Issue 86.4 by On Dit

ISSUE 86.4

Upcoming Issue Contribution Due Dates Issue 6: 27th April Hearsay: 6th July Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d love to hear your ideas! Email us at onditmag@gmail.com

– On Dit –

ON DIT CONTENTS Editorial State of Union SRC President What’s On Vox Pop Left, Right, & Centre Econ Dit

3 4 6 8 10 12 14

ARTICLES Trump's Propensity for Violence: Why The World Should Be Worried Minority report: A Guide to Political Parties' Youth Wings How Labor Lost An Interview with Koriko Treehouse A Book Analysis of Bellamy Foster & Burkett Can We Grow Up a Bit? Artist Feature: Jennafer Milne Vegan-Friendly Meal Options on Campus and Nearby Business Before Humanity Procrastination Station Who Does Protectionism Protect? The Brain-Computer Interface The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story Reviewed: UofA X Fifth Label Clothing Line Indigenous Voice to Parliament Legacy of Iraq Moon Hair Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

16 18 20 22 24 27 28 32 38 40 42 44 47 48 52 56 58 59

EDITORS Aiden Bedford Anzelle de Kock Ethan Penglase Nuer Deng SUBEDITORS Dylan Rowen Ellie Stamelos Hilary D’Angelo Kiri Marker DESIGNERS Anzelle de Kock Jennafer Milne

COVER ART "Foxes" By Jennafer Milne CENTREFOLD Vatican City, 2017 By Anzelle de Kock EDITORIAL PHOTOGRAPHY By Kind passerby in the Cloisters

On Dit is produced on the land of the Kaurna people. We acknowledge them as the traditional owners and custodians of the Adelaide Plains. Their land was stolen, never ceded. It always was and always will be Aboriginal land.

– On Dit –

EDITORIAL

Perhaps Francis Fukuyama was correct when he proclaimed the End of History and eternal victory of Western liberal democracy in 1992. The postSoviet world seems almost cyclical. Another Middle Eastern country under siege, a bizarrely violent US president, more racist parliamentarians doing racist things, workers’ rights being eroded and drama at the Adelaide University Union. For students studying at Adelaide University, our Soviet collapse came in 2006 when the Howard Government introduced voluntary student unionism, crippling the Union’s primary source of income. As the Soviet people lost control over their industries, so did students over all commercial operations of student services on campus. other day, I watched a short documentary about what Adelaide University student politics was like a decade ago. The Labor factions had entered into a coalition to “save the Unibar”, majority of the student population didn’t give a shit about anything and one party even campaigned on being opposed to student politics. Naturally, the Labor Right Union president failed to save the Unibar and the Left

Faction ousted him as president. In 2018, the Labor Right supported president, Jennifer Li, has resigned and the Left Bloc are now the majority on the Union Board. I imagine the student politics of 2025 will be much the same. Such is the post-mandatory student unionism world. But throughout the static politics-as-usual on campus, On Dit has adapted and overcome. From the mostly black-and-white stapled mag it was not along ago, is today the aesthetic and colourful perfectly bound magazine you are holding right now. So, maybe we haven’t reached the End of History. If On Dit can revolutionise and improve itself perhaps student politics, and the world more broadly, can as well. Aiden, Ethan and Nuer

– On Dit –

STATE OF THE UNION Words by Olivia Savvas AUU Board Director

It’s been a busy year for the Adelaide University Union as we wrap up from an absolutely huge O-Week and get into the thick of the semester. O-Week was one of the most successful yet, with over 10,000 students signing up to the AUU across the orientation period. We gave out more than 4000 diaries and 2500 O-Packs which is a phenomenal result. A special shoutout goes to the AUU events team who worked day and night to bring you one of the best O-Weeks ever. We’re lucky to have you! The introduction of the O-Pass was a real success. O-Passes were given out to students with their Union membership, complete with O-Pack (goody bag) and access to member only events such as the Comedy Jam and Moonlight Cinema. Board Directors took a more active role in this year’s O-Week and attended events as representatives of the University. I attended the Comedy Jam at the UniBar and had a great time meeting students over beer and a schnitty! Make sure you make use of our freebies as Union Members – coming up we have a Pancake Lunch (28th April) and our Life Hack session, "Meditation and Mindfulness" on 30th May. It’s our intention this year to make sure our services extend to every single 4

one of our students, and that includes the essential service of free stuff. It’s becoming way too apparent that Roseworthy, Waite and Med School students miss out on these opportunities and we will try our very hardest to fix that. As this issue goes to print, the AUU will undoubtedly have a new president. As her presidency draws to a close, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Jennifer Li, who has been president of the Union since December 2017. Mr Brodie Scott (Vice-President and AUU President, 2016-2017) will serve as acting president during the transition period. The Union will be united in electing a new president to serve our constituency – the University of Adelaide and its union members! I have the utmost faith in Mr Scott and our Board Directors, as well as our brilliant Executive Officer, Mr Gary Sutherland. The AUU would also like to acknowledge the new Vice-Chancellor and President of the University, Professor Peter Rathjen. We trust you will be a warm addition to our campus and supporter of the AUU.

– On Dit –

St Ann’s College

Serious about your studies? Consider living at St Ann’s University Residential College Affiliated with The University of Adelaide

All meals, cleaning and tutoring included! Now accepting applications for Semester 2, 2018 To book a tour, call (08) 8267 1478 e. info@stannscollege.edu.au 187 Brougham Place, North Adelaide SA 5006

– On Dit –

SRC PRESIDENT Words by Matthew Boughey

If you’ve been keeping track of my column since Issue One (big shout out to my fans) you would have noticed I’ve written about the Liberal Government’s savage cuts to higher education quite a bit.

They’re both valid questions. I’m going to take a slightly different approach to my column in this Issue. I’ll be running through everything your SRC has done in response to this savage assault on students.

If you haven’t been playing along at home, here’s a quick refresher. The Liberal Government quietly announced in December they would cut $2.1 billion from our higher education system. This decision effectively ended the demand-driven system that allowed students from all backgrounds to reap the benefits of a tertiary education. With this decision, the Government is looking to take our higher education sector back to an era when the wealthy and privileged were the sole beneficiaries of higher education.

A quick disclaimer – the changes to the repayment of student loans must go through Parliament for approval, unlike the $2.1 billion cuts the Liberals have already cowardly passed through the backdoor. As such, we have put all our efforts into defeating the legislation forcing you to pay back your HELP loans at a much lower threshold.

Included in these disastrous cuts, all students will also be forced to repay their HELP loans upon reaching a yearly income of $45,000 as opposed to the current threshold of $55,874. This means all students will be forced to begin making repayments while earning below average incomes. These changes represent an additional burden for women graduates, mature age students, and working Australians with financial constraints seeking to pursue education or upskilling. You’re probably wondering – what have you done to stop this besides write long columns about how bad it is? What even is the point of the SRC?

SRC Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee held an inquiry into the proposed Bill that would force you to pay back your HELP debt at a significantly lower threshold. Our submission included our responses to specific provisions in the Bill that will directly affect participation in our higher education system. This was an opportunity for us to directly participate in policy making and to have our views placed on the public record and considered as part of the decision-making process. I’m proud to say our submission was referred to on multiple occasions in the final report by the Committee. Our arguments clearly resonated! You can read our submission here: https://bit.ly/2pPo6QQ

– On Dit –

The National Union of Students Nation Day of Action On Wednesday 22nd of March thousands of Australian students marched through their universities, malls, and parliaments to demonstrate the strength of the student movement. The National Day of Action demanded the end of the attack on our universities, no lowering of the HELP repayment threshold and that the government make education free again. Here in Adelaide, your SRC took to the streets with the support of students from UniSA and Flinders. We marched up the University grounds toward North Terrace full of energy and chanting loudly. Out of all the student protests I have attended, I can definitively say this was by far the most effective. On the way down North Terrace towards Parliament House people would stop and listen. More often than not they lent their support and sometimes joined in with the chants! At Parliament House there were speakers from all three Universities calling on the Government to reconsider its position on higher education, and work towards creating a fully-funded, equitable, and accessible higher education system for all Australians. The protest was a massive success. I’d like to thank the SA Branches of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) for standing in solidarity with South Australian students and helping us fight for our future.

graduates, and future students to contact their Senators and outline how the changes to loan repayments will affect them and compromise access to higher education in Australia. Additionally, I was able to speak to several South Australian Crossbench Senators about how these changes are detrimental to every single student. Your SRC, together with students from all over Australia, put immense pressure on Senators to vote down the legislation. And we won. The Government was unable to pass this piece of legislation due to lack of support in the Senate. Our actions together with similar efforts from student associations across Australia, did enough to deter our politicians from supporting these appalling changes. When students unite, we can’t be defeated. The fight isn’t over though. This incompetent Liberal Government will keep trying and trying to push the legislation through the Senate despite it being extremely unpopular amongst Australians. I can guarantee your SRC will be ready to fight back against whatever they throw at us. We defeated it once and we’ll do it again and again. Bring it on, Simon Birmingham. We’ve never been more ready. If you’re keen to get involved, please drop me an email at srcpresident@auu.org.au.

Collaborations with The National Union of Students and Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Your SRC joined with NUS (National Union of Students) and CAPA (Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations) to defeat the Government's harsh changes to loan repayments. We supported their campaign Bury the Bill and encouraged students, 7

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; On Dit â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

RAINING POETRY: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS Deadline: 17th June Submit to: rainingpoetryinadelaide@gmail. com Raining Poetry is a poetry street-festival organised and led by University of Adelaide postgraduate students under the auspices of the J.M. Coetzee Centre for Creative Practice. Poems are selected through a competitive process, then printed as stencils and tagged with invisible paint on Adelaide streets. When it rains, the poems magically appear.

THE MAID WINE TOUR 10th June 7am-late The Maid Hotel, 1 Magill RD Stepney Kick back on your June long weekend with a wine tour through McLaren Vale! Tickets are $110 which provides you coach transport to three of the finest wineries in the Vale; Coriole Vinyard, Maxwell Wines & Lloyd Brothers, gourmet breakfast, and exclusive after-party access. Get ready for the ultimate Sunday experience; good food, great wine and fantastic times! Check out themaid.com.au or suss the event page on Facebook

AUES BBQ2 2018 4th May @ 12pm-3pm Barr Smith Lawns Grab your fav party shirt and make your way down to the BEERsmith lawns (Barr Smith Lawns) for what is sure to be a spectacular arvo.

– On Dit –

SA MAY DAY MARCH 5th May @ 10am-1pm Victorial Square, Adelaide. March in support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ campaign to “Change the Rules”. The march will begin in Victoria Square and head to light square. Listen to speeches by trade unionists, enjoy cheap food and drink, and free entertainment. All working-class people are encouraged to attend!

DOMESTIC AND ABORIGINAL FAMILY VIOLENCE VIGIL 2nd May @ 5:30pm-6:30pm Elder Park The vigil is a candle-lighting ceremony that is held in the memory of all those who have lost their lives to domestic and Aboriginal family violence. The event is free of charge.

DRAW YOUR (S)WORD 26th April @ 6pm-10pm The Edinburgh Castle Hotel You should know the drill by now, bring your friends, your family, your other halves and let’s make a night of it! We are all about encouraging y'all to get up on stage and read your poetry out loud in the safe space, so if you have something you have written that you are proud of, or that you need to get off your chest come on down to the Open mic spot, we would love to hear it!

– On Dit –

Vox Pop Where we ask students the important questions.

Nikko

Keith

Engineering

Arts

1. Let them know how you feel early so that you don't waste your time on someone who doesn't want the same thing. 2. Jorja smith. 3. Plane ticket to cairo, worst – clothes that didn’t fit. 4. Taking a flight from one continent to another. 5. Yes because it's causing too many unnecessary deaths.

1. It depends on your current relationship status, if you are free, go for it! 2. David Attenborough or Elon Musk. 3. The best thing was an iPhone, very useful and the worst were shares in an investor fund. 4. Imagination. 5. Not much to say on that. I think the whole world needs stricter laws.

– On Dit –

1. Do you think it’s better to approach your crush and let them know how you feel or should you just crush on them from afar? 2. What celebrity would you rate as a perfect 10? 3. What is the best and worst purchase you’ve ever made? 4. What is the closest thing to “real magic”? 5. Do you think the US needs stricter gun laws?

Vanessa

Mitchell

Law

Arts

1. Only if you have ever spoken to your crush. But, never place them in a spot where they feel like they have to say anything back right away.

1. Yes, go for it and tell the person how you feel about them upfront.

2. I have a love for bald men. So either Vin Diesel or Boris Kodjoe.

3. Union membership, it’s a tough ride.

3. Best purchase.. my Nike sneakers which cost me around $300. Worst purchase... I’ve wasted so much money on food.

2. Hannah Murray.

4. This Facebook page called the “The Strainer”. 5. Yes but it won’t solve the problem of gun violence.

4. Love! The power of love. 5. HECK YES! 11

– On Dit –

LEFT, RIGHT, & CENTRE LEFT

CENTRE

NATIONAL LABOR STUDENTS

ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY LABOR CLUB

SARAH TYNAN

1. When John Howard committed troops to the war in Iraq, then Labor Leader Simon Crean spoke passionately in opposition of Australia’s commitment of troops. The invasion was not consistent with our progressive values of peace, and global cooperation – the UN had not been the body to determine that this invasion was necessary, or wise. The result was the suffering of Iraqi civilians, endangerment of Australian troops and entrenchment of a perception that Australia would always blindly follow the US in their unjustified military interventions. 2. The rights of workers are a direct threat to the top end of town that Stephen Marshall and the Liberal Party represent. Unfortunately, their mission to destroy the rights of workers is succeeding. To borrow a phrase from the ACTU, the rules are broken, and the Liberals are set on breaking them further.

OLIVIA SAVVAS

The unfortunate truth is simple: South Australian workers do not have the assurances and securities required, with the increasing scourge of insecure work, to have their work-life balance assured if shop trading hours are deregulated. Put simply, retail workers should not be forced to work unsociable hours just so those who can afford to shop can do so conveniently at any hour they desire. 3. It is outrageous, offensive and racist for Peter Dutton to leap to the defence of white farmers while he actively supports and leads a racist program that violates the human rights of those seeking refuge in Australia. Our offshore processing and boat turn back policies are a clear violation of our alleged commitment to human rights and should be a point of overwhelming national shame.

1. It’s very important to remember in the wake of the Iraq War that the decision to invade Iraq never came before Parliament, nor was it supported by the UN. Labor leader at the time, Simon Crean, urged the Howard government to reconsider their decision. It wasn’t backed on an international level, nor was it backed by evidence available to both the Opposition and the Government. 300,000 people lost their lives upon that decision, and serious recourse is necessary for those responsible for decision-making, Rudd included. We must not make those mistakes again. 2. The arguments against deregulation in South Australia are huge. Firstly, there isn’t the demand - nor is there any evidence that the economy would benefit. Shoppers don’t have more money to spend just because shops are open longer. Small businesses suffer immensely under the pressure of added competition. Current regulations mean small

– On Dit –

1. 15 years on, the Iraq war remains a contentious issue even today. Was John Howard's decision to invade Iraq, and Kevin Rudd's decision to keep Australian troops there, wise decisions?

2. The new state Liberal government wants to deregulate shop trading hours. Is this a good idea?

3. Should Peter Dutton's suggestion that Australia fast-track visa applications of white South African farmers be taken seriously?

RIGHT

ANDREW VELICKOVIC ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY LIBERAL CLUB

supermarkets and IGAs can open on public holidays and with extended hours which is a huge boost for business. There are of course, most significantly, the workers, who deserve late starts on a Sunday and the ability to spend time with their kids on weeknights. Many retail employees started working in SA before we even HAD Sunday trading and their contracts have had to reflect that change already. Has Steven Marshall ever worked a Sunday? 3. It’s a difficult thing to acknowledge but white South Africans have suffered extreme racism post-Apartheid. The plight of the farmers is shocking. Many young children being forced to watch their parents raped and murdered in front of them. All persons experiencing racial, political, sexual, or religious persecution should have a place in Australia and our Government (and Opposition) should facilitate that.

1. The invasion was first based on the belief that the Saddam Hussein regime was harbouring weapons of mass destruction, supposed links to the terrorist group Al Qaeda as well as the general lack of democracy. The idea was to liberate Iraq and set an example to the rest of the authoritarian Middle Eastern world. The US failed to gain UN authority for intervention. This resulted in a US invasion (with support from Australia). It was soon found that there was no credible WMD risk, at least on the scale that was thought. The ensuing operation last almost a decade. Our continued involvement was probably too prolonged considering the lack of progress made. 2. This is a great idea and is a vital step forward in bringing our economy into the 21st century. The fact that some stores cannot operate on Sunday mornings, public holidays or be open past 5pm on Sundays is ridiculous. At the heart of

this policy is convenience and consumer choice. In a world of online shopping, business needs all the help it can get to be more competitive. Freer shopping hours are also likely to mean more employment opportunities, as retailers take on staff to meet turnover growth and cover extra hours. A more casualised workforce has forced many people to adjust how they go about their days. We need to build an economy of convenience, one that caters to needs of all consumers. 3. Of course. When a section of the population is under imminent threat, we are obliged to do everything in our power to help minimise that threat to them. Bringing the whole issue of race into this debate is ludicrous. These people’s lives are in danger and we should be doing everything in our power to get them here and settled into a new life.

– On Dit –

Why our government’s plan for your retirement matters Words by Aiden Beford Artwork by Gemma McKinna

When we think about how well-off we are going to be in retirement, it is only a product of how much money we have in our savings accounts, how much the aged pension pays or how much Superannuation we have accrued. If you have enough money, you will be fine. This focus on money itself, as if it is a finite resource, has distorted the picture and caused policymakers to miss the entire point of how we actually provide for people in retirement, and that with our coming demographic shift, drastic steps need to be made now to avert future problems. This line of thinking, while it seems reasonable on a case-by-case basis, falls apart when we look at the aggregate picture. The story that this bigger picture tells us is that Australians are having fewer children and that all the baby boomers are retiring. While this may seem inconsequential, the ramifications are deeply problematic. We have missed the point that in real terms it has nothing to do with how much money people have in retirement. The real question is whether we have a system which ensures that the real resources are produced to a sufficient level to ensure a good standard of living.

The problem can be demonstrated as such: if we have an economy with two workers and one idle consumer, and one of the workers retires, in order to provide the same standard of living as when the ratio was 1:2 workers, the remaining workers must now increase their productivity by 100% to produce the same output as when there were two workers. In this example, as people spend their superannuation or receive their pension in retirement, if there is no increase in productivity, then inflationary pressures will occur as 50% more demand by non-workers is now chasing 50% less output. Which leaves us with several choices. On the one hand, we could ensure that the increase in productivity occurs. Otherwise, the government (in order to prevent inflation) has to either (a) cut the workers’ consumption through tax increases, to provide space for the retirees to consume, (b) tax the retirees’ spending or (c) some combination of both. Focusing on raising productivity, however, has not been the major policy pursued by the Federal Government in relation to this problem. Instead, successive governments have pursued high net

immigration to provide new labour sources to increase output and lower the dependency ratio. Australia currently has a dependency ratio of 1:2, one non-worker for every two workers. The imagination of policymakers on this topic seems to be grossly limited, with all the talk simply being about immigration. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s short-term thinking that only succeeds in deferring the problem to future generations, where again we are faced with a glut of retiring individuals, and that is without considering the social and environmental implications of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Big Australiaâ&#x20AC;?. Policymakers need to get creative. Even with our immigration policy, projections indicate that in the best-case scenario of a Big Australia in the next 16 years, this ratio would only be pushed to 13:20. In order to keep up with the growth in dependants alone and maintain the current level of aggregate output, total factor productivity would have to increase by at least 1.32% annually. This is challenging as average growth for this measure has only been 0.8% on average over the past 15 years, especially as overall investment and outlook in Australia remains depressed as the housing market enters troubled waters. The close time-horizons involved with this major demographic shift indicates that the current Federal Government should be taking steps

now to remedy this problem. Amongst the simplest changes that could be made is to end the tax incentives for speculative investments into unproductive assets like real estate, which do nothing to increase total future output. Another simple measure would be to ensure full employment. With labour underutilisation sitting at 14%, putting currently idle labour to work can be done by investing more into infrastructure. Our current austerity-lite policies with regards to critical infrastructure and public research should also be reversed. Infrastructure investment ensures that the resources people utilise in retirement are well-provided. Cutting into healthcare budgets and investing less (as higher demand sits just a little way down the road) is the opposite policy to what is required. If you expect high future demand, you invest now to meet that demand. Likewise, public research is critical in that some of the most important efficiency gains that were made in the latter half of the 20th century have been the result of state-sponsored research fields such as computer science and telecommunications. It is a big challenge, but not an impossible task. All we require is some bold policymaking to take us in the right direction.

Calling for the death penalty for drug dealers, followed by the recent hiring of Mike Pompeo as the new secretary of state and John Bolton as the new national security adviser, highlights the violent mindset of the American president.

Mike Pompeo The previous CIA chief has a long history of supporting torture as a means of interrogation. Pompeo once criticised Barack Obama for closing secret prisons used by the US, and for urging interrogators to abide by anti-torture laws, Al Jazeera reported.

Words by Lawerence Hull Artwork by Angus Smith @angvs

Why the World Should be Worried

Trumps Propensity for Violence:

A recent letter by Human Rights Watch, addressed to members of the US Senate, claimed that the nomination of Pompeo sent a dangerous message to the world â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that respect for the rule of law is no longer a requirement for US leadership.

– On Dit – They further criticised Pompeo’s support for torture and indefinite detention without charge or trial.

experts to determine the best methods to combat the opioid problem, Trump reacted with threats of

At the beginning of 2017 on a trip to Guantanamo Bay, Pompeo tweeted that it was a “wonderful place”.

violence.

John Bolton John Bolton is a well-known war monger who was adamantly in favour of the Iraq War. His recent stance on North Korea is extremely hawkish. Bolton has tweeted that talking with North Korea would be useless. He also tweeted that North Korea and Iran may be working closely in relation to the development of nuclear weapons, but failed to produce any evidence to support his claim. In a recent interview on Fox News, when queried as to why North Korea would want to hold talks when they are so close to developing precision-guided nuclear weapons, he claimed that North Koreans were liars, but offered no evidence to substantiate his claim. Bolton’s disregard for international law is apparent from his support of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He told Fox News in late 2016 that Obama had stabbed Israel in the back by abstaining from voting in a United Nations Security Council resolution which stated that the Israeli settlements were a flagrant violation of international law. There were already a number of UNSC resolutions passed in previous decades which stated that the settlements were against international law. Bolton also supports military action against Iran and, as Al Jazeera reported, even suggested that Israel should bomb Iran.

Death Penalty for Drug Dealers Trump recently called for the death penalty for drug dealers. The call was in response to the opioid crisis in America. This instinctive violent reaction to tackle the problem says a lot about Trump’s psyche. Americans should expect better from their commander-in-chief. Rather than conducting research and consulting

His violent tough guy rhetoric is not supported by any evidence that the death penalty is efficient in tackling drug crime. Furthermore, in a report released by Amnesty International titled "USA: 100 ways Trump has threatened human rights in first 100 days," Trump was slammed for his attempt to bring back systematic torture.

Another US led war? When the leaders of the free world have such disregard for human rights, coupled with a propensity for violence, everyone should be concerned. Does the world really need another US-led war? Have we forgotten the atrocity that was the Iraq War? With the hiring of Pompeo and Bolton, the risk of war with North Korea or Iran is real. To imagine what a war with Iran would look like, we need only look back to the horror that occurred in Iraq beginning in 2003. The disastrous Iraq War left hundreds of thousands of civilians dead and sowed the seeds for the emergence of the Islamic State. A war with North Korea would be just as catastrophic. The death toll of innocents would be huge. One only needs to look at the record of the US when it comes to Korea. In the Korean war between 1950-1953 in which millions were killed, the US carpet bombed North Korea to the point where they ran out of targets. Included in that, was the use of 32,557 tons of Napalm. With dangerous war mongers like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton in power, the possibility of armed conflict significantly increases.

– On Dit –

Minority Report: A guide to political parties’ youth wings Words by Felix Eldridge

I’m sure that we are all too familiar with the youth wings of the major political parties such as the Young Liberals and Young Labor. But has anyone paid attention to minor parties’ youth wings or the potential naming schemes of un-elected parties youth movements? Consider the youth wings of parties built around a charismatic personality. Would the youth members of ‘Katter’s Australian Party’ be referred to as ‘Young Katters?’ Would Bob Katter’s son Rob be the ex officio head of the Young Katters? Maybe they should trademark the name ‘kittens’? Equally, would members of ‘Palmer’s United Party’ be ‘Young Pups’, or perhaps Puppies? And what would be the naming scheme of Nick Xenophon’s youth wings? His case is interesting because his party holds different names for its federal and state branches, meaning that youth adherents would likely be members of two separate political entities simultaneously, as they switch between federal and state jurisdictions. Hope they don’t get thrown out by the High Court for having dual allegiances. There appears to be an agreement between parties to avoid general words such as ‘United’ or ‘Australia’ for the purposes of youth wings. However, this might be an issue if the United Australia Party established a youth wing. Could it possibly be the ‘Young Australians’? That would be incredibly confusing, especially if one of their members was made Young Australian of the Year. Even One Nation had a youth wing known as ‘Young Nation’. Unsurprisingly, like everything else about One Nation, it’s currently defunct. But it is possible that One Nation could rebrand its youth wing by using synonyms for party names instead. That way their youth wing could be called: ‘Young Racists’, ‘Young Bigots’ or ‘Young Xenophobes’. The standard convention regarding youth wing names is the most important part of the party name is used. The Australian Labor Party becomes ‘Young Labor’, the Liberal Party of Australia becomes "Young Liberal". But what if parties have three or more words within their name that cannot be drawn in a hierarchy? Consider the ‘Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party’. Would that 18

– On Dit –

create ‘Young Shooters’, ‘Young Fishers’ or ‘Young Farmers’? Or maybe we can abbreviate it to the ‘Young FFS’ which is probably how you feel after reading this segment. Then consider an oxymoron. Would the youth movement of the ‘Seniors United Party of Australia’ be called, ‘Young Seniors?’ There is also the problem of a party that holds the name of two other parties. The Liberal Democrats share the key words of the ‘Liberal Party of Australia’ and the ‘Australian Democrats’. Both ‘Young Liberal’, and ‘Young Democrats’ would be taken. This would probably result in an unconventional two worded group called the ‘Young Liberal Democrats’, or Young Lib-Dems for short. The case for the ‘Motor Enthusiasts Party’ is also challenging. Neither ‘Young Motor’ nor ‘Young Enthusiasts’ convey the ideals of the party well, but maybe an abbreviation could help such as ‘Y ME’ (Why not?) The name ‘Young Christians’ are not widely used due to the intense factional infighting between rival groups all claiming to be the one true Christian party, the main contenders of which are the Christian Democrats and their splinter group the Australian Christians. This squabbling has seeped into the youth

movement leading to the creation of several power blocks, also all claiming to be the one true Christian youth party. The main contenders of this movement include the Young Christian People’s Party, the Christian Popular Youth Party, the People’s Christian Youth Party and the heretical United Christian Youth Party. Unfortunately, the youth wing of the WikiLeaks party ‘Young Leakers’ was deregistered amid controversial claims of an unregistered Ecuadorian IP Address. In addition, the Sport’s Party’s youth wing also found itself ostracised after its adult wing was accused of ballot tampering. At least it wasn’t ball tampering though. Interestingly, Derryn Hinch might have named his youth wing ‘Young Justice League’, if not for the inevitable copyright lawsuits from Marvel and DC. But you never know, if it existed, the ‘Young Justice League’ could clean up Melbourne’s ‘notorious gang problem’, had it also actually existed. In any case, the youth wings of today may become the politicians of tomorrow. We can only hope that their policies are good, because their names clearly aren’t.

– On Dit –

How Labor Lost

Words by Daniel Nesser

As results were filtering in on election night, a picture was starting to build of what South Australia would be facing for the next four years. As the Liberal Party looked to be ascendant, the victory speech of Steven Marshall indicated clearly it was not he who won the election, with his right wing anti-human platform. The plastered Vincent Tarzia’s brief cameo on stage with his leader suggested that he’s the selfsame self-interested right-wing prat he'd defeated in Nick Xenophon.

But this is the situation after 16 years of Labor, and working class people can feel it. Occasional crises of some section of government (TAFE, Oakden, manufacturing) overlaid the general anger over declining living standards and the steady increase of un- and under-employment. The big jobs announcements offered up were toxic waste dumps and submarines ($50bn for 2,500 jobs, that's $20m per job that could be spent elsewhere), foul industries in themselves.

Indeed, it was Labor who should truly count themselves as the determined losers of this election. The flood of statuses the next day were understandable, lamenting the rise of Marshall and his pro-business austerity agenda. But sometimes attached to this was a sentiment that South Australia had voted against climate action and modernisation, had voted against progress in voting out Labor.

When Jay sung his own praises about being a world leader in renewables, he had actually left behind hundreds of thousands in poverty. I want to be clear that there is no fundamental incompatibility between renewables and lowering the cost of living and energy. But there is an incompatibility between the latter and the demands of the big end of town. Inspiring politics of wealth redistribution and attacking inequality in this state could have had a massive resonance. Instead we got fawning over the billionaire messiah. We got Labor support for extortionate billionaire private ownership over the power grid, and support for the other extortionate billionaires when the bank tax was dropped very meekly. And nothing real was mentioned on wage increases, possibly because Labor was committed to

A reality check is needed. This is the same party who, over the very same period in the Batman byelection, indicated opposition to the Adani coalmine as out-of-touch inner-city middle-class elitism. But the same pandering to big business, big ticket proposals was on display in South Australia with the greenwashed Musk venture. A curiously timed article from InDaily by Malcolm King, released after the election, showed who the elitists really are. Despite some suspect political analysis and not mentioning the elections, the article hammers one important point: in all, hree in five households in SA earn less than $787 a week, $41 000 a year. Entire households, with some earning much less. King argues it's a working class and poor Adelaide with isolated and few pockets of affluence. Even the most vapid political science theories will recognise that this means that Labor should theoretically have the upper hand in elections against the Liberals with this backdrop of a working class city.

holding down thousands of public sector wages to 2.5% yearly increases or less. Mild election promises of course came too little, too late. When you attack the Liberals’ privatization of ETSA, rightly blame that for high power prices but then do nothing to reverse that for 16 years, people notice. Give up the tired mantra that people just get sick of the same faces over time. This bad result is Labor’s to own especially given the unpopularity of the Liberals federally. Labor had governed for the elites and failed to distinguish themselves from the Opposition. They paid the price. Having been unable to stop Steven Marshall of all people, Labor's legacy will now be handily built upon by the Liberals and taken further. Expect cuts to public services, slashing of regulation and the reign of neoliberalism. More of the same, but more.

Free Pizza Every Tuesday

Search for on

Facebook Instagram & Snapchat

Ellie Stamelos interviews

Meet Adelaide University student George Spyrou, the powerhouse creative behind collaborative musical project Koriko Treehouse. The project not only allows George to explore his musical genius and blend elements of funk, soul, hip-hop, rock and jazz, but also provides him with an outlet to create visual art, dabble in video directing and give a voice to other local vocalists. I had the opportunity to pick his brain about the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s origins, meaning and upcoming single releases:

– On Dit –

What’s the meaning of the name of the project, Koriko Treehouse?

Is there a core message you want listeners to take away from the music?

I’m a big N64 lover – I’ve had the same one since I was 7 or 8 years old. My favourite game is Ocarina of Time and I thrashed it when I was young. Koriko is a blend of some of the village names in that game, and the main character lived in a Treehouse. Good times.

Soul Throw had a strong message of equality. Definitely wanted people thinking about how race or gender doesn’t matter, we’re all the same... Psychedelic Sun was more light hearted – I go on dates with a "companion doll" in the music video (not a sex doll, it didn’t have holes).

When and how did the idea for Koriko Treehouse form?

How have your experiences of growing up in a Greek heritage shaped the project?

In my brain hole. In high school I was making heaps of tunes and when I finished there I met a bunch of dudes in the local scene and we started messing around with ideas together. Then eventually I realised what I was doing was turning into my own little project and that I should head my own thing and out popped baby Koriko Treehouse!

I’m a proud Greek...come to think of it I should probably start writing more music about feta and Gaganis’ tarama.

What do you believe is the importance of collaboration, especially in a music scene like Adelaide’s? Collaboration is everything, I could honestly go on about this forever. I’ve always treated Koriko Treehouse as a family where we have feature vocalists and artists who are nearly always local musos because I want it to be an outlet to get their name out there too. But in terms of collaboration, I think one of the most important abilities as a musician is being able to work with others... bouncing those ideas off each other in studio and the energy and vibes we create is better than anything (shout out to Gabrielle Hyde). It’s pretty fun recording saxophones, trumpets, keys and everything in between all in your bedroom with your mates.

If you could collaborate with any artist / musician, who would it be and why? George Clinton and Thundercat because I think we’d end up just hanging out. The vibes would be outrageous, scares me to think of the things we’d write about.

Koriko Treehouse is not just about music; you also create all of the artwork and have co-directed a music video. As a creator, how have you grown or changed as a result of this project? It’s definitely become an outlet for the creative side of my brain. My studies at uni don’t really let me think creatively, but in Koriko whatever ideas pop into my mind I execute. From stickers to music videos, I’ve got to make it happen...and I love working and learning with others. I made the Psychedelic Sun music video with Charlie Phillpot, I learnt heaps from the guy in the process and it’s orgasmic to see our ideas come to life.

Are there any upcoming gigs in store for Koriko Treehouse? Putting together a live set at the moment, keep an eye out on Facebook and Insta for updates!

– On Dit –

BOOK ANALYSIS: MARX & THE EARTH: AN ANTI-CRITIQUE BY JOHN BELLAMY FOSTER & PAUL BURKETT Words by David Faber

If there is one thing from which Green thinking and practice suffers, it is the lack of an over-arching historical and socioeconomic conceptualisation of the dynamics making for the trashing of the environment as habit for humans and other creatures. It is one of the ironies of history itself that this is an unnecessary weakness of the environmental movement, as an eminently suitable analysis has been available for over 150 years: the historical materialism of Karl Marx. Indeed, Marx’s philosophy, precisely because it is materialistic in the cosmological rather than the ethical or pecuniary sense, maintain that there is no such thing as spirit and that the universe is constituted wholly by matter, perfectly integrates concern for nature and humanity. Marx believed that the current historical epoch must end in either socialism or barbarism, which is to say, the democratic governance of production and commerce by associated producers, or socioeconomic and ecological collapse. This choice was inevitable because of the tendency of unrestrained commodity production for profit under capitalism to subordinate all other considerations, including the very survival of the human race and all other species. It was axiomatic in Marx’s critique of political economy, the semi-scientific apologetics for the rise of capitalism, that capitalism would seek to expand beyond all material natural limits, including those posed by critical non-renewable energy sources. This is hardly surprising. Marx was alert to the science of his day. In 1859 he attended John Tyndall’s experimental demonstration of the role of carbon dioxide in generating local greenhouse effects. His adopted city of exile’s pollution problem was by then a couple of centuries old: the asthmatic Whig philosopher John Locke could barely breathe in London at the end of the 17th century. Even in his 24

own day, nearly two centuries ago, Marx fully understood that capitalism was costing the earth. He found instructive contemporary issues like soil degradation, deforestation, regional climate change, biodiversity loss, natural resource depletion and pollution, not to mention the exploitation of human labour. In an extensive introduction, Bellamy Foster and Burkett discuss these issues in the context of rejecting the complaints of self-styled “ecosocialists” that classical Marxism, the Marxism of Marx, is somehow too dated or inadequate to address environmental concerns. There has always been a tendency in various quarters to reconstruct the wheel regarding Marx, as if he were not an intellectual giant on whose shoulders we all stand. Thus, the notion of “eco-socialism” is redundant, as classical socialism always embodied an ecological perspective. “Eco-socialism” is thus really “eco-eco-socialism”, something of a fallacy of infinite regress. Moreover “eco-socialism” has patronized the working class, the bulk of the 99%, by carrying the coal of ecological awareness to the Newcastle of their class consciousness. This superiority complex is one reason Greens generally have yet to build upon widespread public sentiment and politically awaken the majority of society to a living sense of enlightened self-interest. This is to an extent an expression of the movement’s non-proletarian social base. Marx on the other hand was alert to the ecological issues of his own day. He was interested in the natural history of climate change and other prehistorical topics. He cannot accordingly be dismissed as narrowly economic or anthropocentric.

– On Dit –

While he could not have foreseen in contemporary particulars today’s planetary peril, anymore than he could have predicted the actual ferocity of the Great War on the basis of the increasingly fierce wars of his lifetime, the concept of barbarism shows that he did intuit them. “Barbarism” for Marx was the secular, socioeconomic and ecological equivalent of the Christian apocalypse, with all its four horses. The practical point of appreciating classical socialism is not to cleave to allegedly “sacred” Marxist scriptures. It is to enjoy the twin benefits of historical materialism and naturalism. These include primarily the integration of historical socioeconomic and ecological perspectives denying capitalism’s alienating dismissal of real environmental considerations as “externalities” to narrowly understood “economic” factors. What is true is that 21st century socialism must be more ecological than ever. While in so far as it is a philosophy, Marxism is too broad and profound to be reduced without vulgarization to be the platform and dogma of a political party, the Greens had best be content to be a party with socialists in it. The Four Pillars of the Australian Greens with their subsidiary receptiveness to social justice concerns allow for this. But the ruling culture of the party is uneasy with such cohabitation within doors by “watermelons”, said by detractors to be “Red on the inside and Green on the outside”. The recent successful campaign by party elder Bob Brown against Lee Rhiannon and her NSW following demonstrates as much. It is a sign of relative political immaturity. It is a legacy of the Cold War and the successive neoliberal era, which was unconducive to systematic anticapitalist environmentalism in the West. This was particularly so given the poor ecological record of self-declared communist polities, which induced confusion of Marxism with them and their environmental practices. Much Green thinking and practice betrays a hankering to be quit of any need to criticise capitalism, as if it were possible to be coherently or politically ecological whilst avoiding any challenge to it. This goes beyond any politic reluctance to adopt

any language which might be misunderstood deliberately or involuntarily and scare the horses. Ultimately, we can have capitalism or we can have the environment, but we cannot have both. Certainly, much can and should be done ecologically without holding our breath and simply waiting for the revolution. But little can be achieved if we are frightened of our shadow within the framework of liberal democracy, without pushing the socioeconomic envelope. History is not over as Fukuyama mistakenly contended, and Margaret Thatcher was wrong to claim that “There Is No Alternative to capitalism”. We must keep our options open if we are to effectively prioritise measures to transcend the risks of ecological crisis. Accordingly, the mainstream neo-Malthusian liberal Green movement suffers from a lack of insight into the political economy of capitalist growth, and thus of a critique of a system which is systematically trashing planet Earth. Yet Marxists like Paul Sweezy wrote as early as 1974 that instead of a universal panacea it turns out that growth itself is part of the disease. But Greens still labour to understand that it is the capitalist nature of growth in commodity production which is the problem, rather than growth as such. There will always be a need for growth in public services like health, education and welfare, provided their ecological footprint is managed. Deploring the contempt for and degradation of nature under “the regime of property”, Marx believed in developing human and natural potentials and placing them at the service of a just, sustainable society. Don’t socialists and environmentalists ultimately believe in the same thing? The vitalistic, romantic and spiritual tendencies of much Green thinking, particularly `deep Green’ mystical anti-humanist idealism, perversely perpetuate the dualistic divorce of humanity and nature under capitalism. They prevent the cross-fertilisation of socialist and green thinking, with deleterious effects including the arrest of both movements and their mutual cannibalisation.

– On Dit –

Marx’s important ecological critique, based on the work of the German soil scientist Liebig, of the metabolic rift involved in capitalist agricultural cash cropping was embodied indeed in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, wherein Marx called for urban decentralization and the socioeconomic resolution of the contradiction between town and country. Private, particularly absentee property in land, was to be transcended by a democratic society of associated producers. This required conscious, rational, scientific treatment of the land as permanent communal property and the inalienable condition for the existence and reproduction of the chain of human generations. This concept approaches a highly evolved re-visitation of so-called “primitive communism”, the political economy of land tenure typical of many ancient and traditional indigenous societies, including the Australian Aboriginal nations. On this basis, agricultural production needed to be carried out by small proprietors or collective farms. Marx was not the patronising disdainer of the peasantry he is often mistaken for. He appreciated the sustainability of small holdings and collective tenures. As mentioned above, there were ecological problems in Marx’s own day which enabled him to understand the metabolic rift between capitalism and the environment. Marx consistently emphasised the fundamental contradiction between the socioeconomic

metabolism of capital and the universal metabolism of nature. For Marx, science required the transcendence of the capitalist alienation of nature and from nature, i.e. the estrangement of humanity from the full range of life’s diversity on the planet. Aesthetic appreciation of nature’s beauty was for him a primordial phase of a proper awareness of nature, as it is of awareness of the other in the defining human experience of love. The bulk of the book is taken up with developing in detail the introduction’s anticritique of “eco-socialism” in defence of “Marx’s ecology” (the title of a previous Bellamy Foster study). Topics made out in full include the ecological materialism of Marx; the origins of ecological economics; classical Marxism and energetics, embracing the place in Marxist thinking of thermodynamics and entropy; socioeconomics and the metabolic restoration of an open sustainable socioeconomic system. Marx & the Earth is a righteously good read and indispensable for any politically and socioeconomically literate environmentalist or socialist.

– On Dit –

Can We Grow Up a Bit? Words by Oliver Hales Artwork by Claudia Watson

I’d like to talk a little about the immature culture of insulting other local universities. This has become most prominent on the Facebook group Overheard at the University of Adelaide, which every year, like clockwork, goes through a hurried wave of antiFlinders/UniSA memes. These posts, which often get quite a bit of attention, express a not-so-subtle message: if you don’t go to Adelaide Uni, you’re inferior and your degree will be less valuable. However, this goes beyond just Facebook – it’s ingrained in our University’s Culture. Obviously not everyone contributes to it, but we all accept it as commonplace. If you question it you get the standard response of, “They’re just jokes, okay? Stop finding offence in everything, it’s just a bit of fun rivalry. There’s no harm in it, after all, the other universities retaliate back.” Here’s the thing though: these jokes just aren’t funny anymore. They’ve

become forced, crass, and above all else, childish. Some of them are downright offensive. Yeah, maybe it was funny the first time someone referred to UniSA as “Super Tafe” or called Flinders a second preference school, but it’s simply just beating a dead horse now. There’s no wit to it; it’s just blind arrogance at this point. Most of the memes you see have devolved to such a low standard, both in idea and editing, that it’s actually embarrassing. I wonder how it must look from an outside perspective, the perceived top dog pushing down the little guys – real classy. It’s exactly the type of high school class antics I hoped would have stayed in high school. The funniest thing I can really say about the situation though is that people seriously think of Adelaide as being on some sort of pedestal. News flash everyone: we’re not an ivy league school, and we never have been. Adelaide isn’t Harvard, so why are we acting like we are? Sure, we’re the most prestigious in South Australia, but that translates to very little nationally (and before anyone utters the words “Group of Eight”, just try and explain what real significance that carries, because I still don’t know). What has happened to our humility? Literally who cares where somebody studies! University lasts for a few years and then it’s over. Stop mocking others for getting an education elsewhere. If we really are that great then we shouldn’t need to announce it so often, especially in such a crude, elitist manner. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being proud of where you go to school, but we need to stop being so insufferable about it.

– On Dit –

ARTIST

FEATURE

JENNAFER

MILNE

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; On Dit â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

Follow me on: Website jennafers.com Instagram instagram.com/jennafers

Ever since I could hold a pencil I have been drawing. On paper or otherwise. That passion and creative flair carried through my high school years. My preferred style from late primary school to early high school was traditional sketch. It was at this point in my life that my art was showcased, won ribbons in shows, and even gave me the opportunity to design a local school's jumper and P.E logo. I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life after graduating. Like a majority of freshly graduated teenagers. I was lost, the passion I had for art was gone. So, instead of lingering

around trying to figure out what to do. I enrolled into a tafe course. For two years, I worked to obtain an Advanced Diploma of CGI and VFX. It was here, specializing in computer generated models (eg Pixar style models) that my love for art started creeping back. After I obtained my diploma, I immediately enrolled into university for a Bachelor of Media and Major in Graphic Design. It was during these three years that I launched my website, took on freelance work for various companies (designing logos & pamphlets) and became a design editor for the On Dit magazine. I've also begun working on building my skills back up traditionally & digitally and will continue to do so as I aim to fully immerse myself in the graphic design and illustrated lifestyle.

– On Dit –

VEGAN-FRIENDLY MEAL OPTIONS ON CAMPUS AND NEARBY

Words by VEG CLUB Artwork by Cindy Nguyen

Have you seen the news? “Veganism Skyrockets by 600% in America to 6% Of Population In Just Three Years.” “Veganism Has Exploded By 360% In Great Britain In The Last Decade.” “Vegan Products Grew By 92% In Australia In The Last Year.” “Vegan Market In China Predicted To Rise By 17% Between 2015 And 2020.” “UK Plant-based Foods Are Up 1500% In The Last Year.” The number of vegans in the world appears to be growing, and the number of non-vegans who are recognising the deliciousness of vegan meals and the benefits of a plant-based diet is also rising. Sadly, there are still many people who seem to have never encountered a satisfying vegan meal in their lives, and therefore assume that vegan food simply cannot be delicious. They have no idea what they’re missing out on!

While most places have vegan options these days, few students know all of the best spots to find vegan meals near campus. We at VEG (University of Adelaide's Vegan Education Group) are here to help with a handy guide below. If $9$15 for a meal is more of a rare treat for you, or perhaps you want something even healthier, then let the following also serve as inspiration for your foray into vegan home cooking.

– On Dit –

ON CAMPUS GRASSROOTS Vegan rye focaccia: $9 Fritters: 2 for $5 Mexican vegan wrap Falafels Chinese cabbage w/ crispy noodle Salads: quinoa tabbouleh, barley & bean, garden green Desserts: snickers slice, cookies & cream bliss ball, cranberry & cashew bliss ball, choc mint bliss ball Specials available in winter: vegan soups, pastas, curries Juices made to order Crushes and smoothies are not vegan by default (but they can be made vegan if you ask)

UNIBAR Falafel burger: $7 (can be made vegan, but not vegan by default) Falafel salad: $7

AROMA Tasty vegan pies (and not-so-amazing vegan apple pie) Indian curry Vegan gluten-free roll Salads

PENANG HAWKERS CORNER Cold rolls: tofu or veg minus the default sauce (ask for soy sauce instead, or get them with no sauce to be extra healthy): 2 for $6 Seaweed sushi roll: $3.20 Vegetable roll: has mayo, which may not be vegan, but you can get it made to order without mayo. These are also $3.20 each and discounted towards the end of opening hours (but by then it’s usually all gone)

TASTE BAGUETTE Tofu baguette Noodle bowl: $8.50 (half-price from 4:30pm if they still have them)

– On Dit –

RUNDLE STREET AREA VEGO N LOVIN IT 100% vegan tiny spot hidden a few shops before the Exeter; open Monday-Friday from 10am-4pm or earlier depending how busy it is. Note on the door says (“Kitchen closes when I say it does.") Big tasty burgers: $18 Half a burger: $12 Sandwich: $10

AYLA’S CAFE Right around the corner from the Austral; open from 7am-4:30pm Monday to Saturday. Most lunch and dinner meals are vegan and there’s a 10% student discount! Best value meals: Lentil soup (comes with rice and bread): $9 (small); $11 (large) Yasai-Itame stir-fry, with a law-salt option available (quite a lot of food for the price): $13.50 Haloumi and avocado salad: $10 (small); $12 (large) These prices are before the 10% student discount

ZENHOUSE Located next to Alya’s and open from 11am until at least 8:30pm Monday to Saturday, and 11am-4pm on Sunday. This is the place for cheap and delicious Asian & Western vego dishes. Most things are vegan & clearly marked, including: Delicious vegan meats, burgers, tofu salad, laksa, vegan ice-cream, and more Some meals are better value than others, but the best value are the $9.50 lunch-4:30pm specials that change each day

ZAMBRERO Virtually always open. Ask for a vegan burrito and they should sort you out with double rice, double beans & free avo: $11.90

SUBWAY Open early morning until at least 9pm every day. Plain bread & 9-grain bread are vegan; so are the veggie patties, which aren’t bad: $5.50-$9.70 (avo is extra) Vegan sauces include: tomato, BBQ, sweet chilli, pizza & sweet onion (By default they cut footlongs in half with a cheesy knife. Ask them for a clean knife or ask them not to cut it.)

DUMPLINGS R US Open 11am-9:30pm every day. Vegetarian dumplings (fried or steamed) Salt and Pepper Tofu Fried greens with garlic sauce Vegan chilli oil on request Beware: the menu has some non-vegan items marked as “vegan” so if something takes your fancy it’s worth chatting to the staff to check!

– On Dit –

GRILL’D Open 11AM till late every day (even Sundays!) Veggie Vitality is 100% vegan by default: $12.50 2 other veggie burgers can be made vegan if you ask: also $12.50 All chips are vegan too

BAMBI & CO A beautiful spot hidden on the edge of East Terrace adjacent Rymill Park. Closed on Mondays, but open from 8:30am-3pm every other day. Not all vego but many options are vegan or can be made vegan easily. Yet again there’s a 10% student discount! Vegan burrito: $10 before the discount on weekdays (for now)

– On Dit –

RUNDLE MALL AREA

including James Place and Hindley Street

JUICE LOVERS JUICERY Tucked away in Regent Arcade and open on weekdays from 8am-4pm. Closed weekends. Not only juice! A range of healthy & 100% vegan food. Burger (lunch special): $12 Gluten-free whole-food bowls: $12.50 Salad wraps: $8

RAW AND REAL COLDPRESSED JUICERY AND KITCHEN Located on James Place and open on weekdays from 8am-4pm & 9:30am-3pm on Saturdays. Healthy and delicious food with numerous vegan options. Risotto with pumpkin, spinach and or mushrooms Avocado and cherry tomato ciabatta Banana bread or carrot bread Juices, smoothies and sugar-free spiced hot chocolate

MR VIET Open on James Place from 10am-5pm every day except Sunday. Quick, delicious vegan bún bowls or pho with tofu or mock meat: $10.50 Fresh cold rolls and spring rolls available with tofu and veggies One of the few places that offer Vietnamese iced coffees with coconut milk! Just specify that you’re ordering vegan and they will look after you

FAIR TRADE ESPRESSO Open on James Place from 7am-4pm MondayFriday & 9am-3pm on Saturdays. Cherry Darlings pies available with a salad Vegan toastie with roquette and sundried tomato Range of sweets (if you’re feeling like something rich we recommend the oreo slice) Vegan doughnuts are available on Fridays!

TWO-BIT VILLAINS Sits on the top level of Adelaide Arcade; closed on Mondays but open from 11:30am other days. Vegetarain fast food with an American diner-style menu for lunch or dinner. Burgers, chili fries and hotdogs: from $15 and under Everything can be made vegan – just make sure you ask!

FOODS FOR LIFE Health food and eco store open on Gawler Place every day during shopping hours. The cafe offers: vegan wraps, salads, pies, juices and treats Everything is clearly labelled

LORD OF THE FRIES Located on Hindley street; open from 10AM every day until late. Not the healthiest of options but if you’re craving a vegan alternative to Maccas or Hungry Jacks, look no further. Lord of the Fries in Adelaide is 100% vegan.

– On Dit –

WORDS by Lawrence Hull

BUSINESS BEFORE HUMANITY In a recent visit to the United Kingdom by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS), an agreement was signed for the sale of 48 Eurofighter Typhoon Jets. It was the latest in a series of arms deals between the UK and Saudi Arabia. It took place as the war continued to rage in Yemen in which Saudi Arabia has been accused of committing a number of war crimes. The visit by MBS was met with widespread protest and condemnation. Activists across the UK took to the streets in protest of MBS’s visit, citing his involvement in war crimes in Yemen. Protestors also criticised the conservative UK government led by Theresa May, for supplying Saudi Arabia with armaments which are then used to kill innocent Yemenis. The UK is a major supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia and seems indifferent to the war crimes they are committing. Since Saudi Arabia became involved in the war, UK arms dealers have profited $8.3bn, Al Jazeera reported. Saudi Arabia has come under fire by various human rights groups since its involvement in the Yemen war, which began in 2015. According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia has conducted targeted killing of civilians and civilian buildings such as hospitals and mosques, all of which are crimes under international humanitarian law, if they are not legitimate military objectives. 38

War crimes that have been documented by Amnesty are no secret to the conservative UK government and the international community. The latest statistics released by Amnesty show that approximately 5,900 innocent civilians have been killed and a further 9,400 have been injured, 3 million have been forced from their homes, 22.2 million people are in need of life saving humanitarian assistance, and 2.5 million children are out of school. The Saudi relationship with the UK stems back as far as WW1. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, France and the UK carved up the Middle East into independent states. A man named Ibn Saud who had fought against the Ottomans and their allies, with the financial and military support of the British, became the king of what is now known as Saudi Arabia. With the Houthis being aligned with Iran, it would be intolerable to the West and the Saudi’s for an Iran-friendly government to establish itself as the dominant power in Yemen, especially given the unfounded fear that the US and the Saudis have of Iran spreading their influence across the region.It is obvious that there is big business in war and the UK seems more than happy to profit from war crimes being committed in Yemen. Other countries, such as Germany, have shown moral courage in stopping the exportation of arms to Saudi Arabia.

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; On Dit â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

With the Houthis being aligned with Iran, it would be intolerable to the West and the Saudiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s for an Iran-friendly government to establish itself as the dominant power in Yemen, especially given the unfounded fear that the US and the Saudis have of Iran spreading their influence across the region. It is obvious that there is big business in war and the UK seems more than happy to profit from war crimes being committed in Yemen. Other countries, such as Germany, have shown moral courage in stopping the exportation of arms to Saudi Arabia. The longer the war in Yemen continues, the more weapons the brutal Saudi regime will need. Given that the atrocities are so widely publicised and known, the question of complicity must be raised. Not legal complicity, but moral complicity. Essentially, the UK government is giving the Saudis the key they need to open the door of terror in Yemen.

Ordinary citizens should expect more moral fiber from world leaders, especially the UK, which is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. As the Australian government seeks to increase its arms exports, it is important to remember the very nature of what weapons are used for. Violence, mass murder, and unimaginable atrocities are the end result of the proliferation of arms throughout the world. The world does not need more weapons, the world needs more cool-headed leaders who can engage in discussion and negotiation. We do not need money hungry leaders who see a dollar as more valuable than a human life. To put a gun in the hands of a man who kills innocent people, simply because it will make a profit, is unconscionable by any standard.

In the 21st century, and after two world wars in which unimaginable havoc was wreaked upon humanity, it beggars belief that such human rights violations are carried out with the complicity of world superpowers.

– On Dit –

WHO DOES PROTECTIONISM PROTECT? Words by Edgar Daniel-Richards

In the wake of Trump's recent string of tariffs there are debates raging around the world about the merits of protectionism and free trade. These are long standing debates in the history of capitalism from the debates over the Corn Laws in 1840’s Britain, the early Australian electoral contest between the Protectionist Party and the Australian Free Trade and Liberal Association, through to today with Donald Trump’s push for protectionism against pretty much all other G20 leaders support for free trade. For as long as this debate has raged amongst the ruling class it has also divided the workers’ movement. But, do workers really have anything to gain from either side? Donald Trump claims that his protectionist tariffs will bring back jobs to American workers. But the reality simply doesn’t stack up. For example, since 2000 the US steel industry has lost 480,000 jobs. But importantly it still produces the same amount of steel. Most of the steel jobs have been lost due to productivity gains from technological improvement, not lack of import protection. Furthermore, the steel industry in the US has shifted south chasing lower wages in less unionised states, so even the small amount of jobs that the tariffs may bring back will not go to the rust belt workers Trump claims to represent, and certainly won’t be going to the members of United Steel Workers, whose leaders have praised Trump's trade policy.

Unions in America and Australia have a long history of campaigning for protectionist trade policies as a strategy to defend jobs. Unions tying themselves into campaigns to defend the profits of the bosses, in the hope that some of that will trickle down to their members in jobs is a dead-end strategy. If trickle-down economics doesn’t work with a free trade policy, why would it work under protectionism? These campaigns merely provide cover for union leaders unwilling to launch the kinds of industrial campaigns that are necessary to defend both jobs and decent wages and conditions. The most insidious part of protectionist campaigns by unions is that it creates the illusion that workers and bosses have a collective “national interest”. Apparently, workers’ enemies are not the bosses, who exploit them and would throw them onto the scrap heap the moment they can’t make a profit off of them, but instead Chinese workers, who they are apparently in competition with. The conclusions are clear in the United Steel Workers’ statement in response to Trump's tariffs: "For the USW, the objective has always been to restore market-based economics that ensure that our domestic producers can achieve a fair return as they invest in facilities, equipment and people, and contribute to the strength of our nation. The objective should also be to reduce the negative impact of steel and aluminum imports that have decimated production in the United States. The tariff levels the president announced will help to achieve that objective."

– On Dit –

This "national interest" is a sham. Workers need to organise against their employers to defend their class interests. They need campaigns that demand job security, decent wages and safe conditions. Class collaborationist campaigns weaken workers’ ability to do this. So, is free trade the answer then? The “free trade” status quo is how we got here in the first place. The reason that Trump’s calls for ending free trade can have resonance with working class people is because for the last 40 years the free trade that was supposed to be benefiting everyone has left them behind. Inequality in industrialised nations, like the USA and Australia, has increased. Wages have stagnated or fallen, technological changes and downsizing have increased unemployment, and workers’ private debt levels have increased. Meanwhile the rich have never been richer. On top of this, inequality between the richest and the poorest nations has also increased.

national boundaries against their exploiters. Trump and Turnbull may disagree over the best trade policy to deal with a rising China, but they both support making workers pay for their wars, whether trade wars or otherwise. Both are for massive corporate tax cuts and both are for massive expansions of the military and domestic arms industries. Workers should play no part in their imperial rivalries. Instead we need to organise to defend working class interests, to push back stagnating wages, to increase workplace health and safety conditions, to stop the cuts to health and education, and defend and expand the welfare system and social safety net. This will take rebuilding our unions as organisations of working class defence, and in order to do this we need independent working class struggle oriented campaigns that don't line up with a section of the bosses in the hopes of getting some of the scraps that fall from their table.

Fundamentally all that these debates really represent are different strategies from different sections of capital over how to get the most profit and screw over rival blocks of capital. They couldn’t give two hoots about the welfare of ordinary people. A race to the top for profits means a race to the bottom for wages. Workers need to stand together in solidarity across -

– On Dit –

The Brain-Computer Interface Words by Lucy Turner Artwork by Angus Smith @angvs

Neuralink Is it no surprise that the founder of a company that seeks to aggressively speed up Brain - Computer Interface (BCI) technology is the visionary, Elon Musk? His company, founded in 2016, named Neuralink aims to use and develop existing technology such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalogram (EEG) which goes further than an electrical device for neurofeedback. They are looking to mimic the biology of the neural network to strengthen brain activity in humans. Remember when you accidentally left your phone at home and it caused you a considerable amount of stress? The smartphone is already an extension of mind as it acts as a bridge between the brain and artificial intelligence. A large part of our identity is stored in the cloud. Neuralink looks to close that gap with the concept of “Neuralace”. Musk has called it “an extra layer” as it will be a tertiary layer of our brain above our limbic system and neocortex. Those with diseased and damaged nervous systems will be the primary users of this technology but it also seeks to address the age-old problem of communication. Consider its function in terms of input and output. We already have a high bandwidth visual interface into the brain as our eyes can take in a lot of information. This would provide a faster output. With a faster output and the ability to transmit thoughts and even feelings to one another will see improved communication increasing the human capacity for empathy. Both our limbic system and our neocortex are in constant competition, with each trying to do what it thinks is best for us. The problem is that the limbic system or paleo-mammalian cortex is stuck in a 42

tribe 50,000 years ago. A primary example of this is commonplace obesity. Having control of our brain means that we could take advantage of sensory decoupling. Imagine experiencing the enjoyment of a slice of frosted cake whilst nourishing your body with nutrition suited to your current health condition, genetics and microbiome. And just as autonomous driving seeks to prevent motor accidents, a “Neuralace” could mitigate human error. Companies such as Neuralink and Kernal are in full operation though remain fairly discrete in their plans for the future as the future has a habit of being uncertain. Evolution has met its catalyst.

The Potential vs. the Pitfalls As Kernel develops their technology we could find ourselves with the ability to record memories and draw on them later with sharp recollection. The same goes with data. Just as Neo and Trinity downloaded programs of motor and cognitive abilities such as Kung Fu and helicopter piloting, we too could download skills. We are now able to watch movies on the internet for free but imagine a full sensory experience. The first commercial products will be pricey, just as with the first cell phones but the cost will decrease as the technology advances over time. The potential does not exist without the perils. The driving factor behind this technology is to save our species against one that we designed by “upgrading” ourselves. Since their first design, computers have been modelled after the human mind. Early computer scientist John von Neumann’s

– On Dit –

introspection on thought allowed him to create mathematical models of the brain still used in computing today. Take away the math that same introspection fuels discussions of the mind as we seek to understand what makes a conscious mind. One philosophical question gives rise to many others. Consciousness is an extremely complex emergent property and the endeavour to add an even more sophisticated component to that system provides a whole lot of power to someone. There is certainly much to be said about the political issues that arise with just one question: who will govern the organisations that hold this power? It is an interdisciplinary co-operation with many quests of innovation such as bandwidth and implantation. Our slow output rate of speech and typing would only be efficiently replaced if an interface conducted immediate bandwidth. The success of symbiosis with AI highly depends on the bandwidth. If the connectivity is not fast enough the AI will not effectively be a part of the brain; it would be separate and may, therefore, become a possible threat. A non-invasive method for implantation is needed as the invasive method of surgically implanting the brain is high risk and simply undesirable. Not to mention the issue of biocompatibility. Research initiatives such as the European Human Brain Project and US Brain Initiative that seek to understand the human brain will help to further advance this technology. The power that the internet has given to trolls and ISIS, as well as computer hacking and system bugs are major causes for concern. Another spin, however, is the existence of such bad guys will generate an industry boom of brain security creating many jobs. There is, of course, the question of what makes us human? Our unique ability to have a subjective experience could be what enables our species to survive against the machines. This, however, opens up a whole new can of worms.

Conclusion If evolution shows us anything it’s that humans are an adaptive species. Individually humans are animalistic or egoistic with our limbic systems driving emotions, but collectively humanity is becoming a connected organism of information. Data is the new gold. We don’t have the option (yet) to go back to the age before the internet when communicating with distant loved ones meant days of travel across the land on horse-back and access to information was scarce. Our brain evolved over millions of years and therefore it is not calibrated to comprehend the fast changes that are occurring in the world today. We must adapt so that we don’t get left behind. The development of the BCI now has urgency like never before. The symbiotic interface is needed to allow our species survive as a new species of machine learning is born. As the saying goes, “if you can’t beat them, join them”.

– On Dit –

Book Analysis: The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story by Ramzy Baroud Pluto Press London 2018 Words by David Faber

You can tell from the very first pages of this beautiful and timely book that the author brings to the historian’s craft and discipline the background of an accomplished journalist, editor, and poet. The language is limpid and expressive. Unlike some historians, ( Baroud does not commit the crime against history of mistaking objectivity for a cold alienated quality.) He acquaints us early with the fact that his subjects feel love for one another and for their homeland, Palestine. He speaks to us humanely of their humanity, drawing forth our own, without which the Palestinian question and the drama of exile cannot be understood. Nor does he cowardly shy away from political commitment like some historians.

insights. Pappé cites the early 20th century Italian political philosopher and practitioner Antonio Gramsci, an advocate of cultural revolution for socioeconomic change, to the effect that “cultural resistance is either the rehearsal for political resistance or the means employed when political resistance is not possible. I think both possibilities apply to the Palestinian resistance.”

Palestine is at the heart of the soul of every Palestinian, whether in Israel, the Occupied Territories or the diaspora. It is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of everything in the Palestinian heart. Khaled, a refugee

The function of historical memory is to unify the Palestinian resistance as it survives and grows under oppression. Baroud’s practice of “history from below” gives voice to the utterances of “ordinary” working class and dispossessed

raised in the camp of Yarmouk in Syria, knowing his heartland from books and tattered maps, nevertheless identifies intrinsically with his homeland, saying “I am from the village of so and so in Palestine”. The enticingly enigmatic title reflects that Palestine and its satellite realities in the diaspora are the first haven and the last earth of her people.

Palestinians, fusing collective memory into an effective tool of cultural resistance, narrating the past and mapping present ambitions. Given that Israeli oppression has fractured Palestinian political elites and leadership, “resistance…unfolds as individual acts enhanced by a strong solidarity of the collective. The oppression is daily and the time miniscule, and so is the resistance. Small gestures, daily heroism, and survival accumulate into a story of Sumud, steadfastness.” Ultimately, resistance is hope: “Zionism is not a settler colonial project that is going to end with the elimination of the natives. They are here to stay.” Dr David Faber

The book is prefaced by the distinguished Israeli dissident Ilan Pappé, under whom Dr Baroud served his historical apprenticeship at the University of Exeter’s European Centre for Palestinian Studies. The Foreword places the book in historical and historiographical context. Historical perspective generates profound political

The enticingly enigmatic title reflects that Palestine and its satellite realities in the diaspora are the first haven and the last earth of her people.

– On Dit –

REVIEWED THE T-SHIRT

The tee is a fairly standard women’s cut and the fabric has some structure to it so if you’re wanting a tighter look, size down once or twice. This is probably best if you’re looking to layer the tee under dresses or jumpsuits however (like me!) you can still make this work with a roomier fit, just keep in mind the tee won’t sit as flat underneath as you may expect. Taking your regular size will give you a more casual look with some fitted shape in the top. It’s your best option if you plan to wear the tee mostly on its own with denim, etc. But you might like to try some layered looks or if you prefer a bit of room for

The University of Adelaide X The Fifth Label T-shirt in Size M, $24.95 46

a street style vibe with a polished midi skirt and sneakers. If you’re hoping for an oversized style as a super baggy tee or even use as a dress I wish you luck, regardless of your usual size I would suggest the XL. For me the M was boxier than I might usually choose but still nothing oversized feeling as it finishes around my hip, something to look out for in any future drops? I’ll cross my fingers. Stitching rolled up sleeves or even tie-dyeing this piece can be considered. White stitching on white leaves plenty of room for experimentation if you’re game.

– On Dit –

THE SWEATSHIRT Probably my most worn item. A simple grey sweat has a place in every student’s wardrobe and this minimalist design is a great addition no matter your style. Arm length is my number one criteria when deciding on the size of a sweater. Sleeves on the S were a great length for me so if you’re around my height (172cm) or taller I would recommend sizes S and above. I still got a nice slouchy fit in the body too without totally losing all shape. It finishes around my hip so to get any kind of exaggeration for an oversized look I would recommend choosing at least two sizes up from your regular. Tucking the front of this jumper into a lot of my skirts and pants gave a little more polish to the outfit.

Words, Model, Styling: Elenor Jones-Gray Photographer: Wade Whitington

The University of Adelaide X The Fifth Label Jumper in Size S, $64.95. 47

THE TANK First off, I love this choice of fabric, super soft and silky. If I could find the will power to renew my gym membership at the fitness hub I would absolutely wear this to every workout. Much like the tee this tank definitely feels true to size – by no means fitted but stopping short of oversized. If you’re wanting to really exaggerate the fit for a tight or super baggy look I would recommend at least one size down or two sizes up from your usual. Because I often dress in a more feminine style I have struggled to embrace the muscle tank in the past, this time I was determined to make the garment work for me for the sake of thorough reviewing. My advice? If you usually stay away from boyish "straight" cuts like this consider turning it into a crop style! I suggest using a crop top you already own and like the length of to give yourself a guide before cracking out the scissors. A lot of my wardrobe is based around a high waisted silhouette so the crop tank is a lot more wearable for me. Cropped I can pair it with almost everything, leaving a raw edge on the fabric keeps the casual feel so high waist denim is my go to here. As a bonus its now uniquely yours, what’s not to love?

The University of Adelaide X The Fifth Label Tank in Size S, $19.95.

Special thanks to the On Dit team and the UofA for letting me test these pieces out! If I’ve left any questions unanswered or you just want to share how you’re styling your new merch, find me on Instagram at @earljgrey. XX

– On Dit –

Turnbull’s reasons for rejecting an Indigenous Voice to Parliament are unconvincing and politically motivated Words by Ali Amin Artwork by Rakkamon Sanguansri

Introduction After a decade of debate, constitutional change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people remains unfinished business.

a referendum."1 This rejection sent shockwaves through the Indigenous community and left many in awe over the fact that Turnbull had rejected the recommendation of the very body he set up to advise him on the best route forward.

To satisfy the growing desire for rights and recognition, the "Referendum Council" was formed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten in December 2015. The Referendum Council was tasked to advise the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the next steps towards a successful referendum to recognise Indigenous people in the Constitution.

Australians should know the facts of the Turnbull government’s despicable rejection of the Referendum Council’s report on constitutional recognition. This government was never interested in listening to Indigenous Australians and I’ll break down Turnbull’s response.

In June 2017, as a result of a comprehensive Indigenous consultation process, the Referendum Council concluded in its final report that the only option for a referendum proposal, that accords with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, is a representative body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations a ‘Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament’ (herein referred to as ‘the Voice’). This body would be empowered to advise Parliament and the Executive on laws and policies in relation to Indigenous affairs. In a succinct media release, the Australian government rejected the Referendum Council’s recommendation (the "recommendation") because it would "inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament", be contrary to the principles of equality and of citizenship, and that it is neither "desirable or capable of winning acceptance in

Evaluating the Government's Response Parliamentary Sovereignty and Third Chamber of Parliament The Turnbull Government’s main concern with the proposal for the establishment of a Constitutional Indigenous advisory body is that it will "inevitably become seen as a third chamber of Parliament", having the power to veto legislation. Under this scenario, the constitutional provision would involve an abdication of legislative power, causing some commentators to fear that it would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the idea that the Commonwealth, within the realm of its jurisdiction and the limits imposed by the Constitution, can freely choose to enact the laws it wants, when it wants, without external interference or any need to seek permission. This is where the concern lies, as

– On Dit – sovereignty is both limited and preserved by the fact that Parliament cannot abdicate the legislative powers conferred upon it to the control of another body. The idea that an Indigenous consultative body would be seen as a third Chamber of Parliament, or as a body in which legislative power had been abdicated, is particularly unconvincing. The Referendum Council makes it clear that the proposed representative body would ‘take its structure from legislation enacted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth.’ 2 Parliament will also determine how it can properly and most usefully discharge its advisory functions. This is important as Parliament may construe an advisory body that does not undermine parliamentary sovereignty. It is not necessary to include a constitutional requirement that notification be given of bills in advance to the body, nor to include a constitutional requirement that the body give advice in relation to a bill before the bill can be passed. Rather, these would arise as there would be a political (but not legal) onus on the government to ensure that the Indigenous advisory body was properly consulted well in advance of the introduction of bills concerning Indigenous matters, so that it can fulfil its constitutional mandate. The recommendation makes it clear that the advisory body will be without legal power to direct parliament and that it is not suggested that the body should have any kind of veto power. Contrary to the Principles of Equality and of Citizenship? Another concern with the recommendation is that the creation of the Voice to Parliament grants a special constitutional privilege that singles out Indigenous people for special treatment. This seems to be contrary to the idea that all Australians should be treated equal under the Constitution, and that no special privileges be given to any group of individuals based on their characteristics.

However, existing democratic political processes pose difficulties for Indigenous people. Although they enjoy full equality in the electoral arena, they are still a very small minority group, and as such have limited electoral influence. This makes the achievement of a political agenda through mainstream electoral politics problematic. Thus, Indigenous people’s survival as unique societies may be threatened by their lack of control over social and cultural development. This is articulated in the recommendation that demands ‘the First Peoples of Australia to speak to the parliament and to the nation about the laws and policies that affect them’3 so that they don’t feel powerless in their own country. The Voice to Parliament can address this issue of powerlessness, but raises a dilemma for liberal democratic governance. A moral case to justify the Voice is that it will rectify past injustice and a persistent democratic fault in Australian society. It would be an acknowledgement of the violation of Indigenous sovereignty and the proceeding involuntary absorption of Indigenous nations into a new political system. In this sense, such a body would not challenge Australian democracy, it would instead realise its ideals whereby Indigenous viewpoints and opinions on policies and laws that affect them are not filtered through bureaucrats or peak bodies, but directly delivered to Parliament. Neither desirable or capable of winning acceptance in a referendum? Historically, Australians have overwhelmingly voted to reject constitutional amendments, to date only 8 out of 44 referenda put before Australians have succeeded. The referendum to adopt the Voice faces four hurdles. The first hurdle is Indigenous support. This has been overcome by the 6 months of consultation conducted and the unanimous support at the

– On Dit – National Constitutional Convention in 2017. The second hurdle is bipartisan support, which Turnbull has rejected. The third hurdle is absolute majority approval in both Houses of Parliament to put a proposal to referendum. 4 Because the Coalition maintains majority in the House of Representatives, and the possibility of special procedure is unclear since there is no defined majority in the Senate, this is not possible. The final hurdle is the approval of the Australian people via a double majority referendum, a condition which may indeed have been met, with polling demonstrating that 60% of Australians support the proposed referendum for a Voice to Parliament. It seems that the Turnbull Government’s rejection of the Indigenous advisory body is the primary obstacle. Furthermore, the Turnbull Government’s counter proposal for the a minimalist recognition model that was included in the failed republic referendum of 1999, is weak. Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson argues that Australians are practical people that will vote “yes” to fix a practical problem, like giving the Commonwealth the power to deliver social services, to address State debts, or to fix the retirement age of judges, but they have never voted “yes” just to insert a symbolic statement. This can be demonstrated by the comparison of the ‘practical’ 1967 referendum, which gave the Commonwealth the power to deal with Indigenous affairs, winning over 90% of the vote, and the defeated 1999

Conclusion The Government’s response to the Referendum Council’s Report on constitutional recognition seems generally unconvincing, and as Noel Pearson argues, was likely due to Turnbull being unable to find and prosecute a political solution to get his government on board.5 Contrary to what the Government argues, self-determination cannot be achieved through a purely minimalist model. Even if such a change may be politically achievable and receive broader support, it will not satisfy the wishes of Australia’s Indigenous people. Why have a referendum to achieve change unless it is significant and wanted? The Voice is both significant and wanted and will not merely be a rhetorical version of self-determination that will maintain the status quo, but a form of living recognition that deserves consideration.

referendum which attempted to insert a new preamble into the Constitution, recognising Indigenous peoples.

Williams and Hume explain: “Proposals to change Australia’s Constitution are often made, but very few are ever put to the people

at a referendum. One bottleneck has been the difficulty of first securing the support of the federal Parliament.” There have been 137 constitutional reform bills introduced, but only 44 have been put to referendum: George Williams and David Hume, People Power: the History and Future of the Referendum in Australia (UNSW Press, 2010) 89. 5.

Betrayal | Noel Pearson (2018) The Monthly <https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2017/december/1512046800/noel-pearson/betrayal>.

– On Dit – Words by Ashleigh Trenwith

PROCRASTINATION STATION Picture this: It’s the first week of the University semester and you’re going in more motivated than ever. “This is my year” you keep telling yourself. “This is the year I finally kick procrastination up the arse and start all of my assignments the SECOND I get them.” First assignment comes around: “Well, it’s not due for a while. It’ll be okay if I just wait a week.” A week goes by. “Well, I’ve still got over a week to work on that assignment. Plenty of time.” The week the assignment’s due rolls around. “You know, 1,500 words isn’t that much. I can easily smash that out in two days. No problem.” It is now nearing midnight the night before the assignment’s due. You are on your fifth coffee/red bull/insert caffeinated beverage of choice, staring hopelessly at the blinking cursor on the Word Document containing your barely half-finished assignment. Anxiety is eating you alive as you try desperately not to fall asleep on your keyboard. You are wondering where the hell those three weeks you had to work on this assignment went and even more-so, wondering why, oh why, you continue to do this to yourself. Every. Single. Time. You are beginning to do calculations in your head, trying to figure out if a late penalty will really be that detrimental.

“Next assignment will be different”, you vow to yourself. Annnndd repeat. Sound familiar? I should know. Now in my third year of University study, I still sometimes (okay, a lot of the time) find myself in this exact situation. However, I have found some methods that tend to work for me on the rare occasion I decide to be a productive member of society:

Identify your biggest distraction and eliminate it or move it really, really far away. What is your biggest distraction? What are you doing most of the time when you’re procrastinating? For this paragraph, I will use my personal distraction as an example: my phone. I would get home from uni, determined to finally do some work. I’m pumped. I’m reciting motivational mantras to myself. And then — ding. I look over. “Ooh, a Twitter notification, let me just check that real quick. It’ll only take a few seconds...” I proceed to open my Twitter app and I find myself scrolling as if by reflex. “ooh, a Buzzfeed article. That is so pointless, yet so intriguingly titled. I must read.” Fast forward two hours later where I’m now intently reading an article detailing what Kim Kardashian’s trash cans look like (Louis Vuitton themed, FYI) and wondering how the hell I got here. Now, what is my solution to this? If you’re a phone junkie like me, you can probably guess exactly what I’m about to say and are already shaking your head in dread. For me, I begin with deleting the apps that are the biggest distraction. If I still find myself glancing at my phone after that, I will *GASP* *SHOCK*HOR-

– On Dit –

ROR* completely turn my phone off. If I still find myself reaching for the phone, I take it and put it somewhere that is a distance away, either across the room or in a different room: somewhere where I’m going to have to get up and walk to get my phone if I want to use it. I feel like this step works especially well because any mobile junkie will tell you that half the time, you don’t even notice when you’re mindlessly scrolling, it just kind of happens. But I find that if I don’t have my phone right next to me, it makes me a lot more aware when I’m trying to do this and it’s a lot easier to catch myself and get my mind back to where it’s meant to be — on my work.

Make lists Cliché, I know but clichés are clichés for a reason: they WORK. This step I find particularly helpful when everything in my life just seems to pile on at once. On top of uni work, I also have sports and work and I’m also in third year so I should really start thinking about my career. When all this starts coming at me at once, it’s near impossible to not feel overwhelmed. When I have days like this, I like to make a list of everything I want to get accom-

Reward yourself Work doesn’t have to be all boring, what I find helps when I’m aiming for significant achievements, for example, getting a high distinction on a big assignment is telling myself something that I can reward myself with if I achieve this. This something can be as little or as big as you wish, just make sure that it is something that you will want to work for and commit to working towards. Not only will this motivate you to get your crap together and start working harder sooner, it will also feel pretty damn awesome when you achieve it. So those were a few of the tips that I find are effective for me when I wish to be productive. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I really must email this article off to On Dit, seeing as it’s due in less than 2 hours and all. Haha. Irony. Maybe I should’ve made a list today.

plished that day, with the most important things at the top and including less strenuous things such as watching an episode of a TV series, etc. I find if a list includes things I want to do and not just things I need to do, it motivates me more to do the important things because I know that the sooner I do those things, the sooner I can allow myself to do something that is more indulgent. Making a list also helps put things in perspective so it’s right in front of you: what needs to be done instead of getting all mixed up in your head and making you more anxious.

â&#x20AC;&#x201C; On Dit â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

Legacy of the Iraq war Words by Apoorv Jaiswal

March 20 marked 15 years since the start of the Iraq invasion. 15 years since the US and its coalition of murderous countries brought death and destruction to Iraq. The day that marked an event that left more than a million Iraqis dead, four million displaced, and many thousands tortured, went by without much notice in the West. None of the ruling establishment figures called for silence to mourn those dead. Meanwhile, the effects of the war and the devastation it caused continues to this day, especially since the US and its warmongering allies(including Australia, who currently have 780 personnel deployed in Iraq, and have spent $1,254 million since 2014) got involved in the conflict again in 2014, with the civil war in Iraq still ingoing. The current crisis within the nation is the result of perpetual imperialist invasions. We need to mount opposition to the war, as millions did in 2003. The opposition to the Iraq war was arguably one of the biggest anti-war mobilisations the world had seen. News of the war resulted in voices against it to erupt all around the world even before the invasion began. The month prior to it, a weekend of protests was attended by as many as 30 million people in more than 60 countries In Australia, pretty much every city took part in the protests. Melbourne and Sydney led the charge, drawing 250,000 and 500,000 respectively. But this was nothing compared to the biggest turnouts in Europe. 2 million in London, 1 million in Madrid and Barcelona each, and 3 million in Rome. 56

These people saw through the lies of their rulers, who constantly went on about weapons of mass destruction harboured by an evil dictator, needing to get rid of terrorism, and similar justifications we see today for wars and invasions. But as we know far too well today, the Iraq war went ahead anyway, despite this mass global anti-war sentiment. These protests, however large, did not compel the US ruling class to end, or even halt its project of domination in the Middle East. This was also part of its long term orientation of maintaining its position at the top of the imperialist world order. It was a clear example of how the government has the interests of the minority at the top of society, even if their militarist and racist policies are hugely unpopular with the mass of their population. For people that thought they could stop the war, this was reason to reject protest politics. But no one live in a true democracy, certainly not in the US. This experience showed the need to go beyond protest and have a sustained and militant campaign. There needed to be mass opposition within the army ranks, as was in Vietnam. Apart from the valiant struggle of the Vietnamese themselves, which completely undermined US military strength and ambitions, there was immense rejection by Americans, both at home and those in service. The images of thousands of workers and students coming out on the streets to oppose the war are known to most people. But the struggle of the soldiers is what really ended the myth of war being a national interest.

– On Dit –

As early as 1965, when Richard Steinke refused to board an aircraft taking him to Vietnam, we have seen an anti-war sentiment develop among the GIs. GI, or General Intake, is the label assigned to volunteers and other people drafted from low income backgrounds. Tired of being ordered around by a boss back at home, having a general that sends you off to die is at least as hateable if you’re working class. It can have the same effect of generating solidarity with other GIs, realising that the generals and other higher ups don’t risk themselves, and use the soldiers for their own interests. There was also solidarity with the Vietnamese. Many Black, Hispanic and Puerto Rican soldiers saw that the country that they were told to defend was the same place where the government enacts abuse and violence on their people, and now were subjecting the Vietnamese to the same torture. And when they went back home, there wasn’t glory and fame that awaited them, but the same racism and prejudice. Unfortunately, in the Iraq war, Islamophobia went unchallenged, and still afflicts most personnel today.

Workers at the protests needed to harness their industrial power through striking, an action which will strike at the profit motive behind the system that produced the war. One example we can look to is the Irish anti-Iraq war movement. In February 2003, in the wake of the initial invasion, they called anti-war demonstration in all major cities, following a work stoppage at midday. Their intention was to pressure the government to change its policy and withdraw from the war effort. This sentiment cannot be undermined because, even though the US boasts the world’s largest military, it cannot mount an invasion of the scale of Iraq without its allies. Unfortunately, the work stoppages didn’t sustain themselves into prolonged strikes, but the beginnings of such a movement were observed. Those in power do not listen to us unless they are forced to do so. And we still have that power to stop wars.

Resistance in the ranks happened in many different ways. From refusing to go on missions to desertion, from threatening to kill their commanding officers to setting up “coffeehouses” and other places to socialise and organise, the soldiers severely undermined the war effort. In the Iraq war, while there were signs of discontent in small organisations like Iraq Veterans against the war, there was no widespread mutiny amongst the army abroad. 57

– On Dit –

Moon Hair Words by Odetta Maxwell

I stare at the scar on my eyebrow as my scalp begins to itch. That little hairless patch would never heal, a permanent reminder of the heavy hand, the broken glass. The fluorescent lights of the bathroom illuminate every detail of my pale, pointed face. The grimy walls of the bathroom omit a stench of blue cheese and musty rugs. My apartment is moist and uncomfortable, my only place of refuge. I am an escapee, living week by week, a shadow of my previous self. I realise my shoulders barely reach the reflection of the mirror, my petite, bird-like frame becomes evident; it seemed so easy to pick me up and put me down, like a paper weight. It has been hours, my hair still isn't white. I want the colour removed from it. I want it white like the moon on a still winter’s night. Stark and colourless, like the line on my eyebrow. He loved my black waves, the way they contrasted with my pale skin and red lips, the way it reflected the sunlight in the moments he gave me. My hair represents so much of my identity, my history, my innocence and youth. The black strands, the instruments he used to control me. One swift, calculated move and I bent to his whim. He held me for months, under the weight of his dark and watchful eye. He wanted me to face the wall, so I faced the wall, he wanted me to cry so I cried. For months, my only salvation was the view of the sky from the barred window. He

marked me in a faint, almost unrecognisable way. For this, I hack all but three inches of hair from my head. The horrors kept at bay with a pair of scissors and a bottle. The thick, purple peroxide runs from my hair to the drain as I sit beneath a stream of warm water. As my eyes remain shut, images of the past encapsulate me. I once knew calmness, I could once close my eyes and the world would drift away. I could sleep for hours, I didn't know terror. Now, I only see the basement with broken floor boards, the cracks in the ceiling, the waft of smoke, the burning cigarette on the thigh. I may never sleep through the night again. At minutes past dawn, I have spent hours, bleaching and cutting my hair. I hear my pulse. The phone they gave me sits next to the gun on the night stand. In three hours I will be interviewed, perhaps I can go back to university but not as her, never as her. She died when he did. I, however, have emerged from the pits of hell, the destination of children’s nightmares, the space where the bad guys go to die and only he awaits me. Maybe the bar will give me a chance. I could visit my closest friend. I’ll be unrecognisable, a warrior with white moon hair. What do you think? Is it my colour?

– On Dit –

A Review by Odetta Maxwell

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri Content warning: rape, racism, suicide and violence Driven by anger and the winner of multiple Academy Awards, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is one of the most polarised and talked about films of 2018. Directed by Martin McDonagh, the film aims to expose the worst parts of our world by making us as furious and jaded as the characters we explore. It is pitch black, featuring a racist cop (Deputy Dixon) who has nothing to say for his actions but “you’re not supposed to say I tortured n*ggers, you’re supposed to say I tortured people of colour!” The delivery of these off-kilter lines is a shock to the system, seeing-as you would never expect to hear such ignorant and violent words. What is most outrageous about this film is that it appears to try and make this cop a redeemable character in its final moments, all because he decides to inflict violence on another, arguably more despicable character. We are also expected to sympathise with Mildred Hayes, (Frances McDormand) the mother of a rape and murder victim, despite the fact she petrol bombs a police station and drills a hole through someone’s hand.

him. Evidently, Dixon’s job is his only escape from his grief and anger so this could be argued as the ultimate retribution. In this moment we see a hint of redemption in him, albeit because of the violent nature of these characters.

The audience is also forced to watch Dixon’s (Sam Rockwell) violent, grief-stricken outburst. He throws the billboard manager out of a second story window after hearing of Willoughby’s (Woody Harrelson) suicide. This scene puts the audience in Dixon’s position as the camera shoots from behind him. It is uncomfortable and tear inducing, forcing us to face the violence that exists in our society. This violence is said to be caused by his grief and anger but it is unjustifiable and after this escapade, we are still asked to accept him. Dixon is eventually burnt and permanently scarred so we do see some consequence but it is merely the result of Mildred’s own violent outburst. Three Billboards takes misplaced anger and violence and asks us whether or not these actions can be justified. In retaliation to Dixon’s horrendous outburst and Willoughby’s suicide, black chief Clarke Peters (Abercrombie) fires

about another issue. The violence throughout the film forces us to decide whether any of it will actually make a difference: If Mildred fire bombs a police station and Dixon decides to beat a rapist does that absolve them of their unthinkable actions or simply move the anger and issues to someone else? I believe this was McDonagh’s point. Violence will never solve the issues in our society but the actions of these characters incites rage from us and this makes us consider whether any of it was ever justifiable.

In the closing moments of the film, Dixon discovers a man guilty of rape. Dixon and Mildred take off, placing their guns in the trunk of their car, stating they’ll decide what they do when they find him. This final act of violence and retribution brings this uncomfortable film to a close. In line with its unpredictable nature, we are never given justice for Mildred’s daughter, but the point is driven home. The buck will always stop somewhere so let it be someone deserving of the misplaced anger. The film definitely had its issues, in featuring an unapologetic racist who is conveyed as partially redeemable because he decides to maybe kill a rapist in the last scene. It makes you wonder whether or not a person can truly be absolved of their wrongdoings simply by changing their mind

Three Billboards seems to scream that now is a time of upheaval and true action. It mirrors our world and the political climate we live in. So, I would recommend viewing it, simply to decide the rights and wrongs for yourself. Personally, I cannot hate the film, only the things it forces me to think about. 59

IVES E ARCH H T M O FR 1.1 (2013) ISSUE 8

K BY ARTWOR IAMS WILL LAUREN

*This offer is only valid at The Fitness Hub North Terrace campus. See auu.org.au/fitnesshub for Roseworthy and Waite campus offers.