s always crusading against the world” at Motel bar last month, I know that’s the case.

The role of the editor is not easy, and at times I’ve felt like I’ve been tramping up steep terrain. While that’s produced some great views, I’m looking forward to taking a break from it all. Being on the inside is a dangerous place. Exploiting the editorial independence of Salient, I’ve tried to make the magazine the refuge of fringe ideas, ones that can’t be published in the likes of the Dominion Post. I am indebted to all of the writers, illustrators, lawyers, artists, and grammar nazis who have contributed to this. You deserve recognition for the thousands of words, ideas and countless hours contributed, and probably a lot more cash than Salient ever paid some of you.

I’m going to start with my recognition with the guy who pays me, Geoff da boss. Thanks for your professionalism and respect for Salient’s editorial independence.

Perhaps worthy of most mention is (Saint) Nick Archer, Salient’s unofficial office manager and general workhorse. Nick was the brains behind the watershed SalientTV, the Visual Arts Editor and New Media Columnist. Nick wrote features, film, book and music reviews and subsequently has produced over 89 articles, never missed a deadline and spent over 60 hours a week, working in the office, for no pay. You are made of gold.

The next most important person in the Salient crew was the designer Tony, or Antonio Bandarias as I affectionately called you. Your positive attitude and relaxed nature was essential to the demands involved with the job. I don’t need to go on about how important you have been, you hear it all the time.

Other thanks must be provided to the members of the publications committee – Chris Bishop, Aaron Packard, Geoff and Mary Jane, who have been instrumental in providing me with a supportive environment to work and develop the magazine. In particular, Chair Alexander Nielsen has been a resource par excellence, and his institutional knowledge with matters concerning the constitution has been essential.

To the team of feature writers – Rob Addison, Tristan Egarr, Jenah Shaw, Nicola Kean, and Duncan McKinlay – thank you for providing excellent ideas and damn hard work. It’s been a pleasure to work with such talent. Thanks for putting up with my at times demanding suggestions. Special ups to Tristan, who has the remarkable ability to pull out excellent features with sometimes just one day’s notice.

The columnists were varied and quite an eccentric lot. I really enjoyed my chats with Gonzo the news mole’s Ben den Ouden, and of course the real Becci, whom I never met in person, and her replacement, Matt Proctor when she bailed on us. I can only guess she got hitched. Ali’s renting column was always excellent. Robbie Neilson was probably the most strange of the columnists with his obsession with getting naked and showing me the pictures and drawings. Robbie started Salient Speed Dating too, which is kind of worrying. Thanks also to the idiots – Chris Dawson and Mark Scott, your column got funnier as the year went on. Michael Oliver’s sports copy was always on time, and Neil Miller’s beer column received some of the best feedback of any column, particularly among young males. Eleanor Bishop’s theatre pages were also superbly written. Thanks Laura, Pachali, Gabrielle and Ali too.

In the opinion department, I’d like to thank Perigo, but of course that would mean that I’d be labelled an islamofascist supporter. I only censored you once, last week when you got sexist on me. Freedom of speech has its limits. To the Brothers in Anarchy, cheers for your arguments, always insightful and less of a headache. Thanks also to the guests who occupied “Counterpoint”.

Laura was pretty cool, and her team of news writers were cool too. Your headlines were always a source of wonder. To your team Seonah Choi, Jenah Powell, Laura Malcom and James Ramsey – mucho gratsis.

Stacey – Thanks for your commitment to the scene, massive effort, putting up with our screw ups, and big ups to Tom Baragwanath for being consistently solid.

To the subbies Charlotte Whitelaw, Alix Walles, Jennifer Hutchinson, Peter Wolodzo, Alby, Tim and Laura, Emma Kuperus and Nic Dowell – Thanks for remaining motivated after being drip-feed book vouchers.

Dave Crampton’s wild and eccentric ideas were always a wonder to behold on Monday morning when he would storm into the office, down a coffee and bombard us with his personality. Your attitude, insight and advice was highly valued. Thanks for remaining friends after I gave your articles misleading headlines.

I loved the way Stephen Hay would allow working party ideas to creep into the films section. The topical film of the week was a great idea.

Martin Doyle and Michael Botur’s ability to conceptualise feature content and turn them into illustrations on a weekly basis transformed the pages of Salient into raw visual creations. Thanks to Emma Cullen, Arlo Edwards and Brent Willis for your contributions too.

Legal – Cheers to Steven Price and Graeme Edgler. Graeme’s incredible knowledge of the constitution and legal advice was second to none, and free.

Thanks to Tim McKenzie, David Newton, Sean Paurini, Tracey Dent, and the Nicoll whanau – Janina, Louise and Richard- for the emotional support. The coffees, kind words and dinners gave me strength. Cheers to the distributors Stubbs, Sophie and Jamie Palmer.

Mary Jane- it was a pleasure to work on the Te Reo issue with you.

Jon McQueen – Thanks for your reliability, exceptional ability at your job, and iPod playlists.

Finally, thanks heaps to Michael Langdon, an exceptional volunteer subbie who served his time deep in the trenches of Salient, when the pizza had run dry and morning sparrows started to sing. At 3am, with just Langdon, Tony and Nick around, we bonded like brothers.

-Steve

At today’s meeting the council plans to pass a motion that the university will increase by the maximum amount possible every year until fees are brought into line with other universities.

Since 2004, Victoria University has applied for exemptions of the Annual Fee Movement Limit (AFML), with requests for a ten per cent increase. The AFML limit was set to ensure affordability of study and certainty of fees while allowing Victoria some flexibility in fee setting to maintain their income in real terms. Increases of less than five per cent have become the exception rather than the rule, and so in August Labour reversed rules that made institutions decrease fees when course costs were higher than the allowed fee maxima. This means that institutions with high fees can shrug their shoulders at the government, stick it to students, and do what they like. Victoria wants to use the AFML of five per cent as the minimum percentage increase for your fees every year starting 2008. Under the rules of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), universities have to meet “more than one” of the following three principles to be eligible for an exemption;

a) That the cost of providing the course was not being met by income from the course;

b) The facility was unable to cross-subsidise courses from its total surplus and be financially viable, and;

c) Not increasing fees would compromise education priorities or severely restrict students’ access to study.

In other words, they have to be in such financial shit that they have to be bailed out. Which is why the last bid to qualify for these exemptions was rejected by the TEC. The comments made by the TEC at the time concerning Victoria’s attempts to avoid the fee maxima are similar to those made last year when they commented along the lines that “This is an example of exactly the type of application that will never be approved.” This reveals the desperation of Victoria University to use students as a cash crop.

Why doesn’t the university look towards expanding its nearly $5.5 million investments, as a preferred option to using students as a revenue gathering exercise? And why does Victoria insist that fees have to increase more than the rate of inflation? The University of Canterbury Students’ Association successfully used this argument in August to negotiate a lower increase.

Quoting the Bank of New Zealand’s consumer price index forecast for 2008 (3.3%), the proposed amendment won enough votes (9-8) at a council meeting to prevent the original proposed increase of 4.5% from going through.

This year the response from VUWSA and the Education Action Group (EAG) was Box City and debt day demonstrations. The next attempt naturally occurs when they attend the council meeting today.

The university is taking no chances over this protest. A leaked document I received last week outlines its policy and restrictions. These include limiting the number of students admitted to the council chamber to 50. The intention of these measures is undoubtedly to limit disruption as much as possible, but according to one source at VUWSA they will not prevent direct action being taken.

While making the council aware that students are unhappy with the current increase in fees, the arrows for change are probably best directed at the government. After all, they provide the meager 2.1 per cent government funding increase each year, which is below the rate of inflation.

If recent moves of the National Party last Tuesday are anything to go by, then we should be more alarmed. At the Auckland University of Technology, John Key announced that his party plans to scrap the fee maxima policy and the AFML effectively, promoting fee hikes and increasing student debt like in the ‘90s when fees rose by over 180%.

Considering National’s favourable results in recent polls, then we could all be facing a dire financial situation. Perhaps Green Party Education Spokesperson Metiria Turei is right when she says that while the current fee maxima situation is far from ideal, removing all barriers to wholesale fee raises would be disastrous.

Salient doesn’t apologise. Whatever your views on the A-Team, it cannot be denied that they were news. When someone credibly alleges that members of the A-Team are racist, it’s news. When the leaders of some of the largest rep groups on campus band together to raise their concerns over A-Team policies, it’s news.

Much of the election was the A-Team acting, or their opponents and opposition reacting to them. No one should be surprised to see that our news coverage focused on them – they were the VUWSA election. And this sort of news about them is something you’re entitled to know when you cast your vote.

The concerns reached fever pitch Sunday the week before, when the A-Team’s campaign manager Jordan Williams threatened me with defamation action if material allegedly defaming members of the A-Team was included in last week’s Salient. In addition, the leader of the A-Team, Lukas Schroeter, explored the possibility of the publications committee prohibiting Salient from being released.

The action was obviously not pursued, and on Monday morning Salient was delivered to you as usual (see page 10 for our reporting of these events). The arguments of the A-Team and the returning officer were that the VUWSA election rules prohibit any person from printing, distributing or delivering anything to influence voters during the election. Salient has always brought Vic students news during election week – we like to think we’re an important source of information for our readers on all things VUWSA. The argument that Salient falls within constitutional limitations on the “conduct of electors and applicants” is new to us, and has chilling implications for your right to know and our obligation to keep you informed.

Salient’s view has always been that this section – important to ensure that candidates don’t exercise undue influence while voting is ongoing – doesn’t prohibit us keeping you up-to-date with news developments, and that the exception in the rules for other things authorised by the Constitution encompasses just about everything we do. The Salient Charter, also incorporated in the Constitution, begins with the following:

1. The Editor shall determine the form and content of Salient with complete freedom from political interference.

2. The Association has the right to expect reasonable coverage of the year’s priority goals. The Editor retains control of the form that this coverage takes.

Salient is – and should be – free to publish literally anything at all, whether during election voting time or otherwise. We hope you, your elected representatives, and those (like the A-Team) who purport to advance the cause of freedom wouldn’t have it any other way.

Our coverage was also mentioned on David Farrar’s kiwiblog. Here Farrar accused Salient of being grossly unfair by carrying an avalanche of negative stories during the period where candidates are banned from being able to publicly respond. While it’s true that the candidates were banned from distributing public statements (Schedule 2, clause 54 of the constitution) we actually allowed all candidates who had negative allegations against them to respond at the time of reporting.

Balance is extremely important in the publication of news articles – particularly so close to an election. Salient’s obligation to keep you informed was tempered by our desire to be fair to all those involved. For every allegation or criticism against a candidate, we sought and printed their response. You heard both sides of the story and should have had the information to help you cast an informed vote.

The events we covered were important to the VUWSA elections, and had we failed to cover them – even if they cast candidates in a negative light – for sake of perceived interpretation of the constitution, we would not have served the public interest. Farrar also makes reference to an opinion piece by Council representative candidate Chris Bishop, which Salient did not publish. This was because the article brought to light that Bishop was involved with the A-Team (in his own words: “having minor involvement in their campaign”) and in my judgment was a partial account, commending the A-Team with sentences like: “It’s the additional things they’ve done that are so impressive,” and “If these guys can organise VUWSA as well as they’ve organised their campaign, then we’re in safe hands,” and “When was the last time you saw candidates publish an alternative budget for the forthcoming year?”). The tone of writing is persuasive, not informative like our news coverage that week – and, as a candidate, Bishop probably would have contravened clause 54(b) himself.

The comments by Farrar are all the more understandable in light of his personal politics, himself a supporter of voluntary student membership and a member of the National party. In a posting made on September 19, Farrar bats for the A-Team – talking up some of their policies, concluding that they are “what may save VUWSA”. Farrar here justifies one of the A-Team’s “most significant” policies – electronic referenda, so that all students on campus can participate in VUWSA decision making – on the basis that it will increase student participation. Farrar overlooks policies by other candidates which also increase participation such us those by Cosgrove, to provide more support to class representation.

Other policies which are beneficial to students, such as free Internet services, clubs support, and universal allowance advocacy (as espoused by Hayward and Cosgrove) are also overlooked. Is that “fair and balanced”?

Steve

In our career driven society, it increasingly feels like Mailer is right. That we are “jailed in the prison air of other people’s habits, other people’s defeats, boredom, quiet desperation, and muted icy self-destroying rage.” In other words I get the sense that psychologically our only valid meaning is increasingly derived from our jobs; like cogs in a machine where individuality is akin to personalised number plates. The rest of our time we spend addicted to television (just under two hours a day according to Statistics New Zealand) processing and memorising how to “fit in”. This malaise is undoubtedly a result of our daily routine; 9 to 5 jobs, high accomodation costs, and the domination of new media. In the words of another writer, this time from New Zealand:

“Those peaceful New Zealand towns, centred upon a post office, a grocer’s store, a petrol station and a war memorial, are strange places to sleep in, if you stretch out on a bench in your oilskin, before the dawn shows itself above the scrub hills like a terrible unhealed wound. Nowhere have I felt more strongly the atmosphere of the graveyard… The young ones feel it too, though they do not know its origin… Perhaps their demonstrations and protests are an effort to regain communal sanity, to take on their backs the guilt of history which the elders have tried to bury beyond the reach of the spade.”

If James K Baxter is right then our zeitgeist is banality. In 2007, New Zealand has become an anti-adventure. In today’s society many of the most popular and mainstream ideas paradoxically don’t fit what many of us are whispering.

Take drugs, for example. While nearly 13 per cent of National Drug Survey respondents in 1998 stated that they had tried hallucinogens at some time there is little mainstream coverage of this topic. In a similar vein many of the popular and widespread ideas about sexual behaviour were completely irrelevant to what was really going on before Kinsey released the watershed Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male in 1948. After extensive interviews Kinsey showed that many sexual practices that were considered social deviancies were in fact quite popular. In a similar vein, I’d argue that much of what is going on in the clubs, flats and streets of Wellington is out of step with the status quo presented by the mainstream press.

In this issue, on page 16, I’d like you to journey beyond the bell curve to our article on drugs. I’ve made no attempt to detract from the authenticity of the writer, himself a seasoned drug user, who has been to rehab for substance abuse. Maybe I’ll get into trouble with the mainstream press.

Perhaps this issue will serve to demonstrate that there is no longer a freedom of the press that really means very much. Perhaps we will come to understand why so many are leaving these shores for the idea of a world beyond the smothering of the matronly ‘Godzone’ – and why they will probably not find that freer world.

If George Harrison is correct then The Beatles saved the world from boredom. Maybe we need a new Beatles.

Next year the exec will liaise with Victoria University and the Union to determine how best to spend the proposed total cost of $60 million for redeveloping the Quad area. The exec through the VUWSA trust will contribute over $10 million towards the project. In this regard, the ability to work as a unified team and to integrate with the university bureaucracy will be essential.

Successful development of the hub project therefore favours candidates with institutional knowledge of Victoria’s culture. When I asked the University Council candidate from the A-Team, Jordan Williams, what he thought of the Campus Hub project, he didn’t know what it was. I am concerned that this naivety is not isolated, with the A-Team unaware of some of the implications of their policies. These include possible staff redundancies, a result of the notion of removing all affiliation and funding for clubs. This will undoubtedly also lead to payouts, which may end up being considerable due to redundancy payout requirements in the collective agreement.

Perhaps more of a concern to me is the ideological underbelly of the A-Team. There is no doubt in my mind that they are silent proponents of Voluntary Student Membership, with close ties to the far right. If you consider what happened at Waikato University after they changed from compulsory membership to voluntary, then our association may find themselves in a situation where they can’t perform even basic functions.

That’s exactly what happened at Waikato University in 1999, three years after they become voluntary. With only 124 members, Waikato Students’ Union had been reduced to nothing more than a small club. Compulsory membership resumed in 2000 after 80 per cent of students voted ‘yes’ to a referendum asking whether membership should become compulsory again.

The A-Team also extinguish my romantic and perhaps also naïve vision for student politics- that as a watchdog over the powerful and often unchallenged forces in our lives. Next year’s students will still be living in a country where we have some of the most extreme flatting costs in the world, where we have enormous student debts and where our government hardly seems to care. Do we want to be represented by people who challenge this or who are complicit in the increasing dictation of market forces? After all, the A-Team state on their website that “the A-Team is committed to an a-political VUWSA.”

There are further concerns with this non-stance. How, for instance, will the executive be able to have a relationship with NZUSA, the overtly national lobby for students’ associations? Just a few days ago the A-Team stated that they are going to review their membership with NZUSA, indicating a possible relationship. This is a marked departure from their statement last week that they would immediately quit ties with NZUSA. Further, the exec will be called to consult with Victoria University as student representatives for the implementation of the TEC initiative, which begins next year. And do we really want a student body which says nothing in an election year?

Non-representation extends to students on an individual level too, with significant changes to the advocacy role of paid VUWSA staff members.

These are of course just my opinions and hopefully this issue allows you to judge the issues surrounding this election for yourself. Our cover story compares the policies of the three presidential candidates nominated and the foldout centerfold on page 32 contains information about each candidate the way they want to describe themselves. The pullout section contains important information about voting times and booth locations. Also check out SalientTV for campaign profiles and election highlights as they come to hand. Happy voting,

Steve

Are you open minded, creative and verbose? Do you have an eye for detail, a feel for students’ interests and low overheads? Would you like a real, tangible, paper and ink proof of a year’s hard slog?

Apply to edit Salient 2008!

This is a full time, salaried position beginning in February 2008. A complete job description is available from Julie McKiernan, VUWSA Office Coordinator. To obtain one, email Julie.McKiernan@vuwsa.org.nz or pick one up from the VUWSA office, ground floor, Student Union Building.

Applications will include a cover letter outlining your vision for Salient 2008 and a CV with at least two referees’ contact details.

Applications close at 12pm Thurs September 27, and should be sent to:

Julie McKiernan
VUWSA
PO BOX 600
Wellington
or Julie.McKiernan@vuwsa.org.nz

Alternatively they can be dropped off on the ground floor of the Union building at the VUWSA Offices.

The job includes:

Overall editorial responsibility for Salient 2008 and the VUWSA Handbook Diary and Wall Planner 2009
Coordinating material from rep groups on campus
Planning issues on a week-by-week basis
Management of paid and unpaid staff
Oversight of news and feature writers
Management of the budget

The successful applicant will:
Have mainstream or student journalism experience
Have excellent communication skills
Have excellent financial planning and organisational skills
Have excellent attention to detail
Preferably have experience with Mac desktop publishing
Have ample leadership skills, and preferably some management experience

Universities, in my mind, seem increasingly like Bloom’s description of places where “the point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right (but) rather not to think you are right at all.” Perigo as deliberate charlatan, flipping inflammatory ideas and prejudices between bouts, understands this. And the reactions from many of you may be symptomatic of the drifting role that universities have ended up adopting. Nowadays, the only crime in the modern student’s mind is that of intolerance to other people’s belief systems, no matter how whacky these may be. Socrates, as quoted by Plato, famously claimed that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Where would the university be without Plato and Socrates? Has it in fact, as Bloom states, become merely “a centre for the training of highly qualified specialists” – a multiversity? In today’s academic environment, the university has no obligation to point students toward quiet contemplation of the permanent questions, such as those concerning the route to follow in order to live a good life, or those about the nature of justice. “Technical education assumes that these problems are solved, generally, by an acceptance of the status quo. This is not a particularly disturbing situation for the great majority of young people who are content to make careers and do not feel called upon to reflect generally about themselves or the whole of society. But for that most interesting few who can become leaders, pathfinders and revolutionaries, this is a great source of dissatisfaction. The various specialities do not add up to a general overview, and the best students must turn elsewhere to truly educate themselves and satisfy their cravings.” Bloom argues that the university has been transformed into the ‘multiversity’, and that something vital has died at the heart of liberal democracy. Meanwhile, the bureaucratic powers that lie at the soul of Victoria, along with most universities in New Zealand, operate in a cultural environment where relativism has replaced open enquiry – even open enquiry on “scandalous” ideas such as islamo-fascism.

Some of the criticism generated by Perigo reflects this by being more concerned about whether he has the right to criticise other people’s belief systems rather than whether his ideas are correct in themselves. This demonstrates another prominent multiversity cliché: that you create your own reality, and your opinion needs no external validation. This extreme postmodernism, with its focus on the “I”, only leads to narcissism: “It’s true, because I said so.” Obviously, the whole university enterprise collapses if it is not possible to say that someone knows more than someone else, i.e. that knowledge actually exists.

Some of you reading this may be thinking that I am siding with Perigo, but publishing is different to being in agreement. The purpose of this editorial is to explain why Perigo has been selected to sit on page 28 each week. Opinion columns are meant to create debate and, by that process, inform. Perhaps someone made of university anti-matter was required to bring more debate to Salient than it has had for the entire year. As a publication with little commercial obligations, I believe Salient has a responsibility to open debate wider than mainstream media. There are, of course, limits. But consider the words of Chomsky: “Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favour of free speech, then you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favour of free speech.”

The value of debate concerning Perigo has lead to a new column being introduced in this and subsequent issues. Counterpoint aims to provide balance to the state of current debates. The process in which to do this is explained on page 29.

Even more important than freedom of speech is the situation facing Ali Panah (pg 16), an overstayer to whom this issue is dedicated. By the time you read this he will have been on a hunger strike for 53 days, a reaction to our government’s decision to expel him back to Iran where he faces certain death for his conversion to Christianity. If this issue does anything, I hope that it alerts you to ring Immigration Minister David Cuncliffe and tell him to care about Ali. His number is 04 470 6667 and his email is dcuncliffe@ministers.govt.nz. You could save Ali Panah.

Steve

We wrote an article on benefits and entitlements that students, beneficiaries and people on a low income can access through Work and Income and StudyLink. My headline was chosen for it’s saliency and didn’t portray the article correctly – in any case WINZ is the former name for Work and Income. It was later called the Department of Work and Income, and now simply Work and Income.

There was no intention to mislead regarding what assistance low income people can get through Work and Income, but there was an intention to advise what entitlements and assistance they can get – and as most of that is online at the website of the Ministry of Social Development, it’s nothing new.

The only thing that could be seen to be misleading was the insinuation that some could get some free clothes solely for a job interview. Job interviews should lead to a job. While that was not clear in the opening part of the paragraph, when the writer wrote, “get $125 worth of clothes and get the rest either before the next interview or when you start work”, the intention was of securing a second interview for a job or starting work.

Wellington Regional Manager Mike Byant has said that while a lot of the information in our article is right, it was taken out of context.

He’s right. For example, if you want your power bill paid because you think you have an immediate and essential need, you actually need a disconnection notice, something we didn’t disclose. Yet you won’t find that bit of information on any policy or legislation.

In addition to our article a fortnight ago, we thought we’d briefly advise of other entitlements you can get through Work and Income. You can get up to $1000 for glasses, hearing aids, or contact lenses. If you have a fire or burglary, are uninsured, and have a low income and bank balance, you could get up to $1000 for essential items such as fridges and washing machines. If you need to attend a funeral, you can apply for expenses of up to $200 and even koha costs – and if you are stranded, provided you meet the criteria you could walk into your nearest Work and Income office and apply for travel costs of up to $200 to get home. If you have a birthmark you want to remove, and a registered medical practitioner certifies that it is disfiguring, you may be able to get a $300 grant towards laser therapy removal. If you need to have a telephone installed, you may be advanced $200, but you’ll have to pay connection fees. Many were surprised as to what they could apply for through Work and Income and StudyLink. We got many letters. Here’s a letter from Hana, who’s on the Domestic Purposes Benefit.

I am a young single parent on the DPB, but I also study full time and will end up in a government job. In the four years that I have been on the DPB I have not known about dental care, medical care or eye care grants, all of which have been needed at one time or another, yes I am guilty of not asking, but I have never heard these mentioned, and yet now I know they are there. I have struggled to pay bills, but have not known that there are grants available to help me. I have paid bills and then lived on bread and noodles for the week because I haven’t known about food grants.

Well done in getting this article out there, no one on a benefit really enjoys being there and for many you will have made life just a little easier. It is people like Hana whom we had in mind with this piece.

Work and Income and StudyLink need to advise people of their entitlements and, if Hana’s situation is not an isolated incident, it is not doing so. It is not easy living on a student allowance, low income or benefit, less so if you don’t know what additional assistance you can be eligible for. Salient is doing some people a service in advising low income people of their entitlements.

While I’ve commented on housing prices in an earlier article, at an average weekly cost of $112 in Wellington, they remain the highest they’ve ever been. The third Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey listed New Zealand as the second highest in the world for housing unaffordability after Australia. It’s a nationwide trend, with Massey University figures showing the current average weekly rental across the country at $280 in February this year, compared with $265 a year ago. This trend looks set to stay, and is largely a consequence of having some of the highest housing costs in the world.

So why is this important (and what does this have to do with sexuality)? To explain that, some context needs to be provided: in the past 10 years the baby boomer generation has been snapping up low to middle priced houses, creating high demand for such properties. While the benefits for the boomers are obvious, it’s made it more expensive to purchase new houses, and increasing aggregate demand for housing has driven up rental costs for students.

Public debate on the matter has been steadily rising to include front page coverage declaring that little is being done. This snowballing effect has led to warnings from those holding the strings of our monetary policy, with Reserve Bank Governor Allan Bollard addressing the crisis with a call for a capital gains tax on investment properties to correct the market.

While that may be good news for students, Labour’s response to Dr Bollard’s sentiments seems impervious. This lack of response will further exacerbate the numbing effects of debt, which, when combined with the student loan system, has led to the new certainty of debt for all. While never before have so many of us faced a financial slavery arguably worse than the loan system, housing prices have until recently been of minor focus to the student activist movement. Personally, I think that’s a shame. If you compare how much high flatting costs impact on students compared to the loan burden, I’d argue that flatting costs deserve equal attention, and are just as important. Renting costs continue long after study, and over time add up to be a significant burden of debt.

It is with gratitude then that this Wednesday our student association is highlighting this issue. This protest however doesn’t involve placards or banjos; just cardboard. In an illustrative example, students will be creating a type of cardboard utopia, called Box City.

Symbolically representing the plight of modern day students with the stated aims of increasing awareness about student hardship, showing concern about rising accommodation costs, and to advocate for universal student allowances, I would like to believe that Box City is the beginning of an attempt to show our government that renting costs are becoming intolerable. There is a lighter side to all this – while raising awareness of flatting affordability, Box City offers the chance to have a sleepover with random strangers. This leads me to the current themed issue of Salient – sexuality. Contributors to this week’s issue include members of UniQ. It’s a celebration of human sexuality along all divisions of the Kinsey scale. Enjoy.

Steve

Box City, The Quad, Wed 12pm, BYO box.

Karam liked the idea of Bain as social commentator and, after emails clarifying what questions would be asked, a date was set for the interview. However, the interview would never eventuate after Bain accepted a stocktaking job that week. Several unanswered phone calls to Karam led to the inevitable: the story would be canned. Karam said that they were too busy with retrial preparations, and that now he thought the original idea would be uninteresting as the changes in society had still affected Bain behind bars with the influence of the media and technology. I wondered if Karam had changed his mind for more profit driven reasons, after he acknowledged that he had recently received offers to produce books about Bain. That seems likely, considering Karam’s comment to me: “Why should we give you that information when, after Bain is acquitted, we could charge for interviews?” Regardless of the reasons, Joe himself consented to an interview. On the same day, an article in The Press appeared, describing Karam’s re-release of his book on the Bain killings (David and Goliath: the Bain family murders) – despite the Solicitor-General’s warning that any public discussion could prejudice David Bain’s retrial.

Salient: What are your core beliefs and how have they influenced your decision to be an advocate for Bain?

Joe: I have always had an abhorrence for bullies, which I think mixes in with a great belief in fairness. Life, I suppose, often isn’t fair. There is unfairness which is unjustified, as opposed to those things that just go wrong for us all from time to time. I can illustrate with a little story. I remember a particular bully at school who was in a group of hard nuts. He was giving an unfortunate kid a hard time, and it wasn’t affecting me in any way, but I stood up for this kid and eventually I got picked on. So I got this guy and gave him a hell of a good hiding. It’s the only fight I’ve ever had in my life and the authorities at the school said it was the best thing that could have been done to him. So that goes back to when I was a young guy. Maybe that stems from my family upbringing and the fact that I had five sisters. I was the only brother and the oldest one in the family, so it was just a sense of responsibility that people should have a fair go. And I suppose at the core of what I’ve done for David, leaving everything else aside, is that what’s now been proven is that David did not get a fair go. That’s been the driving force. And again, David was in most unfortunate circumstances – it was [through] no fault of his own that he got treated like he did. That’s really been the driving force behind what I’ve done.

Salient: How do you think others would describe you?

Joe: The perception from people close to me is quite different from that of those in the media. I’m a reasonably hard taskmaster. I have high expectations that people will deliver on their word. But, at the same time, I think I’m a very generous person for people in need. I think those would be two overriding things.

Salient: How is Bain feeling at the moment?

Joe: He’s feeling very good, he’s really ready to move on in life. He has ambitions, obviously. He’d like to make a career for himself. He’d like to meet a lady one day and have a family of his own. So leaving aside the fact that he can’t really pursue either of those endeavours until his trial is over, he’s in great heart.

Salient: In terms of the way the media have portrayed Bain – I mean, one of the headlines at the time of his conviction was “Paperboy delivers death to father”, then he was almost ignored for a number of years, and now there’s been a resurgence in interest – how do you view that?

Joe: I think it’s entirely understandable. I think one of the peculiar and exceptional circumstances of this case, which is that by any standards, the slaying of an entire family, bar one, is an extremely gruesome and disturbing thing to happen. In a place like Dunedin, which is quite conservative and moralistic (except for the Scarfies), that was an intense shock. So within a couple of weeks of the event, the house was burnt down – in what many people have described as a kind of exorcism of evil. David was only ever photographed once, really, and that was on the day of his arrest. He didn’t realise that he was even being arrested and, after four days, was still suffering the trauma of discovering his dead family. That one brief clip of David in the striped jersey looking extremely forlorn, frail, distraught and possibly withdrawn has been the way that he’s been depicted for all these years. I think it’s entirely natural that the media have been enchanted by the fellow they’ve met 12 years later. I’m not surprised by that – in fact, I’ve personally said for years that the single greatest reward would be the day that David did get out, so that New Zealanders could see what he’s really like. I think it’s entirely understandable that there has been a focus on the person that we now know.

Salient: Was there any kind of consideration for Bain’s image when he got released?

Joe: Absolutely – you see he’s had no clothes except prison clothes for 13 years, and I certainly wasn’t going to have him go to court in a striped jersey! I mean, he never went to the hair dressers or had anything done of that nature. But you know, I went and purchased a nice suit and shirt for him. I wanted him to look smart and to feel proud, and I think he did.

Salient: How does Bain feel about the cliché about his jerseys?

Joe: Oh, he thinks it’s a great joke! He laughs, no, he really does. His mother was a very good knitter, like many mothers are. She used a whole lot of leftover wool from various things she had done and she knitted him a striped jersey to keep him warm in Dunedin, which I’m sure he’s very grateful for. David actually thinks it’s quite a hoot, really. I mean, he probably doesn’t realise just how much it’s impacted on the psychology of the nation. I mean, for example, when he got out, one of the radio stations in Christchurch presented him with a red and black Canterbury striped jersey. He thought that was very amusing and played along and enjoyed the fun of it.

Salient: Have you had many offers for autobiographies of Bain?

Joe: There’ve been quite a lot of discussions going on at the present. They were moving forward really quickly until the retrial was ordered, and now everyone’s sitting back taking stock of the situation to see what pans out, really. The general feeling was that there wouldn’t be a retrial, and I think the general feeling in New Zealand is that there shouldn’t be one – but at this stage, there’s going to be one. The movie, book, documentary type people…again, I’ve got probably 20 letters at home and I’ve just replied to them all and said, “Look, we’re just too busy at the moment – we’ve got a trial to get through!”

Salient: How has your perception of natural justice changed from this whole process?

Joe: I don’t think my perception of natural justice has changed at all. My perception of the justice system has changed dramatically, but I think those are two different. Justice is about the law and not about justice. The justice system administers the law, as opposed to necessarily pronouncing justice. Another one that people often talk about – the only winners in court are the lawyers. And so it goes on.

Salient: Should the public still have faith in the system?

Joe: No, I don’t think so, actually. I think it’s in need of dramatic overhaul, and I’ve written about that, particularly in the second book I wrote, called Bain and Beyond. My thoughts and beliefs have actually advanced, even since then.

Salient: How have the trials changed how you relate to people?

Joe: I think it’s affected the way people relate to me, more than the way I relate to people, I think.

Salient: In what way?

Joe: Sad to say, the justice system is the same for everybody, but the people who can afford justice tend to get a much better result. What I think has happened is that the people of the upper socioeconomic cluster don’t appreciate the pitfalls in the system, and view me as some sort of renegade who is having an unwarranted slash at the establishment. Whereas the general public applaud me for standing up for what they know happens to them and their ilk when they get caught up in this thing. It’s a strange thing in a way. I don’t want to sound self-congratulatory but, I mean, there’s an overwhelming warmth towards me from the vast majority of ordinary people. And, unfortunately, an almost equivalent rejection of me by the people who could actually make a difference.

Salient: What made you want to do this? You’ve given up so much of your life for one person. It’s a rare thing. It’s a remarkable thing.

Joe: What I’ve really been driven by is an absolute certainty that David Bain was railroaded – that he never got a fair go. That’s what’s kept me going really, that there’s been a police inquiry, a police complaints inquiry, a Ministry of Justice enquiry, there’s been two Court of Appeal hearings and three Privy Council hearings. It’s taken till the last one of those to get the truth on the table. I haven’t been prepared to allow what I would loosely describe as a cover up of the previous ones, and that’s really been the driving force of it. Get the facts on the table and this man cannot possibly be convicted. I’ve said that hundreds of times. I said it 12 years ago.

Salient: How would you react if Bain was found guilty?

Joe: Well, I would be astonished, because I think it’s impossible. I have no doubt whatsoever that that won’t happen, so I’ve never really considered it.

Salient: You’ve never considered it at all?

Joe: Not a possibility, no.

Salient: How do you get away from the case? Do you watch a DVD in the evening or drink a glass of merlot?

Joe: Yeah, I enjoy cooking, at an amateur level. I enjoy my wine; I like to cook sort of like Jamie Oliver. I love getting in there and chopping things and making things up that aren’t in recipe books, and having a glass of wine while I’m doing it. I enjoy a lot of the international sport we’re able to get now on television.

Salient: Of course, the rugby (Joe is a former All Black).

Joe: And some of the rugby, too. Though rugby itself, no, I don’t like the game – to be honest, the rules have destroyed it. I’m tired of seeing teams being congratulated for having gone through 40 phases in seven yards. And I find it terribly boring – at least with league, every six tackles the other team gets a crack. I play golf and tennis. I’ve got a little kind of garden at home, I think it’s a very good sort of thing to keep you grounded and clear the cobwebs out of the brain.

Salient: Assuming Bain gets acquitted, five years on, what will you be doing?

Joe: I’ve actually been harbouring a belief that I might be able to make a living out of writing, and contribute to other people’s enjoyment by having them read my books. And I’ve got some ideas, but the case has been such that I’ve never really had time to sit down and sort of let the pen flow, if you like.

Salient: Would you consider writing for Salient? Because we’d take a feature from you.

Joe: Oh good, yeah, let’s do that, yeah! I’ve got some quite good ideas for some light-hearted sort of stuff. But I also now have got a very good understanding, I could almost do a script for a CSI programme, you know – I’ve been in DNA laboratories and a part of the criminal investigation world, and so I’ve got ideas of becoming a modern day John Grisham, or whatever.

Salient: Great, I look forward to reading your novels.

Joe: Well, it’d be nice if I can achieve it. One has to have dreams.

In a bid to expose former NZ First MP Tuku Morgan to further embarrassment after buying $89 boxer shorts with tax funded Aotearoa Television Network resources, the Labour party benches lampooned similarly priced underpants to the amusement of MPs present in the House. The incident, which became known as ‘undiegate’ was considered acceptable behaviour. More recently the Exclusive Brethren started a petition asking that MPs stop “denigrating” them for their role in the 2005 election. The petition asked that “the House instruct its members to desist from denigrating a minority group known as the Exclusive Brethren because some of its members independently chose to lawfully participate in the 2005 election debate”. Despite this objection, Cabinet Ministers continued to use the Brethren for political jousting with Labour MPs, referring to them as a “weird, secretive religious sect”, “blatant liars” and “chinless scarf-wearers”. A further example includes Winston Peter’s comments in 2002 when he claimed that “half of the refugees are carrying HIV or third world diseases”, and that the Government was allowing in “murderers, rapists, and necrophiliacs”.

Under the new laws, would refugees have a chance to protect their image from the comments of MPs? Does this mean that satire, denigration and ridicule are only acceptable if it serves a political purpose?

If you considered the responses by media against the changes, you’d probably say “yes”. Most of these arguments are that the changes are unfair, not in the best interest of democracy and an attempt by MPs to control their image. Reacting against this, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen – who is also deputy chair of the Standing Orders Committee – accused the Press Gallery of trying to portray the restrictions as “some sort of fascist state where the heroic media of New Zealand are being denied the right to lampoon politicians”. Well, if you consider that we are the only country of the 35 in the world that televise political debates that has this restriction (according to Tom Frewen), then Cullen could actually be closer to the truth than he realises. Cullen also said of the media, “I think you are taking yourself a bit too seriously.” But is it really the case that the prominent media stance (and Salient’s too) is earnest?

National Business Review Media Critic Tom Frewen thinks so. When interviewed on National Radio’s Mediawatch programme, Frewen said that in reporting on debates that “all that’s important is the person that is speaking and what they are saying.” When asked by interviewer Cushla Managh whether it is legitimate coverage if a particular MP was always asleep, Fruwen replied: “What is wrong with him being asleep? With some MPs the chamber functions better when they are asleep”. While that’s probably true in certain cases, Fruwen’s suggestion that parliamentary reporting should be bound to the words of the speakers and ignore the context of chamber, means that public perception of representation is narrowed.

When our MPs have a mandate to represent the interest of their constituents and in the interest of accountability, including such a filter means that the ability of the media to cast a light on public affairs has become dimmed. And while the media routinely censor themselves, such as refusing to screen swearing from Alinghi during the America’s Cup, self-censorship and state imposed censorship are two entirely different things. It’s in this spirit that members of the Aotearoa Student Press Association (ASPA) today have published pictures of banned photos of MPs in defiance of the new laws.

In the interest of democracy, the media should be allowed to do their job-act as a lighthouse-and report on public institutions with access all areas.

We should expect our leaders to provide substantial reasons for why we as a nation would intervene. These reasons were reiterated in a recent speech Defence Minister Phil Goff gave at the University of Auckland.

Goff said our troops were deployed under a United Nations mandate in 2001, when the Taliban regime refused to act against the terrorist organisation Al Qaeda which it hosted and which was responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

“But our major effort in Afghanistan today is through the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) … It assisted in voter registration and the election process through which Afghanistan held its first ever democratic elections for a president and parliament,” says Goff.

Now six years later Afghanistan is, in democratic terms … a shambles.

In 2004 only three per cent had registered to vote, with the ratio of men registered to the number of women being ten to three.

In this context it is hardly surprising that the recent awarding of the Victoria Cross medal to a Kiwi SAS solider Willy Apiata was such a well-oiled PR machine.

Apiata was awarded the VC, the supreme military award for valour in the Commonwealth, last month at a ceremony announced by the Prime Minister.

There is little doubt that Apiata deserves recognition for his action. However the details surrounding why he received the VC leave a number of questions as to what our involvement in Afghanistan actually is.

Reading more like a chapter from The Man Who Would Be King, the New Zealand Herald began its description of Apiata’s actions with a commando-like tone which continues with a description of the actions that led Apiata to gain his VC.

In total disregard for his own safety, Apiata carried his wounded comrade across 70 metres of broken, rocky and fire-swept ground while he was serving with the Special Air Services in Afghanistan in 2004.

These scant details were pretty much all we have been told.

Other questions of secrecy concern the citation presented as part of Apiata’s ceremony which made it clear that one of our SAS troops was barely conscious and close to death after suffering arterial bleeding.

But back in June 2004 when the battle happened, our defence force told us that two SAS soldiers were being treated after a “firefight” and that their conditions were satisfactory.

Some things need to be kept secret but when we are far less informed about what is going on than other countries like Australia, then how much we can trust our defence force is hard to ascertain.

In a country where innocent people are captured, tortured and sent off to the American detention camp in Guantanamo Bay to be imprisoned without trial, that’s all the more concerning.

One of the few accounts to have revealed what we are doing comes from military officers who did not agree with the secrecy, leaked internal papers and the efforts of the ombudsman’s office, revealed in an article by Nicky Hager in 2003.

In that article Hager describes how SAS soldiers directed air attacks by “illuminating” targets with pulsing infrared marker beams – invisible to the naked eye, but clear to the incoming aircrafts’ sensors.

Undoubtedly these actions have led to killing but of whom?

If you were to ask Helen Clark that question, you’d get no answer.

When she was asked on 11th of March 2002, whether the SAS had killed anyone in Afghanistan, she said she would “not get into a hypothetical debate” and that such facts would not normally come to her attention.

Silence and servile journalists ill serve the victims of war. While I honor the bravery of Apiata we must realise that in war accountability is essential; without it we are little more than brutes.

Totalitarian monsters like Hitler and Pinochet are ubiquitously considered to be violators of human rights. As examples of what can occur with unchecked absolute power these dictators have become props for our politicians to wield arguments and criticisms of other ethical systems. Being able to criticize and condemn other regimes however depends on a country’s own human rights record.

In New Zealand last week our reputation on human rights was questioned with a report by Amnesty International. The critical report described four areas of concern. This includes the New Zealand Police’s trial of 50,000 volt Tasers. Since June 2001 150 people have died after being Tasered in the United States. In New Zealand so far eight people have been the victim of Tasers. Another area of concern identified by the report is the treatment of Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui, who is still awaiting a hearing on the security risks certificate issued against him four years ago. The report also lists violence against women and the government’s failure to set up the Action Plan for Human Rights as other issues of concern.

The reaction from our government has been bureaucratic at best. Responding to Keith Locke last Thursday the Honourable Mark Burton said: “The matters raised in the report need to be viewed in the broad perspective of New Zealand’s strong record in promoting and protecting human rights, and the high level of human rights enjoyed throughout our country.”

This heartless, mechanical, draconian, and thoroughly passionless response deserves to be challenged. New Zealand has a proud tradition of standing up for the underdog. I think Tom Scott summed it up well when in a letter to the editor he said: “I very rarely comment on public issues like this but I am outraged by this country’s treatment of Mr Zaoui to date. We are a better country than this.”

But are we? Comparing ourselves with our Australian neighbours may give us something to gloat about when you consider John Howard’s treatment of refugees in past years, but how long will New Zealand’s high reputation for protection of civil rights continue in light of Amnesty’s report?

And how many more years will Ahmed Zaoui await a trail, all the while diminishing our ability to criticise other countries’ moral standards?

If America has a brand, then this is it. Free trade is the current American ideology. Pulled apart it’s a mixture of ideas including deregulation, lower taxes, openness to foreign investments and privatization. Like the ideology it supersedes, anti- communism, free trade has become a muddled dogma used by the Bush administration to explain almost everything. Take for example Bush’s comments shortly after September 11 when he said, “The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and we will defeat them by expanding and encouraging world trade.” It’s hard to understand how the motives of those hijackers were to undermine an economic world view (Their motives were more political in nature). The symbolism however is important. Viewing an attack on America as a punch in the gut for free trade seems to reinforce the idea that at its core, America is “market fundamentalism”.

This ideology almost takes on messianic status if you consider its social claims. When Salient asked the US Deputy Ambassador to New Zealand, David Keegan to compare the ideologies of anti-communism and free trade he stated “If we reduce the barriers to trade and investment around the world what that does is give people in all sorts of different places an opportunity to do what they do best and sell it to people who benefit by having it.” Like a utopian mantra this sentiment recurs in the speeches of President Bush. But is it correct? How does free trade fare in the variety of countries practising it? As it turns out ideology and practice don’t measure up as well as they should. A good example of this is Argentina, which during the ’90s operated a privatized, deregulated, tax-reformed market.

In 2001 it ceased to be the poster child of neo-liberalism as it collapsed and suffered the worst economic crisis in its history. While you’d expect this to rattle some of its closest followers’ beliefs, it doesn’t. It’s almost as if free trade is secretly a religious movement in disguise. The religious analogy takes on further meaning if you consider the sincerity of market fundamentalist aims.

What is free depends on whether your are exporting (free) or importing (closed). When it suits US commercial interests, poor countries are prevented from providing their goods to the world market. In this context, the “moral principle” of free trade is more a form of conformity than liberation.

Looking at the countries that have escaped poverty since the 1950s it seems that the lofty ideals of free trade are exactly that — lofty. A variety of poor countries in East Asia (South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) followed strongly interventionist policies and recovered.

Twenty years from the nuclear free policies of Labours fourth term the free trade ideal is at the helm of New Zealand’s dialogue with America. The benefits of a free trade deal would be undoubtedly good for New Zealand but that depends on what side of the tracks you are from. It’s not that markets can’t do great things; it’s just that they remain flawed, favouring those with existing money and ignoring basic humanistic concerns.

If New Zealand and America are to work closer in trade partnership it’s not a corporate led globalization that is in our shared interests. In the long term throwing bones to those we like and ignoring the billons of people on the poverty line will create a world where we all end up in some form of slavery whether moral or financial.

Being so laid-back (almost horizontal) means that Kiwis are not as prone to whinging, despite our British ancestry. For the purposes of this editorial I’d like to break step with that heritage and moan about the media. In this area two things irk me; the way tv presenters talk, and the senseless puns that finish news stories. These often go along the lines of:

(Following a news story about motocross racing, in a vocal style that is thoughtful, playful and empathetic) “Well Mike, that story has left me in the dust”.

Stronger criticisms of the media probably should refer to inaccurate and misleading representations, because taste is hardly important. As an ideological entity the media is supposed to be impartial, accurate and unbiased. With these criteria it’s difficult to see how they could have portrayed a story originating from Salient any less accurately.

On May 5, three weeks after being reported in Salient, the Sunday Star Times described “Opiegate”- the incident involving former acting Woman Rights Officer Clelia Opie’s inappropriate use of psychic hotlines. The errors in that article are numerous and are clearly spelled out by News Editor Laura McQuillan’s article ‘Mainstream media jumps on Salient bandwagon, fucks up pretty bad’ in this issue of Salient. When Salient contacted the Sunday Star Times they failed to acknowledge these errors stating that; “The Sunday Star Times’ piece was drawn entirely from the President’s report and your own and other student accounts of the incident.”

Why they didn’t bother to interview either Geoff, Opie or a representative from Salient is a mystery. Without blowing our own trumpet I’d say we did a better job, but then again I’m the biased editor. This standard of reporting undoubtedly contributes to the finding that 65 per cent of people believe the news is reported accurately. While that result shows a fair level of trust, another finding from the same ten-nation opinion poll shows that 41 per cent disagree that the media covers all sides of a story. That’s a statistic that news organizations should be wary of and from this edition on Salient has taken steps to let you put your trust back in the media. For the first time Salient is introducing video to its website in the form of short confessionals. The idea is simple – just come up to the Salient office sit in front of our iMac web cam and tell the world your deepest secrets.

Clips will be streamed on the Salient website. It’s a development which could influence the future of Salient in significant ways and has tremendous potential for creating and describing news. My gratitude must begin with Hamish and Simon from Catch Design who have been instrumental in giving an abstract idea its foundations. Jon McQueen and Spike also deserve praise for their work securing the iMac, enthusiasm and hard work. Finally Nick Archer deserves a special mention for his countless hours working on ideas and concepts some of which have made it on our website and all of which are unpaid.

While this swell is historic, it’s all the more astonishing considering the values our current “centre left” government is supposed to be based on. Since the Rogernomics reforms of 1984, at the delight of the real estate market, there has been little regulation imposed on the housing market. This classic right wing ideology, of letting the market do its own thing seems to be well demonstrated in the politics of Helen Clark. That’s a disappointment for me, because markets don’t consider things like fairness, justice and equality only dollars and cents. The values of liberalism are supposedly built on the foundations of regard for the poor and downtrodden.

It’s in this context that Victoria University has announced plans to raise a three tower block of hostels. According to Victoria, it’s a way of reducing the accommodation crisis facing Wellington. Last year there were 2,000 more applications for hostel beds than they were able to provide. While addressing supply, a real solution, one which will allow first time homeowners and flatting students’ financial relief needs to be built upon Government policy.

Redefining what’s left and right, or in this case replacing “heart” with “wallet” has allowed New Zealand to be one of the few countries without a capital gains tax – a regulation which just might correct our unfair situation.

This ties into our totally deregulated financial market, where people can borrow up to 100 per cent of a house’s value.

A capital gains tax discourages investors from buying up investment properties because then they are taxed less than other types of investments, allowing housing prices to stabilise. It’s a idea which is gaining support with one in two Kiwis thinking it’s a good idea provided it’s excluded from first time ownership.

How high will rent costs increase if our current situation is left untouched? That answer depends on a market which is unaccountable.

When will our Government put concern for housing prices on the agenda? In light of recent support for intervention I think that time has arrived. When first floated in 1967 GST was very unpopular, but found favour 20 years later. For the sake of exuberant prices and our social fabric – economic regulations – need to be reintroduced as a solution to our accommodation crisis.

This wave of “gastro-chic” has elevated being a chef to almost rock star status. Take Jamie Oliver, a victim of the paparazzi, with CD sales of his favourite compilations selling as well as his cooking books. Dinner parties have turned into memory recall tests for episodes of Nigella Bites and Gorden Ramsey shows. Here, talking about the virtues of cream, white wine and coriander alongside what’s happened during the week is a guaranteed way of currying favour.

The popularity of “gastro-chic”, has undoubtedly left behind unpopular consequences. In a recent study Kiwis were ranked 17th in the world for most obese people, fatter than Aussies, Brits, and Canadians. That result means that 68 per cent of us are considered obese by a World Health organisation measurement. Being gastro-chic and maintaining a healthy body image is possible, but self-discipline in the face of some of the dishes on display is tough (one of the dishes last week was wild mushroom bruschetta- mmm). The obesity trend is increasing too- obesity is now twice as common in New Zealand adults as it was 25 years ago according to a Ministry of Health report. Increasingly obesity is becoming the poverty of the West. This is reflected in worldwide statistics with the ratio of people who are underfed to those who are overfed being one to one.

How is gastro-chic reflected at Victoria? In the four cafeterias I have dined at this year there was an abundance of pies, rolls, and sandwiches- more gastro-porn than chic. It’s hard to know if this is reflects our desires or that healthy choices are not being promoted. Without a doubt though Victoria’s cafeterias have contributed to the 88 per cent increase in sales of burgers, fish and chips, pies, ice creams, and pizzas since 2002. I could go on adding that Victoria’s food offerings don’t only cost your body but your pocket. Raising this point with one of the cafeteria managers this week, I was told that the prices are comparable to cafes around Wellington. While that is true, customers that occupy cafes- the general population- have a far greater income than students. I could go on, but the point of this editorial is not how incredibly overpriced and unhealthy our student cafes are but what can be done to make them better.

Looking towards our secondary schools may provide that answer. In 2002 Porirua College changed their cafeteria’s food and nutrition policy resulting in banning foods high in sugar and replacing them with home cooked meals. That intervention was a result of a commitment towards healthy eating by teacher Nicola Potts. Here at Victoria with no current nutritional policy in place it’s difficult to see how changes to our menu could be achieved. I think we need someone like Potts, perhaps one of our student politicians, to take up the case and pressure the contractual obligations of Victoria to Eurest to include nutritional guidelines. Until that happens perhaps we should just eat, drink and be merry. Just what we are eating however remains unknown.

Also Salient is looking for more feature writers. Please contact us if interested.

The serious point that I’m trying to make is that the notion that we are a Christian nation is becoming increasingly harder to believe, especially after Easter. Here’s my attempt to explain why. According to a recent poll, 51 percent of us say we are a Christian nation, whatever those surveyed took that to mean. While that represents a fair chunk of the population, non-Christian worldviews are on the rise. Back in 1901, when one in thirty Kiwis said they had no religion, Christianity was the pervasive ideology. One hundred years later, that proportion increased to twelve in thirty, and the trend continues.

While on the wane, the number of us who still believe in the notion of God is pretty significant. Perhaps that’s the biggest shock: because while nearly half of us think we are a Christian nation, our behaviour is paradoxically secular. If you consider our record for giving to the poor – one of the defining ideas of Christianity – I’ll show you what I mean. In Bob Geldof’s speech to the New Zealand Government last year, he claimed we are the second-least generous country in the world, with just 0.27 percent of our wealth going towards the poorest countries through government aid. While a variety of philosophies (Humanism, Buddism, etc) would also take issue with that statistic, other measures, like the widening gap between our rich and poor, show how far we are from J.C.’s intentions. Turning to the good and holy book (that’s being used as a door stop for half of you) we read that Jesus said righteousness is defined by whether we’ve fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. Also, despite the sixth commandment (thou shalt not kill), our homes are filled with violence. According to the National Party’s police spokesman, Chester Borrows, we have a higher murder rate than England. Divorce rates are not much better. This flies in the face of the bearded one’s lessons.

How does a relatively faithful nation get Jesus wrong? That question must be on the mind of Christian, Thomas Yadegary, an Iranian overstayer who was arrested two and a half years ago. Mirroring the appalling treatment of Ahmed Zaoui, Yadegary was not charged with, or convicted of, any crime. Since converting to Christianity in 1997, Yadagary has effectively created his own demise, because if deported to Iran, he faces the standard penalty for conversion from Islam: death. Despite numerous proverbs urging us to “show mercy” and “do justly,” this Christian remains behind bars. Lying there, Yadegary must be wondering whether his Bible has been replaced by Franz Kafka’s The Trial.

When a rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into Heaven, he was not told he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down. Jesus said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. In our nation, that unpopular idea flies in the face of our consumer-orientated lives. Whether we live in a Christian nation or not, this urge to satisfy ourselves is a powerful one; perhaps so powerful that even self-professed beliefs of us being a Christian nation are overcome by it.

Steve.

When Nick Wang was a secret donor for the student democratic movement in China, he was afraid of being photographed. Now, working as a reporter for local rag the Capital Chinese News, China’s Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan is afraid of Wang taking the shots.

In case you missed the headlines, Wang was the editor expelled from a photo opportunity last week, when Zeng and Finance Minister Michael Cullen met up for a little chat. Police escorted Mr Wang from the Beehive theatrette, after he was singled out by a Chinese security official. Outside, police accused Wang of being both a member of the Falun Gong movement and of becoming highly agitated – both of which hardly constitute a crime (in New Zealand, at least). Wang and his photographer, Tony Clark (who was also present at the incident), told me that no violence or unnecessary force was evident on either side. Footage from TV1 and TV3 confirm this, showing what can best be described as indignant behavior. Links to the Falun Gong also appear to be fictious. When I spoke with Joan Zhang, a spokesperson for the local Falun Gong movement, she told me that Wang has never been a member. In light of this, Wang’s treatment seems to be completely inappropriate – especially considering that he intended to write a general story about the visit. “I didn’t think about a negative or positive [portrayal] of China. I had no information at that time,” said Wang.

The incident raised a number of issues surrounding the state of New Zealand’s press freedom and undue influence from foreign countries. Wang was escorted by police from the meeting while Chinese media were permitted to stay. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act clearly forbids this kind of treatment, as discrimination on political grounds is a breach of freedom of expression. As this story goes to print, the reaction from politicians surrounding the matter is varied. Dr Cullen claims that the situation was caused by a misunderstanding. Perhaps that misunderstanding is that, in matters concerning China, New Zealand’s rule of law must go by the wayside. Wang believes that the actions of the police were a result of his critical reporting on the Chinese government. This includes stories on the Falun Gong, visits from the Dalai Lama and the anniversary of Tiananmen Square. There is good evidence to support this idea. In the past, Chinese officials have tried to interfere with and manage dissent. In 1999, a bus was driven between protestors and visiting Chinese Premier, Jiang Zemin. In 2005 they tried to stop the late Green Party co-leader, Rod Donald, from holding a Tibetan flag for a visit from China’s second-ranked politician, Wu Bangguo. If Chinese representatives have taken offence to such minor criticism (in some cases by mere handfuls of people), then is there good reason to believe they will do it again? What it takes to cause offence, as it turns out, is relatively little.

Tiananmen Tank Man

Wang started to ruffle Chinese feathers with an article he wrote in 1999, about the Tiananmen democratic movement. Wang reported that while Chinese officials said it was a criminal movement he believed the students involved were in the right. At that time the only people raising eyebrows were his peers, who said that he should have been more respectful. An entirely different reaction occurred in 2004, after Wang published a full page article on the fifteenth anniversary of the killing of pro-democracy protestors around Tiananmen Square. Alongside the iconic image of students with tanks, it contained the text, “There are many countries that have demonstrations of this anniversary across the world”. While hardly damning, and completely true, it’s apparently the most critical information on the page. The reaction of the Chinese Embassy was swift; they immediately called him, demanding an explanation. “They said, ‘it’s not good, the readers will be unhappy that you publish this, it’s not true. This could be affecting your business relationships with China.’ I told them, ‘I just follow the freedom of speech here.’” The tone of that rebuke reveals extraordinary arrogance. Wang says he was surprised at the extent of meddling from the Chinese. “I’ve published Clinton’s sex scandals and I’ve never been rung by the American Embassy.” Wang remained defiant to Chinese officials, maintaining that the issue was trivial – with only a minority (thirty percent, according to Wang) of Capital Chinese News content critical of the Chinese government. “I told them that on the fifteenth anniversary of Tiananmen Square – as a Chinese paper – if I don’t say anything, I’d feel sad and guilty.” Consequences quickly followed. After responding to an invitation from a Chinese provincial foreign affairs office, Wang’s passport application was declined. According to Wang, no official explanation was provided – but he has little doubt it concerned the publication of the 2004 article.

When West Is East and Nobody Speaks

Why the Chinese failed to respect and understand the rights of a paper operating in New Zealand is anyone’s guess. It’s not an isolated incident, either. In 2005, when the New Zealand government bowed to pressure from China and backtracked an invitation to a senior Taiwan politician, the Dominion Post received a tap on the shoulder. Following publication of an editorial supporting Peter Dunne’s criticism of the action, editor Tim Pankhurst got a call from the Chinese Embassy. “[They were] protesting our view and pointing out that it was … New Zealand government policy to support a One China policy. I said, ‘Yes, but what you have to understand [is] that we are not bound by New Zealand government policy’. That is a concept that the Chinese struggle with.” The Chinese government’s struggle to understand another country’s way of life has meant Wang cannot return to visit his extended family. Despite these severed ties to his homeland, Wang says he doesn’t prefer living there to New Zealand. He left Inner Mongolia, after his father (a professor of grassland and forestry) visited New Zealand as part of a Chinese Minister’s delegation and was allowed to emigrate. At the time, Wang was working as a water conservation engineer and admits that life was considerably different to the freedom he now enjoys. At that time, Wang secretly supported the Tiananmen Square movement but was careful to avoid exposure. “If I was photographed, my boss could have reported me to the police and I would not have been able to apply for a passport. Before I came to New Zealand, I had to sign a piece of paper stating that I had never been anti the communist party.” Upon arrival in Wellington in 1996, Wang began learning English at Massey University. After developing proficient English skills, he formed an immigration consultancy firm and quickly saw the business potential in creating a newspaper that represented the interests of the increasing numbers of Chinese immigrants in Wellington. “At the time, Auckland had several Chinese language newspapers. Even Dunedin had one. So I thought, ‘Why does Wellington not have one?’ Also, new immigrants didn’t know how to be a voter. I think it’s important to describe the democratic system and culture [to them].” The Capital Chinese News started in 1998 and this experience lead Wang to reinforce attitudes his homeland doesn’t share. Wang says that concerns for human rights issues became an important focus after the Chinese revoked his passport. “I understood I had a duty to tell readers about human rights in China and freedom of expression. People from China look at New Zealanders and think how lucky they are. There are not so many political struggles and difficulties, in comparison. I have got a big responsibility.” That’s a responsibility shared by Pankhurst, who says that the press must remain free from government control. “They [the Chinese Government] are way out of line to dictate to us how we might cover their visits … and the New Zealand media won’t cop it. They don’t have any leverage that they can apply here, therefore, we don’t feel at all threatened.”

While that leverage is supposed to be illusionary in our free and democratic society, Wang maintains that the Police bowed to the interests of the Chinese. “I asked the police, ‘Are you earning Chinese currency today?’” In the pursuit of truth, it would appear that that’s a price Wang can live without.

Instead of commenting about the state of Iraq, Clark used the time to talk about a swag of topics including issues in the South Pacific region, energy, US-NZ co-operation in Afghanistan, and counter-terrorism in North Korea and Iran. Apparently she covered all that in just half an hour – impressive.

After the talks, Bush praised Clark on a number of levels. “All in all I found it to be a constructive conversation. Such a good conversation I’ve decided to invite her for lunch,” said Bush.

Almost certainly Clark would not have been invited for lunch if she had used her time to represent what the majority of New Zealanders think about the biggest issue facing the Bush administration – the Iraq war on its fourth year anniversary.

In a heroic gesture, befalling Lange, Clark could have spoken about what the intervention has cost Iraq, who, while gaining freedom from a cruel and oppressive dictatorship, have inherited one of the worst refugee crises in the world. This crisis, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has meant that two million Iraqis have fled their country with a further 1.9 million internally displaced. That figure represents 16% of the Iraqi population.

While some might say that it’s not the job of the Prime Minister to tell Bush the way things really are, consider further the situation Iraq has found itself in after four years of ‘liberation’. Basic foods and necessities, which even Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime managed to provide, are now increasingly beyond the reach of ordinary Iraqis, thanks to soaring inflation unleashed by the occupation’s destruction of the Iraqi economy. Unemployment is regularly estimated at somewhere between 50-70%.

Access to safe water and regular electricity remain well below pre-invasion levels, too. These were already disastrous after more than a decade of comprehensive sanctions against, and periodic bombing of, a country staggered by a catastrophic war with Iran in the 1980s and the Gulf War.

In this state-of-the-Iraq-nation address, it would be the right thing for New Zealand to represent the voice of the oppressed and challenge America to lead the world with its regard for others.

If Clark had used her time to bat for the underdog, what would have been the consequences? New Zealand has enough historical links, and similarities in governance to prevent alienation.

What it would have done is sent a message to the rest of the world that a small nation can stand up to tyrannical acts even if they are from the ‘good guys.’ When David swung Goliath fell.

In an ongoing crisis in which hundred of thousands of Iraqis have already died, the world asks how long must this go on for? And how long will politicians continue to dine while over a quarter of Iraqis children remain chronically under nourished?

Then I noticed their haircuts, and clothing and could hear them
Talking about their incredibly mundane lives
Obsessed with boys
Totally spellbound with the latest trends
Laughing at stupid jokes

When I was a teenager I’m sure I wasn’t like this
I think
And decide to take a bus
The fastest way out of this plague to my flat

I got on the bus with two others
But every stop on the way picked up more of those
Spellbound teenagers

I was sitting by a window and it was now crowded with them
I tried not to look at them
Gazing at the shop windows
The signs were all bright with impossible slogans
All very simply written
And completely absurd

It’s only the stupid ones that buy into all this
I think looking at it all

I was listening with my headphones and
An old rock n roll song by the Beatles came on
I turned the volume up and experienced the most incredible feeling
I was being taken away from all the lies
With John, Paul, George and Ringo
I was with them, they were my brigade
And we didn’t care what we looked like
Or obsessed about
Or what social group we weren’t a part of
That sixties rock was the closest thing to me
I turned it right up, until it was obnoxious and spluttering
Filling my body
Louder and louder

I couldn’t hear the kids
I couldn’t see the signs
And I was very, very happy

Thirty-nine years ago this SOS was broadcast across a raging storm by a rebel group of journalists, producers, and technicians. Their dream to transform the monochrome of state run radio to colour would lead them to the sharp pointed rocks off Great Barrier Island. Rejecting the states monopoly of radio frequencies had left Radio Hauraki with no other alternative than to broadcast from sea.

In 1968 the Tiri, which Hauraki broadcast from, hit rock bottom. It was grounded twice that year because of severe storms. Hauraki’s biggest storms however were yet to break.

Playing heavy rock n’ roll with lyrics that included ‘fuck’ contrasted markedly with presenters of the day like ‘Aunt Daisy’ and meant the station was never far from controversy. Hauraki faced a barrage of legal, political and bureaucratic attacks. On one occasion the police lowered Auckland’s viaduct bridges arms preventing the ships departure, while hundreds protested.

With DJs that entertained rather than informed they pioneered New Zealand Radio.

Tonight as I sit in the Salient office writing and drinking with the radio playing beside me I’m aware that a lot of what I’m hearing started with Hauraki.

And as I turn the dial scanning for bands, I feel a lot like those guys did back in 1968.

I want to hear something different.

Maybe I’m going to get that from unlikely swagger of Vic students called the Victoria Broadcasting Club, who like Hauraki are venturing into new waters.

Now turning the dial to 88.3fm I can hear the music of Sigur Ros (one of my favourite bands) and I get the feeling that the VBC are trying to give me what I want- a way out from the banality of commercial radio. I’d like to send them a signal of my own- respect.

They’ve been working on the station for 18 months, for no money, because they want to provide you with an alternative.

I reckon we should turn on, tune in, and drop in.

Thanks VBC

Most movies are clichés. The heroes all end up like the old movie hero: fat arse, fat face with the brains of a lizard.

If you don’t want to watch reruns then you’ve got basically got three choices – become a monk, get drunk or go to work.

I want you to get involved.

The walls here at the Salient office are just like a broken piano. They have fragments of posters, old blue-tack stains and pitted holes from tacks. It’s beautiful because it’s got history. Editors, visionaries, writers and dreamers have placed their thoughts here. It could be a painting but it’s more like song with no chorus.

I want you to teach the world to sing.

These computers have blank screens. They wink and burn. The telephones lie with their arms by their sides. They know a boxing match is around the corner. You could be the next contender. In the cracks of the Salient office there is ink, it’s lying there. Bulk, clustered oil.

Oil floats above water.

If you are reading this and are confused then you’re probably our next sub editor. If you think it’s wanky and that you could write better then you’re probably our next feature writer. If you just don’t care then I’m going to need to work harder.

Build where no one else builds, it’s the last way left.

SHOCK JOCK: Do you have any ideas about how World gets ideas for their designs?

PUBLIC RELATIONS: From just seeing people on the street. I know the menswear designer and he’s always out and about and he’s so infl uenced by what people wear. He’s a big movie buff and he’s always getting ideas from magazines anywhere. He’s always on the look out for new things, new ideas. A lot of his ideas are really original and it’s lots of stuff that you haven’t really seen so he gets a piece of something and then just makes it even more amazing.

SJ: In the office do you guys listen to Michael Jackson on the stereo?

PR: Ha ha! We listen to George FM.

SJ: Oh really.

PR: Yep, not Michael Jackson. I suppose it depends if someone wants to put it on, but no, usually George FM.

SJ: Do you like Michael Jackson?

PR: Um, um, no not really.

SJ: He’s a bit dodgy eh?

PR: Yeah.

SJ: If you quit the clothing business would you become a porn star?

PR: Oh! No.

SJ: Why not?

PR: But Francis might.

SJ: Why?

PR: I like my job, I wouldn’t quit my job.

SJ: Who do you think is sexier a five or seven year old?

PR: [heavy sigh] No, no.

SJ: What one is sexier?

PR: Pardon?

SJ: What one do you think is sexier?

PR: A five or a seven year old?

SJ: Yeah.

PR: Neither.

SJ: Why not?

PR: Cause little kids aren’t sexy; they’re cute.

SJ: What’s the funniest porn star you’ve watched?

PR: Um, [long pause] mmm, [another long pause] don’t know, I don’t really watchporn stars. Maybe Jenna Jameson, she’s kind of funny.

SJ: Do you have stores close to crèches or are they all over the country?

PR: Close to what?

SJ: Crèches.

PR: Oh! Ha ha, is this to do with, okay [laughing], is this to do with the pornstar t-Shirt?

SJ: It could be. Have you received much feedback about the t-shirts?

PR: Oh yes! Lots. Oh, we’ve had some people that love it. Though, some customers really love the t-shirt.

SJ: Really?

PR: Yeah, and I think everyone just needs to chill out. But we’ve had some pretty funny pyscho people with too much time sending emails in. But we’ve replied to them as nice as we can.

But few Kiwis are aware that a large part of the world views New Zealand as one the most right-wing countries on Earth, with a feature of right-wing ideology being to emphasise the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth.

While the Labour Party describes itself as a centre-left and socially-liberal party, a new rating by right-wing think-tank The Heritage Foundation lists New Zealand as the fi fth-freest economy in the world.

The Heritage Foundation website states that: “New Zealand rates highly in almost all areas of economic freedom but is most impressive in fi nancial freedom, property rights, business freedom, labor freedom, and freedom from corruption. A globally competitive financial system based on market principles attracts many foreign banks, helped by low infl ation and low tariff rates. Foreign and domestically owned businesses enjoy considerable fl exibility in licensing, regulation, and employment practices.”

Another right-wing think-tank, The Fraser Institute, reiterates this fi nding by listing New Zealand as third-equal with The United States and Switzerland on economic-freedom scales. And while we score well-above the average of most countries and are almost equivalent in economic-freedom status to the United States, few Kiwis seem to be aware that we are so deregulated.

Researcher and writer Nicky Hager agrees that having such a deregulated economy is not the general perception. “Because Helen Clark is not as rabid about the war on terror as John Howard and Bush it feels a bit different, but in terms of base policies – the fundamentals of how our economy works, regulations and tariffs,” says Hager. “We are still way out on the right on many scales. I know that you hear that there’s too much red tape etc, but when you look at the evidence we have less regulation than practically any country on Earth.”

Why, then, is the Left in New Zealand so Right?

Hager says the misconception comes from New Zealand being pushed so hard to the Right in the ‘80s.

When the fourth Labour government took power in 1984, a series of free-market proposals began to counter the financial crisis caused by the previous National government’s tight regulations. Hager says that in the fi ve-year period following 1984, New Zealand was stripped of most of its infrastructure.

“Regulations and tax became a dirty word, it was a walkover. And by the mid-nineties when people had gotten right off it and they voted in MMP to try to stop the revolution that was going on we were so ground down that there wasn’t much more we could give away,” he says.

Since the failure of Muldoon’s regulations, Hager says Labour has been afraid to using the term ‘regulation’ because of the memories it evokes. “When Labour came in in 1999 they were pretty scared of business and so they started making all these speeches about how they weren’t going to challenge the fundamentals. In the last seven years…Cullen and so on have been doing the bare minimum basically and all those things like selling off our land – they won’t touch them.”

If the results of The Fraser Institute and The Heritage Foundation are correct then Labour is paradoxically more economically Right than a good deal of countries with governments that are actually called right-wing.

Do other paradoxes exist?

Another feature of left-wing ideology is concern for the lower classes.

The Ministry of Social Development’s The Social Report 2006 found that in 2000 and 2005, 24 percent of the population had living standards that they describe as experiencing ‘severe’ to ‘some’ hardship. Between 2000 and 2004, there was an increase of three percentage points in the proportion of the population experiencing ‘severe’ hardship and a drop of three percentage points in the proportion experiencing ‘some’ hardship. The proportion experiencing ‘signifi cant’ hardship did not change between 2000 and 2004.

Victoria University Associate Professor in Public Policy, Bob Stephens, argues that these results don’t necessarily mean that the Labour government is not addressing poverty issues, saying the results of government social interventions may take some time to show.

“Those who were in hardship were probably in more hardship prior to the Working For Families package. Some of the problems that are occurring will take years and years to fi x. It took 20 years to build them and it’s going to take twenty years to solve them,” he says.

The Working For Families package is designed to make it easier to work and raise a family by paying extra money to New Zealand families. Stephens lists domestic violence strategies, improving parenting skills for fi rst-time parents, and putting social workers into schools as current interventions: “They’re slowly having an impact but it will take a long time to turn around.”

Perhaps then the only way to tell if we have got a socially-minded government is to wait and see.

Stephens, however, is critical of the current government’s housing policy interventions for fi rst-time home-owners. Housing prices have a large impact on poverty because while everyone needs a house to live in, high market rates can prevent home ownership.

“The initial steps (when Labour fi rst arrived in power) were to improve lower income people by increasing the accommodation supplement and income-related rents for state houses rather than market rents. They haven’t done much since,” he says.

After 1984, one of the most significant areas of deregulation was the fi nancial sector, opening the door for borrowing money for mortgages. While interest rates went through the roof, individuals were now allowed to borrow 80-100% on a home. Stephens says this encouraged second-home ownership, as it was now possible to use existing property as collateral. This is one of the biggest demand factors for house-pricing in New Zealand.

“Housing is a reasonably good investment and it’s a tax preferred investment. So a lot of people are buying reasonable to low quality rentable accommodation and then that stops a lot of fi rst home buyers buying it at the same they’re gradually forcing the price up,” says Stephens.

Second-home-ownership makes it less affordable for fi rst-time home-owners because the second homes tend to be low to middle-class properties, mainly used as rental properties, he adds.

The rise of the second-homeowner may be one of the reasons why New Zealand has some of the highest housing prices (relative to income in the world). The third Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, released this month, rates New Zealand as the second least-affordable country in the world.

Another report, Regional Housing Markets in New Zealand: House Price, Sales and Supply Responses, by Arthur Grimes and Andrew Aitken of Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, reiterates this finding. The report shows that land prices have increased much more rapidly than house-construction costs, which have remained static or slightly fallen in real terms.

Does concern for housing-affordability fit the defi nition of a left-wing socially-minded government? Hager thinks so.

“If I was your age, I would never get a house in Wellington…I wouldn’t have enough money. That’s not on the agenda because the Labour government – the good, lefty, socially-conservative government doesn’t want to go there.”

I will.

Here is one.

I am your editor because fi ve people interviewed me, read my cv and liked my fancy answers. The real story is that I failed shorthand at journalism school and have struggled for the last two years to meet my bill payments because the only work I could get as a reporter was freelancing for the Northern Courier and Petone Herald (I did a stint at Capital Times too, and also worked as a roof laborer). I did it because I wanted to write music and produce an album. I was paid thirty bucks per story. I managed to survive and in the darkest times- the weeks when the banks are calling you twice a week because you overspent in the weekend and the interest has become a plague which rolls through thousands of stamped forms, letters, statements and notices- I discovered that I had it all and more.

Most people don’t get to fall in love with a discipline and practise it. When I left Victoria University in 2001 with an Honours degree in Psychology I followed the crowd. I joined the AXA insurance company and suffered because I cared too much about security and money and perceived success. I may have continued down that path if I hadn’t watched a fi lm about American professor Noam Chomsky at the Embassy Theater in 2001. The fi lm was called Manufacturing Consent and it blazed and scorched my mind. That fi lm was like hear- ing punk music for the fi rst time. I bought a laptop and as the footsteps went down and up, outside my window I banged it hard. Writing became a heavyweight fi ght, I hit the keys like the bull when he first charges in.

Chomsky taught me that the mainstream media serves the interests of a small elite group: the government and corpora- tions. He got it right. Most journalists are pussies and box be- low their weight. This year I’m going to try to make Chomsky look like a hypocrite. I’m going to try to serve your interests as students. Let me know how I’m doing. Tell me I’m a wanker. Tell me I’ve got it wrong. But don’t tell me I didn’t try.

At Victoria University you’ll face one of the most important decisions of your life; whether to conform to the world or challenge it. Most of you will settle for the safer first option and you’ll become socialised. You’ll view Victoria as a career move, and when the gap between the rich and the poor increases, you’ll keep adding the digits, turning the wheels and drinking the cocktails.

When I was studying at Vic I did exactly that (I drank beer instead of cocktails though). I started with a law degree because lawyers were the guys the world admired. While studying I discovered that university was more like a long race than a career move. Like all joggers I learnt that it didn’t matter how I started but how I ended.

If you are new to this place then your race is about to begin. You might go on to break records. Alternatively, you might bail out. Whatever you do, make goddamn sure you drink before you run. Drink now because you won’t get the chance later. Drink to loud music (like So So Modern and Nga Tama Kino) and enjoy being a student. Student life is socially-validated slumming – be sure to abuse this.

In this, the first edition of Salient, we have tried to cater for the new student- the first-year. This edition is dedicated to their time at Vic and we hope they live it to excess. Salient contributors Laura McQuillan, Nick Archer, Steven Gilligan, Flukeman, Dave Thomson, Grant Buist, Nicola Kean, Tom Baragwanath, Rob Addison, Eleanor Bishop and Stacey Knott have journeyed into art venues, theatres, bars and the minds of celebrities to bring you a guide to Wellington, what’s on at this year’s orientation and essential information for first years. Some of the writers had to get drunk to dig out their stories. I’m thankful for their time and effort. If reading this Orientation rag encourages you to go and see something you otherwise wouldn’t have then we’ve done our job. Break on through to the other side.

PS- Salient needs rebel writers who are tired of the clichés of the mainstream media and who want to construct copy which is intelligent and critical. We welcome clever thinkers and original ideas. If you want to make a difference come and talk to the Salient team (2nd floor, Student Union Building).