CANTA #10 2020

ELECTIONS Rahina, iwa o Mahuru

POOTI

ISSUE #10

SEPTEMBER 2020

DON’T BE THAT GUY

CONTENTS EDITORIAL

CONTRIBUTORS 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. NEWS

Here’s a thought...the voting age should be lowered to 16.

It is the young who will inherit the future that the government of the day paves with the decisions they make and the laws and policies they create. Yet, a huge proportion of the “young” are currently prevented from sharing their views on how the foundation of their future will be built. The ability to take part in politics and vote is a key human right, yet we restrict a huge proportion of our population from expressing this right. And for what reason?

When you begin to look into the purpose of the voting age being 18, it does not make much sense. The age of 18 was chosen as a purely procedural number, but when it is applied to being able to vote in the general elections, it becomes an arbitrary number that just happens to reflect some of the other age limits in our society like being able to purchase alcohol. The so called “age of maturity,” has consistently been lowered. In the beginning of the 19th century it stood at 21, then in the 1960’s it was lowered to 20, and then finally in the 1970’s it was lowered to 18.

Is the age at 18 because we believe that young people aren’t capable of making important political decisions, so they shouldn’t be able to vote? Those who argue against lowering the voting age to 16 hold that young people are not informed enough and are too immature.

They claim that young people could be too influenced by their older peers on voting decisions. These claims are extremely contentious, especially when you see the arguments of the 16-year-olds who are arguing for their right to vote. The arguments they present are well thought out and are very mature.

would hopefully increase voter turnout which would in turn mean the chosen government would be an even closer reflection of the New Zealand population. A group advocating to lower the voting age, called “Make it 16,” have recently taken their fight to the courts. The group is asking the court to make a formal declaration that the current voting age is actually unjustified age discrimination, inconsistent with section 19 of NZ’s Bill of Rights Act. If this declaration was granted, it would give the group even more political leverage to argue that the current voting age laws be reformed.

There is proof of the positive benefits of lowering the voting age. For example, in 2008, Austria lowered the voting age of its citizens to 16.

This action lead to an increase in participation. During the Scottish independence referendum, 16 and 17-year-olds were also given the opportunity to vote, with 75% of their age cohort engaging and taking part. This is clear evidence that when the age is lowered, the youth engage and are eager to share their views. If they are willing to get involved, then why should we restrict that? Participation is essential to a working democracy. Those who are 16 and 17 are governed by the same laws as 18-year-olds and above, so they should surely have a say on these laws also. Furthermore, young people are already paying taxes and should be able to take responsibility and share their perspectives on where their taxes should be going.

Young people are consistently told that they are the ones who will strive forward and solve society’s current problems, providing hope for the future. Yet their voice is greatly under-represented in politics.

Lowering the voting age to 16 would be a way to provide a platform to alleviate their voice, their ideas, their innovations, their dreams, Surely lowering the voting age would encourage more young people hopes and plans. to become interested and active in learning about politics. Promoting engagement with politics from a young age through lowering the Since we all luckily have the right to vote – don’t forget to do so! You voting age to 16 would see a clear increase in political involvement can vote from the 3rd of October to the 17th (meaning you can still as these young people grow up into adults. They would be building boogie it out all day at Tea Party) a habit of voting which would continue into adulthood. This in itself

8. BROKEN NEWS 10.CONVOS WITH CHLOE ABOUT CANNABIS 12.THE HOT AIR IN CANNIBIS POLOTICS 14. A CULTURE OF LIFE OR DEATH? 16. BLOWJOB LESSONS 18. HEROES OF NEW ZEALAND: HELEN CLARK 20: DEBUNKING THE VOTING RIGHTS 22. COLUMNS 30. KNOW YOU CANDIDATES 34. UNDERSTANDING THE ELEPHANT(S) IN THE ROOM FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS: REFERENDUMS 36. ENTERTAINMENT 38. CLUB NOTICEBOARD 42. FLAT FAMOUS 44. DEBUNKING THE VOTING MYTHS 48. LUCKY DIP 50. DRAW YOU PRESIDENT/HOROSCOPE

Samantha Mythen Roshanah Masilamani Connor Wetdewich Ryan Amer Talisker Scott Hunter Kate Soufflot Josh Liddle Lewis Hoban Law for Change Rose Bayldon Gene Shaw Josiah Morgan Sarah Eynon Dr. Sriparna Saha Serena Grace Estelle Miller Java Katzur Lily Mirfin Romy Gellen George Hampton Michael Freeman Ella Somers Beth Walters Reverend Spanky Moore Liam Donnelly

2

3

Upcoming Events 9

9

10

11

Tunesoc: Cosy Night Out 19:00 @ Haere-roa

11

BO and the Constrictors LIVE 21:00 @ The Darkroom

11

12

12

16

17

17

18

UC Connect: Dope or Nope?

19:00 @ Ngaio Marsh Theatre

Spring Festival Market 9:00 @ CHCH Farmers Market

Clothes Swap Party 11:00 @ Undercroft 101

4

Credit: Connor Wetdewich

Silent Disco 22:00 @ Fat Eddies

The Big Late Show 22:00 @ Good Times Comedy Club

GCC: See Me Live 2020 17:00 @ John Britten Building

CRIMSOC x TP x WIL Quiz Night 18:00 @ The Old Vicarage

UCASS 3v3 Basketball Tournament 16:00 @ Haere-roa

BECA/ENSOC Quiz Night 18:00 @ Haere-roa

Mental Health Cocktail Night (Fundraiser) 19:00 @ The Last Word

5

2021 EXECUTIVE PLEDGES MORE OPEN UCSA

MORE UCSA NOTICEBOARD DRAMA

By Romy Gellen

By Romy Gellen

Kim Fowler will take the reins of the UCSA in 2021 after a sweeping victory.

The President-elect is keen to create positive initiatives when she takes on the role next year.

“The big change I really want to see is advocacy for students at all levels,” she says.

“Not just standing up to UC, but to do so more strongly.

“We’ll also be looking at local government things like bus fares and working with NZUSA in terms of the student allowance.

“I’m looking forward to making a bit of change. I hope students can be more satisfied with a UCSA that tells them a bit more what’s going on,” she says.

“What frustrates me so much is seeing students dissatisfied and confused.”

Fowler, who won by more than 700 votes, wants to break things down so that they are more accessible for students.

“Things like financial transparency, executive meeting transparency,” she explains.

“We’re looking into initiatives like posting an Instagram story after the meeting explaining what went down instead of publishing minutes on the website that nobody reads.”

Meanwhile, Fowler does not believe much will change in terms of the UCSA’s approach to COVID-19.

However, she will “evaluate the situation at the time and start from there”.

“Putting students first is the key of it, but you do that anyway,” she says.

For incoming Finance and Engagement Officer Henry Wynn-Williams, it is important that students “feel like they have a clear idea of the day-to-day running of the UCSA”.

“Transparency and ensuring that every exec member is being held accountable to the students who voted them in is essential,” Wynn-Williams says.

“Most of my time will be spent working with the other exec members, helping them with their portfolios and increasing the UCSA’s engagement with UC students.”

Wynn-Williams is excited that “for the first time in years, the top three positions will be occupied by people who did not run together”.

“I think this is important for diversity of ideas and will allow us to be franker and more honest with each other.”

This year, UC again has the highest tertiary institution voter turnout in Australasia.

In the lead-up to the UCSA elections, discussion on the UCSA Noticeboard – reaching up to 20,000 students – took another volatile turn.

A post urging students not to vote for Henry Wynn-Williams in the upcoming UCSA elections quickly brought a very angry rebuke.

The post was removed just 30 minutes after first appearing on Facebook.

A student initially called on fellow students “to not vote for Henry Wynn-Williams unless you’re comfortable electing the person who started the petition to get Henry Holderness his job back”.

In reply, a comment on the post read: “Get a life you ugly bitch.”

This provoked a torrent of responses suggesting the comment had no place on the noticeboard.

When approached about the issue, Wynn-Williams said he was “very hurt, humiliated and upset” by the original post.

“I have never tried to hide away from what happened last year,” he says.

“Starting that petition is one of the proudest moments [of] my time at UC. I stood up to the university and stood by my lecturer and friend against an injustice done to him.”

Wynn-Williams says that the person making the original post “does not know the facts of the case and the people involved”.

“I understand that I was running for an elected position and that criticism is something that goes with the job. However, I believe that this crossed the line.”

The person responsible for the derogatory comment later posted: “Sorry for my comments on the previous post. I’ve been drinking today.”

This comment was subsequently removed.

UCSA 2021 Executive results: UCSA President: Kim Fowler (38.23%) UCSA Vice-President: Georgie Dibble (44.24%) UCSA Finance and Engagement Officer: Henry Wynn-Williams (34.52%) UCSA Post-Graduate Representative: Bea Holman (54.92%) UCSA International Representative: Matt Wong-Kam (51.55%) UCSA Equity and Wellbeing Representative: Emma Pickup (43.84%) UCSA General Executive: Jess Macdonald, Asher Herrmann, Ashley Gutteridge, Felix Mendonca, Ryan Thomson, Leo He

6

TRANSFORMING THE NEGATIVE ENERGY FROM MARCH 15TH

By Samantha Mythen

After March the 15th, New Zealand was devastated by the loss of 51 members of the Muslim community in Christchurch. Dark clouds of sadness, anger, and maddening sorrow clouded many people’s minds. Bariz Shah, a Afghan refugee who calls Christchurch home, and his wife, Saba Afrasyabi, decided to use this negative energy as fuel for positive change.

Bariz came to New Zealand when he was six years old . He is currently in his final semester of a Civil Engineering Degree and a Diploma in Global Humanitarian Engineering. For the past three years, Bariz has been getting involved with community work, especially focused on helping young people of Muslim faith. Since March the 15, his involvement has only increased.

“Energy cannot be created or destroyed. However it can transform from one form to another. If we know that, we can use all of the negative energy around us to our own advantage. We just have to become transformers,” Bariz said.

It has been a journey to where Bariz has found himself today.

In 2o12, Bariz was struggling with mental health, and he had dropped out of high school. As a result of this, he decided to travel back to Afghanistan to take a break from where he was at. During the four months he spent there, he met many young people, even as young as 6, who were working while studying at school.

“The stories they told inspired me and challenged me to stop seeing myself as a victim of not being understood here in New Zealand,” Bariz said.

In late 2019, Bariz and Saba travelled to Afghanistan to help establish 51 microbusinesses, in honour of the 51 people who had lost their lives in March. This was a “trip of a lifetime” he said.

Bariz had previously had conversations of how he could help and serve people in Afghanistan, but the events on March 15th, prompted him to realise it was “now or never; our actions now will define who we will be for the rest of our lives.”

“After two weeks of feeling very down and depressed, we actually said no, this is what we are going to do. These are the actions that we are going to take because this is who we are,” he said.

They filmed their journey and the footage is now being edited into a feature film, Fiftyone, which they are hoping to take around the country and show to high schools. The documentary would be paired with workshops to help young people gain a greater perspective on the world.

Bariz said, “Our aim with the workshops is to encourage young people to think as global citizens, to think outside of themselves and their own circle and to see and grasp the opportunities that surround them in New Zealand.”

“We want to inspire you to understand that you don’t have to have a whole lot of experience or funding behind you to carry out change. We chose to do microbusinesses because we want to prove to the youth that with $392 you can change a family’s life completely. There are so many possibilities to make great change with little effort,” he said.

From this, Bariz decided he wanted to dedicate his life to serving people.

“Doing projects like this, going on the ground and seeing the impact firsthand is so important and the true essence to me of serving people. The feeling you get when you’re there amongst the people and you see the change happening, it changes you. The more change you create, the more it changes you from within.

That has become my addiction,” he said.

Bariz has recently been nominated as a Westfield Local Hero for 2020. The community votes and the winner receives $10,000. Bariz is hoping to use this award to continue growing the impact that he and Saba have created and spread the message even further with touring their film and holding their youth workshops.

“Our goal was to not only create impact in Afghanistan but bring that impact back here into New Zealand and share it with the youth and actually inspire our youth to take advantage of the opportunities that they have,” Bariz said.

You can vote until the 15th of September by heading to the Westfield Riccarton website.

7

BROKEN NEWS

By Liam Donnelly

Election Commission to set up Voting Booth at Tea Party The fact that Tea Party coincides with the day of the New Zealand election has not gone unnoticed by the Electoral Commission.

Announced this week, the Electoral Commission has decided the most appropriate course of action would be to establish a voting booth within the Tea Party venue.

“It’s important that these students exercise their democratic rights, even if they are gurning their faces off” said an Electoral Commission spokesperson.

The decision was made after it was observed that even with a 2-week window for advanced voting, students were unlikely to be that well organised.

Government to Establish New COVID-19 Response Level in Honour of Tea Party.

“In the very likely event that we are still implementing the COVID-19 response levels at that time, New Zealand will shift to ‘Level Tea’ in honour of the nation’s favourite event, Tea Party.”

Level Tea is expected to be much like the ‘Level Two’ response level, with the exception of anything happening in the vicinity of Haere-roa, which is exempt of any rules whatsoever.

UC to Start Fracking Now That It Isn’t Burning Coal The University of Canterbury has announced that it will begin to phase out coal burning in a concerted effort to become more environmentally friendly.

To combat the issues arising from less coal burning, the University has decided to adopt the cooler, and environmentally friendly, technique of fracking.

New Zealand will shift to a newly established ‘Level Tea’ for 6 and a half hours on October 17th in honour of the hotly anticipated Tea Party.

“With all the natural oil and gas we’ll find under the earth below the campus, we’ll be able to continue as normal, yay to being environmentally considerate!” Said a UC Spokesperson.

Director-General Ashley Bloomfield announced in a press conference last week that from 10:30am until 5:00pm on October 17th New Zealand will shift to ‘Level Tea’.

It was decided that the University Book Store would be demolished to make way for the fracking equipment, because no one bought books anymore anyway.

Want to get paid $5,000 to work on your own business or social enterprise?

Summer Startup Programme 2020/21

Applications now open!

Applications close 15 September 5pm

8

Head to our website for more information and to apply

www.canterbury.ac.nz/uce

THE LINGERING INFLUENCE OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE IN AFRICA

By Michael Freeman

The Communauté Financière d’Afrique franc (CFA franc) is a destructive, dangerous remnant of the French colonial empire. To this day, it remains a major method of economic control that France asserts over her former colonies. This currency system ties 14 independent economies in West and North Africa, hereby referred to as member nations, to that of their old colonial overlord, stifling growth and directly affecting almost 150 million people.

The CFA franc currently refers to two separate currencies, the Central African CFA franc and the West African CFA franc, with each of them being essentially interchangeable and both having their values pegged to that of the Euro. The French government guarantees the currency, has the ability to print it, and requires member states follow strict rules that can negatively affect their economies. The most important of these rules is that 50% of all foreign currency reserves that a member state has must be held by the French treasury.

This potential control over a large share of such an important asset gives the French government leverage over a member countries’ international policy and directly erodes the ability of a member nation to make sovereign decisions. Not having the ability to adjust interest rates in response to events within the union, and having the currency’s value pegged to the Euro are both highly detrimental. States choose to adjust interest rates of their currency to affect inflation, and keep their economy strong. Members of the CFA franc are restricted from doing this; they are at the mercy of European financial policy, which is implemented with little regard for the effects it will have on the member nations. The CFA franc is a remnant of colonial-era monetary control and to understand why it still exists today it is important to know its history.

The CFA franc original stood for ‘franc of the French colonies of Africa’. It was created in 1945 for the then French colonies, in Northern and Western Africa. The French government could set the exchange rate of this new currency and did so, highly overvaluing it in an effort to encourage purchases of goods from mainland France and make trade with the rest of the international community harder for the colonies. As the central French government controlled the issuing of the CFA franc, it could also effectively buy from the colonies for free by issuing more money to fund such purchases.

While this system was inherently unfavourable to the African colonies, this was not a unique or new idea as other colonial empires had this strategy to control the economies of their overseas territories for decades. What sets the CFA franc apart from these other currencies is the fact that it survived the global decolonisation process of the 1950s. Through coercion, threats, and sometimes violence, the French government forced their former colonies to accept harsh economic treaties and the continuation of the CFA franc, renamed to what it stands for today. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, there were many attempts by newly independent African nations to leave the CFA franc, most of which were stopped by dishonest actions of the French government.

After Guinea tried to leave the CFA franc and create a national currency in 1960, the French government secretly printed large amounts of the new currency and flooded it into the country, ruining their economy. The assassinations of progressive African leaders, Sylvanus Olympio and Thomas Sankara, in 1963 and 1987 respectively, are also thought to be the work of the French government in order to maintain the status quo of the CFA franc, as they had plans to move their countries to national currencies.

Today, France still has a large sway in Africa. They station troops and conduct military operations with relative impunity, and are still a significant trading partner for many of the nations that use the CFA franc. Firstly, these relationships are a result of first the subjection and conquering of these nations, and secondly of the unjust methods France used to decolonise, something which they, like many European powers, were not happy to do. The French government claims the CFA franc provides financial stability to the nations that use it, but in reality, it gives them a form of control over nations which should have been given full independence. In the past few years African leaders have been calling for reform. Whilst it appears the French government has been receptive, with her track record and current events, who knows when it will actually happen. What is clear is that reform is needed to end this control that France exerts over these African nations so that the stain of colonialism can be cleaned from the world once and for all.

9

CONVOS WITH CHLOE ABOUT CANNABIS

By Samantha Mythen

Chloe Swarbrick, a 26-year-old politician and member of the Green Party, is taking the lead in advocating for you to say YES to the upcoming referendum on whether to legalise the sale, use, production and possession of cannabis. We chatted recently about her WHY. Working as a politician who argues loudly on such controversial issues is something which takes a great amount of courage and a strong backbone. Chloe mentioned she knows of many fellow politicians who agree with her stance on cannabis yet they do not speak out, “unwilling to sacrifice what they perceive as their career in order to do the right thing.” Chloe said that this is “an absolutely glaring and awful indictment on the current state of politics.” She has chosen to instead act with her heart on the sleeve, championing what she believes is right and what works.

Chloe first wanted to point out that the conversation we should be having surrounding cannabis, is not about the substance itself, but what is the best possible regulatory regime to approach cannabis.

“Everyone wants to have these conversations about how harmful these drugs are, but nobody seems to be willing to have the discussion about how we can best minimise that harm to in turn increase community wellbeing,” she said.

Of all the illicit substances consumed in New Zealand, cannabis is the most widely used. In fact, around 80% of the population will have tried cannabis by the time they are 20 years old. No other illegal substance comes close to matching this statistic.

Chloe noted that it’s wide use consequently has led to a wide range of issues. Firstly, she said that there is no strictly applied rule of law for how the criminalisation of possession, use and sale of cannabis is applied. From that 80% statistic, we should be seeing 80% of New Zealanders holding a cannabis conviction, but obviously this is not the case meaning there are clear discrepancies in how the law is applied.

For example, Chloe said that around 1,300 Maori people are convicted each year for lower-level cannabis offences.

The implications of having a cannabis conviction are wide ranging.

They impede one’s ability to travel, as well as one’s potential to get a job, apply for scholarships and receive higher education.

Because of these discrepancies and implications of convictions, Chloe argued it is clear that complete prohibition is simply not working for cannabis. The 150 page document of draft law she has been working on for the past two and a half years, with the help of the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, is the result of Chloe hoping to devise a better way to reduce cannabis harm.

10

In response to those who argue that legalising cannabis will open the floodgates for the legalisation of other substances and instead strongly argue for continued prohibition, Chloe said, “that argument is regularly raised as a red herring to obfuscate the debate.” She believes that there are “far better legal approaches,” which should be applied to most illegal substances. Chloe said, “Prohibitionists are unwilling to engage in the discussion about how you can better regulate all substances.”

Chloe has also been working to reform the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

She helped to amend section seven which originally penalised people for usage. Now when police want to prosecute someone for holding a small amount of substance on them, they have to prove that it is in the public interest to prosecute and that the person would not benefit from a therapeutic approach.

She has been focusing much of her attention recently on section 12, working with the likes of drug testing organisation Know Your Stuff.

This section stands as a massive impediment to drug checking services; it criminalises anyone who allows their premises to be used for drug use. Festivals and event hosts have been wary to allow essential drug checking services at their events, afraid of breaching the act.

In New South Wales, Australia, laws equivalent to section 12 have directly lead to the deaths of approximately a dozen young people, all because festival promoters were not able to host drug checking services on their premises.

Contributor questions: Do you think psilocybin should be a glass A substance when it fails to tick the three boxes required - (It’s non-toxic, non-addictive, and has massive medical potential)?

Chloe has been involved with New Zealand’s first modern trials investigating the medical potential of psilocybin, having helped researchers from the University of Auckland receive ethics approval from the Ministry of Health. She traced psilocybin’s current illegality to the war of drugs, where an “ad hoc kind of mythology was poured down people’s throats to the extent we have not been able to build an evidence base which is actually reflective of where modern day medicine should be.”

“I can say very frankly that if you trace the history of the war on drugs, the rationale behind the way that we have chosen to make some substances illicit and to regulate others, is primarily a matter of moral panic,” Chloe said.

She brought up Richard Nixon, one of the leading figureheads behind the war on drugs rhetoric. This “war” led to a United Nations agreement which criminalises the people who use substances rather than the substances themselves. In the early 2000s, a prior advisor to Nixon

came forward and confessed that arguments for criminalising most drugs were primarily used to incite anger against those who were involved in the civil rights movement and who were protesting against America’s involvement in the Vietnam war.

Chloe pointed out that one of the most harmful substances to man - as indicated by the World Health Organisation - alcohol, is not regulated in the beneficial ways that it should be. She said, “Ironically, the kind of proposal that I’m putting forward for cannabis is something I would love to be applied to alcohol. If we were to remove the sponsorship and advertising for alcohol, we would massively reduce the normalisation and glamourisation of that substance.”

Is using drugs a moral failing on the user?

In response to this contributor question, Chloe firstly said, “I think that you will find it really hard to find one human being who is of adult age and has never used a drug. That is, if you are to define what drugs are as a mind altering or body state altering substance. Different drugs can also include the pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco which we regulate, and obviously there is an even higher likelihood that most adults have used those. Then there are every day drugs, like sugar and caffeine. If we are to genuinely talk about reducing harm, you can apply different levels of regulation to any given substance.”

Chloe pointed up arguments that will often come up when discussing the referendum: “there’s the reality that if you simply decriminalise people who use the substance, you still have massive problems with the supply side of things. And actually, arguably, if you only decriminalize, you then create a perverse incentive for continued exploitation of particularly vulnerable communities to make a quick buck from the black market.” In response to those arguments, Chloe said - to avoid the latter issues happening, you have to take control of the supply chain and you do that through regulation. “What we’re talking about here is not about whether we endorse or support a substance, we’re talking about the best way to approach that substance.”

At the end of the day, “cannabis exists, the referendum does not invent cannabis, it simply creates control for a market that presently is the most harmful of all available realities,” she said. So make sure you express your views in the upcoming cannabis referendum.

In response to the arguments of morality, she said, it shouldn’t come into play when comparing people who are choosing to use illicit drugs compared to legal ones - when there can be no fine line drawn between them, all having the ability to be abused in some way.

She brought up those who argue for prohibition again and said that they “really need to reflect on the fact that they have never been criminalised for the use of those substances.”

In a perfect world, do you think people use drugs?

Chloe turned this question around and answered, “In a perfect world, people wouldn’t be addicted to substances, they wouldn’t abuse substances, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they wouldn’t use them.”

“What you find in the chronology of mankind, is that we have always used different substances to alter our state of mind. I think that most people would find it really hard to say that in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have alcohol and effectively you have a situation where we could argue whether there is anybody on Earth that has a healthy relationship with alcohol,” she said.

How can we as students talk to our families about the cannabis referendum?

A useful way to first open the conversation is to start from a place of shared values. A clear value is acknowledging that cannabis can cause harm. Chloe argues that legalisation of cannabis is a way to ensure younger people have less access to cannabis because currently, drug dealers do not check ID. She also argued it’s a way to ensure that adults who are using cannabis are doing so in an informed way; legalisation is a way to educate people on the potential adverse effects of using too much and the dangers of it being laced with other substances with potency and quality controls in place.

Chloe recommends asking your family to think about whether they have used cannabis themselves or whether they know people who have used cannabis. Then ask them whether they are comfortable with any of those people ending up with a criminal conviction and how that would have impacted them. This leads to discussion on criminalisation of users.

11

THE HOT AIR IN THE CANNABIS POLITICS

By Josh Liddle

The cannabis referendum is several weeks away, and the lobbyist scene has been heating up. The NZ Drug Foundation is advertising in prime television slots with its “Yes On Our Terms” campaign, promoting a Kiwi-designed approach to tackling cannabis reform.

Similarly, Make It Legal NZ is campaigning for a “strong YES” on the referendum. These two organisations are arguably the current major promoters of the referendum. On the other side of the spectrum, Family First is pushing their “Nope to Dope” campaign, an effort of several years, decrying the immorality of a cannabis industry from the rigid comforts of a “Christian” worldview. We also have the New Zealand Medical Association (which bills itself as a group representing doctor’s interests) who denounced cannabis in May 2019 claiming it causes significant health and social harms. The NZMA are not lobbyists in the fullest sense, but they are weighing in on the referendum quite publicly. Yet, they failed to find the time to provide examples in their five-paragraph press release, distinctly sparse for an issue so important.

Dr Kate Baddock, chairwoman of the NZMA, has also rubbished the claim that “medicinal cannabis will be easier to access” which has been put forward by pro-cannabis groups including in the NZ Drug Foundation’s televised campaign. Certainly, blurring the lines between recreational and medical cannabis in a political context is a messy approach, but arguing the difference between the two in “real life” is a boring matter of red tape if not semantics. A layperson might misunderstand what the NZMA is, and wrongly assume that all Kiwi doctors are against cannabis. The reality could not be further from the truth. Indeed, the NZMA are no stranger to being criticised for the messages they send out, which are sometimes written as though they want to define the consensus of an entire profession. As recently as 2019, eighteen doctors, surgeons, and medical professionals signed a letter and sent it to Baddock after the NZMA took an archaic position against euthanasia (including Dame Margaret Sparrow, no less).

They compared the NZMA to anti-vaxxers who were promoting personal beliefs rather than evidence-based views. This is not to say that the NZMA are always flawed in the positions they take, but one has to question the idea of endeavouring to speak on behalf of all doctors – it is bound to result in disharmony. Their cannabis position is shamelessly ill-conceived.

Family First predict that cannabis will become the new Big Tobacco and that cannabis causes suicidal ideation, among other outrageous claims. Someone at Family First apparently got overly excited in setting a website up and forgot to read the Cannabis Control Bill, because the proposed legislation will prevent advertising, regulate product and sales, and it explicitly makes an effort to curb a reckless capitalistic approach. You can grow your own plants and you do not have to smoke it. I am not seeing where “big tobacco” comes into it. Point two is far more serious, but to date we are lacking credible evidence to show that cannabis commonly causes suicidal ideation or that rates of suicide increase in populations where it is legalised.

The research claiming otherwise is questionable at best,

12

unable to distinguish between people who generally use recreational drugs to cope with depression from cannabis as a cause of suicidal ideation. They also demonstrate dubious processes for collecting sample data. Note that historically it has been in the interest of a cannabis user not to disclose their use for various reasons: social stigma, legal repercussions, etc. This is partly why studies on cannabis use have been poor to date.

Enough about the meddlers! What about the major political parties? You might be surprised to learn that our top political parties have mostly avoided addressing recreational cannabis. Presently, only Green and The Opportunities Party have a dedicated cannabis policy. TOP are “health-focused” and want to avoid the disasters seen in overseas cannabis markets that were poorly regulated. Among those promoting this policy include Abe Gray, who jumped ship from the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis party to join TOP when Gareth Morgan was still trying to build the numbers.

Gray also co-founded the Whakamana Cannabis Museum which formerly operated in Dunedin and Christchurch and was meant to have re-emerged in Wellington for the referendum. Over in the Green corner, their cannabis policy has a similar case for an “evidence-based” model that seeks to take the best of what has worked overseas with all the standard restrictions, including no public smoking and a limit on how many plants one can grow.

Chlöe Swarbrick has been representing this issue for Green for some time now including openly discussing the issue in radio interviews and fighting for it in debates, including one hosted by BudSoc (a political student club here at UC) available to watch online via Facebook. The Green’s conception of cannabis reform is essentially what Labour has had to work with, or more specifically, Andrew Little who has had the task of handling the Cannabis Control Bill. Both Little and Ardern had been shady about their own positions on cannabis, although Little has since said he will vote in favour of the bill. Labour has played the boring centrist move of going to a referendum so Kiwis can decide, allowing Labour to avoid touching the issue too directly. It could get awkward if the referendum is lost now the case for harm reduction has been well made, but interestingly, Little has said that

a NO vote would be the end of the matter. As a political manoeuvre it means avoiding any more left-wing baggage for Labour, a party that is hoping to nab some of the National voters who are leaping from National’s sinking ship. When I started drafting ideas for this article, Todd Muller was captain. As various National MPs disappear in the icy water, Judith Collins seems to have won the impromptu game of musical chairs to the surprise of nobody. Whatever the case, a National government is not going to help the cannabis cause. National has been (and still is) very much against cannabis reform. Muller was an improvement over Bridges in that he would have at least honoured the referendum.

Bridges infamously said he would not, or in other words, that the views of Kiwis did not matter, as was his arrogance. Collins, on the other hand, has been more complex about the issue. She has historically held mixed views on cannabis, voting against a medicinal cannabis bill in the late 2000s, but more recently acknowledging that cannabis laws will probably change — although that is a far cry from endorsement. She has since made it clear she is against the referendum passing, and in the process, she attempted to pressure Ardern into getting off the fence about her own views. In a 2018 interview she misleadingly conflated cannabis and commercial synthetic cannabis (synthetic cannabis is dangerous, artificially produced and does not contain the cannabis plant). We can expect a misleading campaign against cannabis from National; playing loose with the facts seems to be their campaigning style this year.

The drug reform portfolio ended up a hot potato, bouncing from the hands of Amy Adams who couldn’t decide if she was retired or not, and into the lap of Nick Smith, who probably should be.

Smith, a man whose legacy includes voting against euthanasia, civil unions, gay marriage, and voting for a bill attempting to define marriage as between “a man and a woman only”, has actually done more than try to stop humans showing love for each other. He also made the news this year for being the first person in nearly 40 years to be escorted out of parliament by the Serjeantat-Arms for misconduct whilst shouting “what sort of Nazi establishment is running the place?!”. So, with that in mind, one might not be surprised to learn he is not a natural ally to the cause. In a statement that he authorised on his official Facebook page, Smith had the nerve to imply a link between cannabis and violence, suicide, child abuse, and offer a solution in the form of aggressive policing. One must ask about the experienced politician: is Smith ignorant about cannabis, or is he incentivised to mislead? Either way it will be another one to add to his resume under the heading “things National was on the wrong side of history for.” He recently participated in a televised debate with Swarbrick and seemed scripted but underprepared, out of touch, and generally disinterested in the issue of cannabis. In contrast Swarbrick was passionate and dissolved his argument quite convincingly. It is worth watching if you have not already, but in a nutshell, Smith was mostly relying on the idea that cannabis reform has had mixed results overseas. This point doesn’t hold given New Zealand is not taking a carbon copy of overseas cannabis law and factoring in what has and has not worked overseas is literally a point made on the Greens’ website. I could only laugh as Swarbrick looked down the camera, exasperated like a character from The Office, as Smith went around in circles looking uncomfortable at times.

Meanwhile one might be surprised to find an ally of sorts in NZ First, a party traditionally seen as conservative, held in high regard wherever there is a Zimmer frame. Winston Peters openly supported the referendum, and NZ First acknowledges the failing of drug prohibition in general. That said, Peters does not support a YES vote himself, and so the party’s conception of drug reform is presumably less palatable than what is on the table today. Although NZ First can hardly be celebrated as an advocate for cannabis, they are at least showing support for the concept of drug reform and that deserves credit of a kind. The prohibitionist angle is demonstrably ineffective, and it is increasingly hard to take politicians seriously when they deny this. It could be said that this approach is more honest than Ardern and Little, who

have been somewhat obscure about whether they endorse recreational cannabis, but it is surely easier to play this angle than any other. I am sympathetic about the political game that cannabis has become, and I will not claim to understand the complexities and costs that are involved in endorsing cannabis. For a country that enjoys a reputation for being thoughtful and progressive on major issues, New Zealand is lagging behind on cannabis and it’s getting embarrassing. Even in the United States, cannabis reform is not the exciting, controversial position it used to be. People are beginning to agree; cannabis reform, despite playing out as a left vs right fiasco, really ought to appeal to progressive and conservative minds alike. I should disclose my own position on cannabis at this point if it is not already clear: I will vote YES on the referendum mainly on a harm reduction basis, but I certainly like the idea that I could access a safer alternative to alcohol. I worry about the risks and shadiness regarding drug dealers, handling product that may be poorly grown or contaminated (mould, gardening chemicals, etc.) as well as risking disproportionate criminal charges for an activity that is reasonably safe and somewhat overblown. There is an old joke about cannabis being disappointing when you finally get to try it, thanks to how overhyped it is, often mis-portrayed as mind-destroying and very psychedelic. To that I say the last summer of my “research” on this issue was a disappointing but relaxing one.

The practical case for cannabis is clear when you consider how prohibition has failed to stop cannabis use, is wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and means that people with cannabis use disorders fear seeking help. The moral case is less clear, but it seems to me that recreational drug use is assumed to be immoral across the board, based on an instinctive sense rather than a good moral case. We need to be smarter than that. The September election is extraordinary, not only for the cannabis referendum, but also for the euthanasia referendum and the shifting landscape of our political parties. It is one thing to consider the message of lobbyist groups and political parties, but as they fight with each other to sway minds and raise donation money, we have more important concerns as people. We should be thinking about harm reduction in our communities, improving the welfare of Kiwis, and considering our future economic opportunities. This is our post COVID-19 reality, after all. Cannabis reform ticks every box.

Whether you agree or disagree with cannabis use is not the issue.

It will continue to happen no matter what the outcome of the referendum is. This is a question of if we should do something useful about cannabis, or let it fester under failed prohibition and in the hands of gangs. Organisations like Family First and National do a disservice to Kiwis, pushing a point of view that is poorly evidenced and deeply cynical towards cannabis users. On reflection, one ought to expert a certain bitterness over cannabis from organisations who still struggle with cut-and-dried issues like same-sex marriage.

We ought to listen to all sides of the political spectrum but do so with great attention to the details and evidence provided, because all is not equal in the mess of misleading ads and dishonest social media posts. Ultimately, going out and voting is the most important part of all. Come 2021, when Kiwis have voted YES for smarter cannabis control, they’ll be nothing Family First can do to stop me from smoking all the joints I want at all the gay weddings I can gate-crash, so help me God.

13

A CULTURE OF LIFE OR A CULTURE OF DEATH?

By Prolife UC

If you saw someone standing on the edge of a 20-storey building, about to jump off, what would you do? Hopefully you would try to stop them. Hopefully you would approach them, comfort them, do everything you can to convince them not to jump. Hopefully you would tell them about the help that is available, and the value of their life.

You would do so because we all instinctively know that life is precious and not to be thrown away.

Imagine a society where the opposite was true. Imagine if instead of helping, you went to that person standing on the edge and said, “Oh well, it’s your choice. Would you like a push?”. How could someone be that cruel and blind to the person’s cry for help? However, that’s where the End-of-Life-Choice Act (EOLCA) is taking us. Instead of providing vulnerable people with the help they need, the EOLCA sends the idea that killing yourself is a valid solution to life’s problems. Euthanasia and assisted dying infer that your life might not be worth living.

Let’s put in simple terms what we’re talking about. Euthanasia is when a medical practitioner kills someone at their request by injecting them with a lethal dose. Assisted dying is when a medical practitioner helps someone kill themselves by giving them a deadly dose of drugs to swallow in their own time. The EOLCA we are voting on in the upcoming elections would legalise both euthanasia and assisted dying in NZ for people who meet specific criteria, such as being over 18 and having a terminal illness likely to cause death in six months.

The dangers of the current EOLCA are too vast to properly cover here, but let’s try to scratch the surface of them…

This Act undermines the message of preventing youth suicide and sets a confusing double standard. Either suicide is a terrible tragedy, or it isn’t. You cannot tell one group of people that killing yourself is horrifically sad, and then tell another group of people that killing yourself is good, dignified, and to be sought after.

Doctors are human, they make mistakes. We all know stories of people who have been told they only have X number of weeks to live, but then have surprised everyone by living longer or even recovering. This Act also undermines the trust that needs to exist between a doctor and their patient, and puts too much power in the hands of doctors.

Abuse happens, let’s be real. Especially to vulnerable people like the elderly, sick, and disabled. People could be coerced into requesting euthanasia, or they may feel like a burden and that they have a ‘duty to die’. Everyone knows it’s far easier and cheaper to kill people than to care for them. How do you distinguish between assisted dying and murder when the key person is dead?

This Act has too few safeguards, and the so-called safeguards that do exist are poorly written and open to abuse. NZ abolished the death

14

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ENROLLED

By Geirge Hampton

penalty years ago because of the danger of wrongly executing innocent people, yet this Act would introduce a situation where innocent people could be wrongfully euthanised against their will.

“Legislative creep” (incremental changes to the law) is bound to happen. Countries overseas provide concrete evidence that bit by bit safeguards get chipped away and the eligibility criteria becomes wider and wider. Good intentions are not enough. Those who introduced stoats and possums to this country had good intentions, and look where that great idea led. Some things cannot be contained or controlled.

Even if you support the concept of euthanasia/assisted dying, this Act is not the answer. Its flaws are too many and too risky. 200 lawyers and over 1600 doctors have publicly denounced this Act as a bad law.

So, what is the answer? What does ‘compassion’ and ‘death with dignity’ really look like? Our dignity does not come from how we die, or from our utility, what we can and cannot do – our dignity comes from being human.

‘Compassion’ derives from a Latin word meaning ‘to suffer with’. True compassion is about helping people through their suffering, not killing them. We need to kill the pain, not the patient. We need to work at improving palliative care.

When someone wants to end their life, we know that something’s terribly wrong and that they need help. Yet euthanasia/assisted suicide promotes killing them instead of helping them. Why tempt people to end their life? Why endorse a premature death?

Vote for the vulnerable, help them, protect them. Don’t vote for their death.

Enrolment. A process which takes around five minutes, is compulsory, and only 64% of people aged 18-24 have done it. But other than the fact that it’s the law, why should we enrol to vote?

The answer is quite simple: it allows you to have a say. The government keeps track of the number of people enrolled to vote in an electorate. Even if you don’t care who is in parliament, the act of not showing up to vote will communicate that – provided you have enrolled.

and becomes an MP. There are 72 electorate seats in parliament.

The party vote is what largely determines the way in which parties are represented in parliament. The remaining 48 seats that are not filled by electorate candidates are divided between the parties according to the percentage of votes which were for that party.

Alternatively, if none of the parties interest you, you can intentionally spoil your ballot as a kind of political statement. If you submit your vote with no clear preference shown, it is spoiled. This means it does not count towards the overall vote, but is tracked alongside it. These are also known as informal votes. In the 2017 general election, over 10,000 people cast informal votes. Informal votes are a form of feedback on the governmental system.

This can dissuade some people from voting for smaller parties, as “it won’t make a difference”. This can lead to tactical voting, where a person votes for a different party to the one they support most to prevent another party getting power.

To get any seats in parliament, a party must either win an electorate seat or win at least 5% of the party vote.

If, however, you do choose to vote for a party, there are a few things to note:

For example, if a voter supported the New Conservative party (who received 0.24% of the party vote last election), they might vote for National instead to prevent Labour from winning. Alternatively, if nobody made tactical votes, the smaller parties would receive a greater representation in parliament.

The electorate vote is a vote for the candidate you want to represent the electorate that you live in. The candidate with the most votes wins

On the other hand, if you don’t enrol, this has no import since you don’t get a say. Enrol.

Vote no to the End-of-Life Choice Act. Find out more by taking a look at these websites:

ENROL www.defendnz.co.nz

www.riskylaw.nz

15

Blow Job Lessons

By Gene Shaw

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

If you were not around, or were only small at the end of last millennium, you may not be familiar with this iconic line and/or the proverbial shitstorm that it refers to.

In the late 1990s, Democratic President Bill Clinton (husband of Hillary) then aged 49, is accused of having been on the receiving end of some oral pleasure from Monica Lewinsky; a White House intern almost three decades his junior. Any suggestion of an inappropriate relationship was staunchly denied by Clinton.

“These allegations are false.”

Accusations of sexual misconduct are nothing new in politics, and the President had to be (initially, at least) taken at his word. This was fine until Republican prosecutors got hold of a now infamous blue dress belonging to Miss Lewinsky, soiled with the President’s cum.

Oops.

I’m probably older than most students (and some staff) at UC, and I remember what came to be known as the Lewinsky Scandal, fondly.

Although I stand by that, I’ll pause here to clarify that consensual as it was, the relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky is the definition of power imbalance. On steroids.

As a result of the affair, Clinton became just the second US President (Trump was the third) to face impeachment. Lewinsky (who up until this point had been solely the giver), in a time before Facebook and Twitter and all the rest of that crap, found herself on the receiving end of unimaginable public bullying, humiliation, and abuse. Hillary Clinton banished her husband to the couch for several months. Lewinsky became patient zero for cyberbullying.

When I say that I look back at the scandal fondly, it’s likely because it unfolded in a time of relative innocence (certainly in the eyes of my nine-year-old self). A time of three button suits and cassette tapes,

home phone numbers, Judy Bailey and Holmes, borrowing for your dad’s work cell phone to play snake. Had the events taken place any earlier in history (numerous sexual indiscretions of former Presidents are well documented), Monicagate would likely have been earmarked and quashed as being a family matter and private. Compare that to the world that we live in today; we are beyond over exposed to sex scandal and collusion, unfazed by hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribery and hush money. So much so, that there is something almost wholesome about the idea of secret fellatio the beneath the Resolute Desk.

Bill got off. He was acquitted by the senate and was able to complete his second term, leaving office in 2001 with relatively high approval ratings. In the years that have followed, the Clinton Foundation has funded extensive disaster relief programs in following events such as the Boxing Day Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the Haiti Earthquake. In 2013 the foundation alongside Bill and Melinda Gates established the No Ceilings Project, an initiative designed to ensure opportunities and the advancement of women and girls.

As for Monica, thankfully, she was able to overcome tremendous adversity to speak out against online hate, an advocate for compassion.

Her 2015 TED Talk is nothing short of courageous.

But that’s easy for me to say. It’s easy for me to bang an imaginary lectern with my index finger and do my best Arkansas accent. It would be easy, over beers, to laugh with friends at the situation as a whole.

“Lucky guy,” we might say, “wish she worked in my office.” We might go on to share our personal assessment on Miss Lewinsky’s physical features, and speculate as to whether or not she might be any good.

It’s easy for me to say … because I’m a man. I’ve discussed how things have changed over the past two decades, and now, more than ever there is a responsibility that we, as men, use our privilege (and we are privileged) to stamp out derogatory rhetoric towards women, especially when it comes to sex. You don’t need a vagina to be feminist.

Soft plastics go in the red bin

I DiD nOt

That’s anything you can scrunch in your hand

Thanks for bin good. ccc.govt.nz/redbin

16 have sexual relations with that woman

17

HEROES OF NEW ZEALAND: HELEN CLARK

By Michael Freeman

I know Helen Clark, you know Helen Clark, but do either of us really KNOW Helen Clark? Talk to anyone our age and you’ll get a “Oh yeah, I know who she is”, but press any further than that and all but the most die-hard Labour supporters will falter. So, let’s change that.

Helen Clark first attempted to enter politics at the local level, in an unsuccessful bid for the Piako seat in 1975. This was following her time studying politics at Auckland University, and a brief stint lecturing with the same department. This loss did not dissuade her however, and she was elected to Parliament as the representative for Mount Albert in the 1981 general election – a seat which she continued to hold until leaving Parliament in 2009. Clark slowly worked her way up the ranks of the Labour party, holding the offices of Minister of Housing, Health, and Conservation, before eventually becoming Deputy Prime Minister in 1989. She was then elected Prime Minister in 1999, running the country until 2008.

So why should you care about a politician who was first elected before half of us were born? Because Helen Clark has had more of an impact on your life than you think. Heard about child abuse? I have, and it’s still a prevalent problem in our society. Clark and her Labour government introduced the (for some reason) controversial “Anti-Smacking Law” which passed through parliament in 2007. This stopped parents from smacking their children, and removed an excuse for child beaters to get away with their crimes. She was also instrumental in the creation of KiwiSaver. Now I hate losing 3-9% of my pay check as much as the next guy, but facilitating the creation of an employer matched pension investment scheme is good for the worker, and no matter how much money daddy makes, you never know when that trust fund is going to dry up.

Some people, of course, will disagree with what Clark did while in office. But it is hard to fault her for what she did afterwards. After moving on from being Prime Minister of our country, she spent two terms as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Administrator, being the first woman to run the organisation. Although not officially stated, it is commonly thought that the UNDP administrator, who holds the title of Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, is the third highest ranking position in the United Nations. The UNDP promotes change and provides training, advice, and grants to developing countries to help them modernise and provide a better life for their citizens. It also promotes the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), which were conceived and adopted by all UN nations during Clark’s term as UNDP administrator. This role suited Clark as it was an extension of her domestic policy, and allowed her to promote the caring Kiwi mindset far beyond our borders – something which isn’t possible as Prime Minister.

After an unsuccessful bid for UN Secretary-General in 2016, losing to the current head Antonio Guterres, she left the UN in 2017. Now you might expect someone who had achieved everything Clark had to

18

maybe take a day off, have a beer and enjoy a well-deserved retirement, but not Helen. In 2019 she founded the Helen Clark Foundation, a non-partisan policy think-tank based in Auckland, with herself as the patron. The Helen Clark Foundation advocates for a more just, sustainable, and peaceful society; ideals which Clark has been working towards her whole career. Their aims are to identify the problems facing our society and develop new solutions to them, publishing these findings in reports online and to the relevant authorities.

Why then should Helen Clark be considered a “Hero of New Zealand”? Let us ignore the policy she implemented while in office and her long running domestic political career, as I want to remain bi-partisan and her actions thereafter are just as impressive. Clark managed to become the third highest ranking official at the United Nations, helped lift millions out of poverty, and improved the life of countless others. She embodies the Kiwi spirit of helping others, and wasn’t satisfied with our small island nation, so she took on the world. She is a story of persistence and perseverance, even having lost the first election she ran in, Clark continued to try, all while having to contest with the difficulties of being a woman in politics. No matter if you disagree with her party or politics, she has done immense amounts of good in the world and deserves to be recognized as such. So next time someone mentions Helen Clark, don’t just think of her face, think of her actions.

SMACK DOWN 2020

By Talisker Scott Hunter

According to recent headlines, earth could be struck by an asteroid on November 2nd, 2020. To many, this event will provide a welcome excuse to avoid having to live through November 3rd.

See, November 3rd is election day in the United States. It will mark the end of a contest that began the moment the last one shuddered to a close four very long years ago.

US politics and the upcoming election are worth paying attention to. As the world’s sole superpower, the United States holds sway over the affairs of almost every country on earth, including our own. It’s disconcerting, then, that something so crucial to our collective wellbeing is also bonkers.

How can one make sense of our trans-Pacific cousins? What can happen on November 3rd?

The answers to all these questions and more lie in a realm where distinctly American theatricality and madness are tools of the trade. The answers can be found, I would argue, in WWE. Pro-wrestling and politics share many similarities. Today, on a base level, they’re essentially the same business; nowhere is this more apparent than in the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Trump is a WWE hall-of-famer and to date the only world leader to have been kicked in the stomach by Stone Cold Steve Austin.

He’s been involved in pro-wrestling for decades. In 1988, he hosted Wrestlemania IV and V in Trump Plaza. In 2007, he faced off against WWE CEO Vince McMahon in ‘The Battle of the Billionaires.’

Yet, despite their theatrical beef, McMahon and Trump are close.

Eerily, their career trajectories sync. Both rose to prominence in the 1980s, both built upon their business success with forays into the world of reality TV, they even have the same catchphrase (“you’re fired!”). Most importantly, however, McMahon and Trump owe their success to a mastery of character work – a longstanding staple of pro-wrestling.

Wrestlers adopt personas that are, to use the industry terminology, either ‘faces’ or ‘heels’ – AKA, good-guys or bad-guys. Traditionally, a heel’s role in wrestling storylines is to antagonise the crowd. The face would then arrive and assault the heel, bringing the storyline to a cathartic if predictable end.

This dynamic would imply being a heel is detrimental to one’s pro-wrestling career – far from it. Some of the most loved wrestlers of all time – Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin – played heels. See, heels thrive because shocking behaviour makes for good TV. Their villainous persona gives them a lot more flexibility with what they can do or say, there’s a facet of human nature that respects that, as Donald knows all too well.

Consider now the pro wrestling character that is Donald J. Trump.

He’s brash, boorish, rude, and rich – a typical ‘heel.’ Yet, like every other heel from McMahon to Steve Austin, it’s these very qualities that electrify his audience. Trump also creates characters out of his opponents: “Crooked Hillary”, “Sleepy Joe” and “Lyin’ Ted

Cruz” to name a few. His supporters applaud when he antagonises these personas, much in the same way audiences applauded when Stone Cold Steve Austin filled Mr McMahon’s corvette with cement at Wrestlemania 19.

Wrestling is less a display of strength and skill as it is of one’s ability to enchant audiences by working the mic. Hulk Hogan’s signature move was dropping his leg across his opponent’s chest.

As wrestling moves go this isn’t too impressive, but few remember Hogan for his athleticism. Rather, audiences remember the vignettes that precede Hulk’s matches wherein he’d refer to his biceps as “12-inch pythons” and state, at length and in no uncertain terms, the nasty things he’d do to his opponent in the ring.

Donald Trump also excels at mic work. He recognises that in politics, as with wrestling, competence comes second to bluster. It doesn’t matter how many real-world blunders he makes, so long as he can talk himself up and put his opponents down, audiences will stick by him.

For two decades, 24-hour news cycles and the emergence of social media have reduced complex political issues to simple slogans. Multi-faceted topics surrounding race, history, and geopolitics are stripped down to fit snugly within a tweet, Instagram story, or half-hour cable news slot. The result? A feedback loop of never-ending feuds characterised by fierce rivalry, mud-slinging, and a fundamental lack of understanding or empathy between parties. In this media environment, character work and simple storytelling thrive.

Donald Trump didn’t construct the political climate that makes his presidency possible. His decades of involvement with WWE merely allowed him to recognise elements of pro-wrestling within political discourse and play them to his advantage.

All Trump did was tear away the veneer of sophistication covering what was otherwise a slugfest not far removed from the feuds settled by pay-per-view cage matches. This is how he ripped apart the competition during the Republican primaries. Why watch Ted Cruz try to act the macho pro-wrestler? With Donald, you have the real thing.

Pro-wrestling is simple, that’s the heart of its appeal. It provides catharsis – feuding parties gear up for a fight, have it out in the ring, the loser is faux-pummelled into submission, and everyone goes home satisfied. This won’t be the case on November 3rd, and that’s where this WWE comparison ends.

The pro-wrestlification™ of politics in the United States is damaging to discourse because it frames issues with a good/bad dichotomy that isn’t really there. The truth, as always, resists simplicity.

Nevertheless, I’ll bet good money a wrestler is elected president within the next 10 years.

God, I hope it’s The Rock.

19

DE-BUNKING THE VOTING RIGHTS

JUMPING SHIP

By Ella Sommers

It’s common knowledge by now that 18-24-year-olds are the lowest group to be enrolled and vote. We can change that!

Pockets of student flats make up a large amount of the Ilam and Wigram electorates and with most students changing flats each year it’s pretty easy to forget to update your details, let alone even know if you’re enrolled or not.

Although housing situations change and interest in politics, political parties, and candidates varies for everyone, one thing that doesn’t change is that your individual voice matters.

1 2 3 4 5 20

Vote.nz to enrol Enrolling is easier than it’s ever been. For the first time you’re able to enrol and update your details online at www.vote.nz. All you need is a valid New Zealand Driver’s License, a New Zealand Passport, or a Real Me Verified Identity. Don’t have any of these? Easy – all you need to do is fill out your details online, provide a postal address, and a form will be sent to you. Once it arrives, sign the form and upload it online or send it back.

Advance voting is for everyone (you can vote in advance and still enjoy Tea Party!)

With the change of the General Election date, you can now vote from Saturday 3rd October until Saturday 17th October, with voting closing at 7pm. This year at UC there will be Advanced Voting available – which means even if you’re going to tea party there’s a way to have your say and voice heard for the two weeks prior. Advanced voting is easy and is for everyone!

If in doubt, check it out A lot of the time we either think we’re enrolled, enrolled a few years ago, or you’re reading this and don’t even know what we’re on about. Moved address and not sure if you’ve updated your details? Enrolled in High School but now it’s been a few years since? Not really sure if you are but 88.8% certain you are? If in doubt check online at www.vote.nz and enrol. Better be safe than sorry.

Don’t be a Vote Ghost In Ilam electorate, only 65.5% of eligible 18-24-year-olds are enrolled, and in the Wigram Electorate (which covers Riccarton from Deans Ave all the way up to Hornby) only 56.8% of eligible 18-24-yearolds are enrolled. This means there’s a lot of 18-24-year-olds who either aren’t enrolled or haven’t updated their details. Maybe it’s apathy, maybe it’s laziness – perhaps a lack of awareness on how easy it is to enrol and vote. Simply put, don’t be a Vote Ghost – have your say and don’t leave it up to the 90% of people over 70 who are enrolled.

You don’t need ID to vote Voting is easy. Just tell the person at the voting place your name and they will sort you out. You don’t need to bring any ID. To make things even easier, enrol to vote before the 13th September and you’ll get an easy vote card. Then when you vote, all you need to do is take along your easy vote card and voting is quicker and easier for all. But remember, your vote won’t count unless you’re enrolled.

Enrolling is easy and takes five minutes ... which means the time it took you to read this you could’ve enrolled online at www.vote. nz and asked all your flatties and friends if they’ve enrolled and updated their details. Enrolling and voting in this year’s General Election and Referendums is one way you can have your say on the future of New Zealand.

We’re gearing up for the 2020 New Zealand general election and the anticipation is getting more intense than the nation’s obsession with Dr Ashley Bloomfield. As I’m still conflicted between voting for Labour again or voting Greens in this election, I decided to productively procrastinate by reaching out to some UC students to hear their reasons on why they’re voting for a different party this election than the one they voted for in 2017.

Multiple factors instead of a particular reason seemed to be the common consensus across students’ responses when questioned about why they were voting for a different party this election. Policies were a big one for some like Sarah*, 27, who voted for NZ First in 2017 but is voting for TOP in this election. “The policies are my priority, and I have no loyalty to any political party. I often use the websites ‘I Side With’ and ‘On the Fence’ to help me to decide which party gets my vote.” There were also those like James, 23, where leadership was important. James voted for National in 2017 and said that “National represented the majority of my political views quite well but they haven’t had a strong leader since Bill English’s resignation in 2018.”

James is voting for ACT in this election.

Other reasons for voting differently in this election came around COVID-19 response and the government’s role. Matt*, 25, a National voter in 2017 but voting Greens in this election, said one of the major reasons he wasn’t voting for National again was because of the party’s behaviour when COVID-19 first appeared. “I believe that if they had been in power, they would have been too slow to lockdown and too fast to re-open, and we would have ended up with a lot more people dead.” Steven*, 25, who voted for NZ First in 2017 but will be voting for ACT this election, said he was changing his vote because his world view of the government’s role was not the same as it was in 2017. “If my mind was still in the same place as when I was younger, then I would most likely not switch.”

When asked if students were vocal about their political opinions to other people, responses were varied. Most of the right-leaning voters said they kept their political opinions on the downlow, while most of those who were left-leaning said they were open about their political opinions to everybody. A common theme across the replies to this question was that students wished people were more open around

voting and politics. Lily, 21, who voted for National in 2017 but is undecided in which party she’s voting for this election, said “I think everyone should be more open about who we vote for. It can help us see different viewpoints and arguments.”

Every student apart from one said that they’d be voting ‘Yes’ in the Cannabis Referendum and their opinions on the topic were very similar. Emma, 23, who voted Labour in 2017 but is voting Greens this election, summed up the replies of everyone voting ‘Yes’ with her response: “Legalisation means there would be less risk involved with using it as we would know where it was coming from and would be in less danger of being exposed to dangerous products such as laced weed.” Howard*, 22, who voted Greens in 2017 but is voting New Conservative this election, was the only student voting ‘No’. His reasoning was that “cannabis promotes a passive lifestyle, going with the flow rather than tackling life head-on. It gets in the way of living life, and there are enough distractions out there already.” He added that he knew this from his own first-hand experience. Responses around the End of Life Choice Referendum were very mixed with some students fully for it, one fully against it, and others hadn’t come to a final decision yet.

Finally, I asked students if they had any messages around voting that they’d like to put out to students at UC. El, 29, who voted Labour in 2017 but is voting TOP this election, wanted students to know that “no vote is wasted. If we stop thinking this way, there’s a much higher chance of letting new and better ideas refresh our government and political systems.” Xavier, 19, who was a National supporter in 2017 (however too young to vote) but plans to vote Greens in this election, said “your vote is yours and it’s important to use it wisely to work towards a better New Zealand for everyone.” The general message that everyone wanted to put out to students was just GET OUT AND BLOODY VOTE! So please, PLEASE take this advice and make sure that you do. *Names have been changed at students’ request to remain anonymous.

21

COLUMNS

If you would like to submit a column piece, email your idea to editor@canta.org.nz

CHOICES Dr Sriparna Saha, UC PGSA

Disappointment Department of Spiritual Engineering by Rev. Spanky Moore Last week a friend of mine said that from now on she’s using “2020” as a swear word. “This lasagne tastes like 2020!” And judging from most of the people I chat too, she’s not alone in finding 2020 to have been massively disappointing. It has messed with most people’s hopes around study, travel, work and about a million other things.

Disappointment is that feeling you get when your expectations and your reality are out of sync. And feeling disappointed is an important experience to make friends with, because disappointment is an unavoidable part of being a human. Chances are you’ll go through much bigger disappointments in your own life compared to what Covid has dealt you with. So maybe 2020 is a great chance to practice making friends with disappointment?

There are two kinds of disappointment in life. One kind happens when our hopes and expectations weren’t realistic in the first place, and we just set ourselves up to be disappointed. So, it’s a wise idea to keep your unrealistic expectations in check.

The other kind of disappointment is when bad stuff happens that you have little or no control over - a family member gets sick or dies, or you lose your job, or a pandemic hits. And these can really knock you around.

For what it’s worth, I think most of us would benefit big time from putting aside some time to grieve our personal disappointments of 2020.

In the Bible, there’s a particular style of writing called a “Lament” – which is a poem written by people who are experiencing some of the harsher disappointments of life. The writers of these laments don’t mince words, as they brutally ask God to take over their situations.

They cry. They shout. They scream. They swear. They blame. But eventually, once they’ve vented, they gradually begin to cool off and gain some perspective. And by the end of most laments, they almost always come to the conclusion that they have much more to be grateful for in life, than they do to complain about.

So maybe it’s time you gave yourself the space to do some lamenting of your own?

Sriparna is a second-year post-graduate student in GeoEducation at UC, where she is using Digital Storytelling for Volcano Risk Literacy.

She has a PhD (2019) in Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences from Rice University (U.S.A), where she used experiments to understand the origin of continents. She feels strongly for communicating science and art and is continuously looking for innovative ways to blend the two.

I have been a little apprehensive about writing this piece considering the theme for this edition revolves around Election. Not that I am not eligible to write, but often times elections are synonymous to political situations and power dynamics. But as I set to write this piece, I realized that I have a choice to write on something that I feel strongly on – about choice, about freedom.

Choice, you see, is a powerful word. When people talk about choices, about the What ifs, they are in a way envisaging situations and opportunities that are currently missing. People think of opportunities for different reasons – reasons as simple as it feels great to have choice.

It feels great to look forward to something new, something that arises out of curiosity, of wanting a change, of departure from the ordinary.

But what does choice look like in the age of digital citizenship and information? With the constant shifts in perspectives, lifestyles, and

22

social situations that have been pulsating since the dawn of 2020, each one of us at some point has come to realise the need to shut down our minds to the overdose of information out there. I am talking specifically with respect to the situations around COVID-19. As an international scholar now based in New Zealand, and having spent considerable part of my life in India and more recently in the United States of America, there have been numerous times when my mindset has fluctuated from being grateful to feeling guilty of being in a better situation than that of others. But in the wake of the resurgence of COVID-19 in the past few weeks, that feeling of guilt didn’t linger.

Instead, what emerged is the realisation that we are indeed living in an ever-changing world where anything and everything can change in the blink of an eye. We must learn to live in uncertainties and learn how to do it well.

As a researcher invested in improving the community’s understanding and perceptions of uncertainties related to geologic unrest in and around volcanoes, it just makes more sense to me in retrospect. Living with uncertainties is not a choice, but the agency of how to live with these imposed uncertainties, that remains with us. We all know that uncertainties are hard, but we can all choose to be kinder to our own selves, about accepting things for what they are and doing the best we can in the face of any such adversity.

23

“I’M NOT SURE MOCKING CHLOE SWARBRICK IS THE SMARTEST WAY TO WIN AUCKLAND CENTRAL”

The Gay Agenda Elections by Sarah Eynon

There’s a contentious debate that comes around every four years regarding the need for queer representation in politics. There are enough opinions out there right now, mostly from old guys named Gerry, that contest the importance of having queer people in positions of power. Here at UC, we’ve just had the UCSA elections land us with a badass queer president, which is not something worth ignoring.

QCanterbury congratulates Kim and looks forward to the 2021 term.

The reason queer people, such as Kim, are important in politics is the historical marginalisation of these communities, and the tendency to solely represent the straight, white, cis, male gaze. It might seem like sexuality and gender shouldn’t interact with the way in which someone presents themselves politically, but politicians are driven by personal experience. The personal experience of queer identities in politics will affect the way in which our country is designed to support its diverse identities. This is something a straight white cis male cannot do for politics.

There are currently only seven openly rainbow identifying parliament members, with Labour and Green providing these MPs. Labour has a history of including a diverse range of members, including the first openly transgender MP in the world, Georgina Beyer. Currently in parliament are Grant Robertson, Kiri Allen, Tamati Coffey, Meka Whaitiri, and Louisa Wall. Former rainbow representatives for Labour include Chris Carter, Maryan Street, Charles Chauvel, and Tim Barnett. Louisa Wall, as MP for Labour, authored the same-sex marriage legalisation bill in 2012 which was passed in parliament in 2013. Many other important acts in history for LGBT+ rights have been spearheaded by the Labour & Green coalition.

The Rainbow Green’s website claims there are currently eight members of the Green Party running for the 2020 election. Currently in parliament are Jan Logie and Chloe Swarbrick, and running for 2020 are Elizabeth Kerekere and Ricardo Menendez-March. The other four

24

members that identify in the rainbow community have not been disclosed publicly. In 2015, Jan Logie as a Green MP saw out the creation of a cross-party group focused on LGBT+ issues and rights.

National has had four openly gay politicians, Marilyn Waring, Paul Foster-Bell, Claudette Hauiti, and Chris Finlayson. Since 2019 when Finlayson retired, there has been no such representation in the party.

ACT, NZ First, and the Maori Party can make no such claim. Unsurprisingly, neither can New Conservative. New Conservative plans to repeal same-sex marriage laws, ban gender identity issues from the NZ curriculum, defund gender reassignment surgery and counselling, along with more proposed policies that actively harm the LGBT+ community. Regarding policies, The Green Party is the only party with policies relating to supporting the LGBT+ community in Aotearoa.

Regardless of its past minor representation of rainbow politicians, the National Party has been criticised for its current position of having no LGBT+ representation through its electorate candidates and list candidates. I will leave you to mull on a quote of Gerry Brownlee’s, the National MP for the Ilam electorate & current National Party Deputy Leader, as he advocated against same-sex marriage during his time in parliament, “The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is – although some will find this difficult to take – they are not the same.”

The term “put your money where your mouth is” almost applies to the point I am trying to make, more suitably it would be “put your vote where your mouth is”. Do you have queer friends? Do you like your queer friends? Think of them when you vote. Are you racist? If you answered no, then think of that when you vote. Who you vote for says a lot about you, try to have it say something good about you.

For more information on party policies and members visit policy.nz

By Josiah Morgan

I have accumulated: The surface, and my confrontation.

Looking for, yes, a serious celebrity, in my celerity, I tick the box.

It is the photograph on the website. It reminds me of symbolic spaces in museums, it reminds me of The Deer Hunter: Meryl Streep runs from her wedding and dirties the dress.

Later her boys sit Russian rouletting caressing weapons, making memos…but in the cinema the old boys fall from their chairs, to the popcorn soaked groud, scattered Pepsi in envoy, entertainment – its smell – atop the televised war.

It plays in splendid chromatic technicolour.

They could have sworn they were right back in it.

In the lapse between screen and feeling, he stutters, (I stutter), the viewer, the shadow of a story wriggling through his lips. In the daylight outside the screening room, those words disappear, fog elevated upward toward the deepening night, and around – all round – there are no symbols, just spaces.

A doorway to go back in.

Hard to say no.

She touched the room in Wellington.

Another day in Saigon – these references, their confrontation, I have accumulated.

25

26 Credit: Connor Wetdewich

27

VOTE VOT VOTE VO E TE VOTEVO VOTE V OTE VO VOTE VO

CHANGES

By Lily Murfin

Politics was never something I put much thought into until I was a teenager. I remember being taught about seats in parliament and the way a democracy functioned when I was maybe in year 5 or 6. No one in the class was really interested, even the teacher. I remember her saying “I know this is boring girls, but it’s part of the curriculum.” So, I had some sort of understanding but no real interest. Learning about other forms of government took my interest at the very beginning at high school. But I still hadn’t translated this to an interest in New Zealand politics.

Perhaps because no one around me seemed particularly engaged or interested in politics. This was evidenced to me clearly in year 10.

In my year 10 social studies class, in 2014, the teacher decided it would be a good idea to run a “mock election”. This required us to select the party we wanted to vote for in the upcoming New Zealand elections. Except that we were 14 and 15 years old, and none of us were really interested in politics. This mock election sort of fell flat. Everyone, besides one student, voted for the National Party. The one other student voted for the Labour Party. This disappointingly predictable layout has altered and changed in the past few years. Each of us that were in that class have now finished high school, many of us are about to finish uni also. Changes are evident in our political knowledge, as well as within out political activeness. Of course, to varying degrees. But reflecting on how much some people have changed in the time since year 10 has made me think about how political alliances and preferences can change with age. Our outlooks and values have changed but is it possible for political stances to change as easily.

It’s no secret that out political stance is dictated by many different factors. But as these factors change, do our political stances shift alongside them? Or, are they more rigid in their formation? In other words, how easily do political stances really change? Researchers have found that our political beliefs are not nearly as concrete and absolute as we expect them to be. In fact, it is possible for someone’s personal stances and decisions to be swayed quite easily. In saying that, how many of us are really sure that our political stance and choices, or who we’re voting for in the upcoming election is our own decision. As opposed to being a decision made by those around us.

People side with political groups they see themselves reflected in. I can’t name one single adult I know that will be voting for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. But I easily name half a dozen uni students who are active supporters of the party. The reasoning behind this for me is that the Green party has embraced previously unpopular environmental policies. Furthermore, Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick is now an icon of New Zealand politics, meaning that students can now see their own age demographic represented politically, potentially swaying them to show a greater amount of support for the Greens party. It’s illogical to say that everyone cares about political policy. We all know that the student population of New Zealand is diverse and therefore there are going to be a diverse range of views and beliefs. But the fact that students have tended to vote for Labour in recent history made me think about why this could be the case.

New Zealand politics has always been a bit chaotic. I was one of the people constantly entertained by the News when it seemed like every minister under the sun was getting fired. It got to a point where Tova O’Brien felt like she was reporting for E! News. Politics turning into entertainment seems very problematic to me and I was uncomfortable seeing it happen in New Zealand. The changes that have occurred in politics, on top of an ever-changing global situation has been swaying who I want to vote for. The portrayal of certain politicians in the New Zealand media didn’t sit well with me. I feel that in New Zealand we now need to be careful about the media we consume and its’ potential effect on our stances. Personally, I would rather speak to people that I know in order to better understand their experiences in order to create a fuller picture.

We should never be fully reliant on what is said in the media, there need to be other channels of information in our lives.

Changing your political beliefs can be difficult if you’re uncomfortable airing your opinions around your friends and family. My entire family are National voters, and very proud of it. But they don’t push these values of beliefs onto me. I can vote for whoever I want to vote for without receiving any sort of clapback. In saying that, I still have no clue who I will vote for in the upcoming New Zealand elections.

Politics in New Zealand feels like a safe place to make changes and create lasting impacts. If politics need to adapt then we also need to do so.

Our political beliefs are personal but should not be strictly dictated by influential people in our lives. That one class I had in year 10 that was absolutely packed with national supporters would now be filled with students and working young adults voting for different parties for different reasons. Your stance in the past does not need to determine your stand today or in the future. In saying that, I don’t think out personal politics should be the entirety of our identities. Doing this could result in eventual divisions in the wider population. I propose that we all reconsider our stances and beliefs as necessary. And, to not vote for a political party simply because it’s what you did last time or what your family does.

Formulate your own decision and choose to vote for who you want to vote for.

28

29

KNOW YOUR CANDIDATES - Ilam

David Bennett Green party

By Lewis Hoban

Sarah Pallett Labour party

3. Your CV is quite impressive, being co-chair of the Labour Women’s Council, president of the majority union of academic staff at Ara, and a midwifery lecturer at Ara for more than 10 years. Do you think the latter has given you enough patience to deal with the toddler-adjacent antics of Parliamentary debate?

A: I hope you aren’t implying that my wonderful students behave like toddlers – I’d strongly refute that! Thanks for the compliment, though – I’ve certainly been busy. All of these roles require a clear understanding of the seriousness of the job that you are doing, combined with a robust sense of humour. Fortunately, I have these both in abundance and am unafraid of hearty debate – but like so many of us, appreciate it being tempered with kindness.

4. Ilam is mostly comprised of two groups – retirees and students.

Both tend to not like the other, however, the former tends to vote more actively. How do you plan to appeal to get us kids, who you claim to benefit from the Labour government, out to the voting booths?

1.We’ve had a Labour government for the last three years and we seem to be doing well enough. How will you continue that progress as our MP? A: You’re right, the Government has been doing an amazing job and have steered us through a really challenging time – with the Christchurch terror attack, Whakaari/White Island tragedy and, of course, the ongoing global pandemic. Labour has proved itself to be a safe pair of hands. We know we are on the right track – but we still have a lot to do. As MP for Ilam, I’d be working hard for everyone, not just the select few, and I intend to progress the excellent work that Labour is doing in rebuilding and restoring the country.

2. You’re one of the latest MP’s to go up against Gerry Brownlee, holder of the seat since 1996 and somehow now Deputy Leader of the National Party. How do you fancy your chances?

A: Gerry Brownlee has held this seat for a long, long time, so I’m aware it’s going to be a challenge. What I’m really enjoying about this campaign though, is that I am able to present myself as a credible and yet very different candidate from the incumbent MP. As a woman, an unashamed (intersectional, inclusive) feminist, a reproductive health expert, a vocal ally for LGBTQI+ people and a union activist, combined with my passion for equity and fairness – I do present a compelling alternative to Mr. Brownlee’s views. Of course, we are campaigning hard for the Party vote, and I hope that Labour’s strong performance over the past three years means that we will see gains there. Hopefully substantial gains!

30

A: I agree that these are two strongly represented groups – but Ilam also has a number of families, business owners and a new group of people in the SW of the city who we are welcoming into the Electorate with the new boundary changes. We have a richly diverse population, too, which is often forgotten in the tendency to see Ilam as ‘Merivale’.

In saying that, yes, we do need to galvanize young people to use their vote. But I don’t just ‘claim’ that students have benefitted from the Labour Government, and that they will continue to do so. I am really proud of the moves that Labour has made for students over the past three years – with the first-year fees free, free apprenticeships, almost all trades education now free, and $50 per week increase to student allowance (to name just a few). But there is more to do, and I am very keen to get the plan for three years fees-free tuition to be implemented. It is Labour’s policy, as you’ll be aware, but the plan to have the second-year fees free introduced next year has been delayed by the totally unexpected financial burden presented by COVID-19. You can be assured that I’ll be working hard to get this back on the table, as soon as we possibly can. Voting is such a precious opportunity to help create the changes you want to see, both for yourself and for society in general – I am really passionate about getting young people out and exercising this right. I never forget, too, that people died – and even now continue to fight hard across the world – for this opportunity.

5. Speaking of, Ilam residents probably can’t remember a time the electorate wasn’t represented by Gerry Brownlee. If elected, will you be more present in the area? Brownlee only visits when it’s election season, after all.

A: Yes, I’d be very present in the Electorate. The job of MP is one of serving the community as their representative, after all – and presence is a vital part of this. You’ll have seen in my CV that I’m a real ‘do-er’ and work extremely hard to reduce inequity and unfairness wherever I see it. Ilam hasn’t ever been represented by anyone other than Mr. Brownlee since its creation as an Electorate. Time for a change, don’t you think?

1. Not only are you running in one of the more conservative electorates in the country, you’re also running against Gerry Brownlee, who’s now Deputy Leader of the National Party. Do you think you’ll be able to appeal to the neighbourhood pensioners who double-tick Brownlee so they can keep calling noise control on us students?

A: I’m running as the Green Party candidate for Ilam because I believe we need to go further, faster, and take bold climate action to halve our carbon emissions by 2030. I’m appealing to voters in the electorate, including pensioners and students, who share Green values and believe we need to think ahead and act now to support people and protect the planet. Our Green Vision for Aotearoa is a bold new plan for an Aotearoa where all of us have what we need to live good lives, and where our natural environment is protected for our kids and grandkids. Your readers may be surprised to know that in our campaigning over the last few weeks, we are regularly talking to staunch National voters who will be giving their party vote to the Greens on election day. They understand that Party voting Green will help create a more resilient Aotearoa for future generations.

2. While only in Confidence and Supply, the Greens have put out a stunning amount of legislation in the last three years. How will you help to continue that momentum if you win the electorate?

A: Alongside the amazing campaign team of the Greens Ilam branch and UC Greens we will help maintain momentum by getting as many party vote ticks for the Greens on election day. The Green Party has achieved a massive amount in their first term as part of the government, including achieving more in just three years on climate action than the past 30 years of government combined. However, we are clear that there is much more to do – we need to go further, faster. So far in this campaign, we’ve announced new policy initiatives that will see us phase out coal by 2030, clear the social housing waiting list in just five years, and implement a Guaranteed Minimum Income so all of us have what they need to thrive.

3. Speaking of which, Ilam is home to a sizeable uni student population. We are a mostly apathetic bunch, but also one who seeks to gain the most from the Labour/Greens collab. How will you convince disgruntled students to get down to the voting booths?

A: The Greens have achieved a lot during the last three years that has directly benefited students: youth mental health pilot, reform of rental rules including banning letting fees, funding for clean transport, home insulation scheme, and reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act. If you want more policies to be implemented that support students your party vote Green will support their policy initiative of introducing a Guaranteed Minimum Income of $325 per week for students, no matter what. This will replace the student allowance, providing financial independence and security.

We’re aware a lot of students live in rental accommodation that is so cold and damp they have to wear all their clothes, and have black

mould as an extra flatmate! Our recently announced plan to regulate the rental property management market, including university halls, will help change this. Our aim is to professionalise rental property in a move towards European-style long term renting, and protect people against the cowboys operating in the market currently.

There are over 4,000 18-24-year-olds in the Ilam electorate who are not enrolled to vote, so my final appeal to students is to echo Green MP Chloe Swarbrick’s reminder, “Your vote is powerful.” Only the Greens have the courage and vision to deliver a cleaner, greener future for all of us, so make sure you’re enrolled to vote and go to your local polling booth on October 17 and party vote Green.

4. Both Brownlee and National leader Judith Collins have stated many times that they aim to repeal the Zero Carbon Act if they have the numbers. Many voters seem to support this idea. What would you say to convince them otherwise?

A: Green Party co-leader James Shaw introduced the bill that passed last year with support from all MPs, except David Seymour, as the Zero Carbon Act. It took this initiative by the Greens to act on climate change, as successive governments had done almost nothing to prevent it. This failure has led to uncertainty for young people, left communities across the country vulnerable in the face of extreme weather events, and taken untold damage on our wildlife.

The National Party has a history of putting profit before people. For too long, they have limited their focus solely on economic growth, and in turn sacrificed affordable housing, a strong safety net, and well-resourced public services. However, a growing number of people realise we need to transform our economy so we can protect our communities for the future. By giving your party vote to the Greens you will help get more Green MPs in parliament, so we can build a future that puts people and planet first.

5. For almost ten years on, our city still wears the scars from the 2011 earthquake. Suburbs still have ripped-up tarmac, but in town we’re getting an endless amount of schmancy boutiques.

Especially in Ilam, oft referred to as hosting the ‘affluent’ areas of town, there seems to be a disconnect between those living a comfortable middle-class life and those further down the poverty line. As the Green Party candidate, how do you plan to tackle this dysphoria, as well as the negligence done to our city?

A: My plan to tackle this disconnect is to work with all the other Green Party volunteers across the city to convince as many voters as possible to party vote Green. This will enable us to get more Green MPs in parliament so we can go further and faster to fix what is broken and set a better course for the future of our community. Local Greens have already supported the election of local government politicians who share Green values and vision for a fairer society. I will support these efforts in future local body elections so we have even more representation of the diversity of people that live in Christchurch.

31

Heidi Jensen Warren Outdoors party

1. So, the Outdoors Party, that’s new. Most students haven’t heard of it. What exactly do you guys stand for, if you don’t mind me asking?

A: The Outdoors Party has been a registered party since 2017. The party was originally mainly representative of the hunting, fishing, and outdoors recreation community but has expanded rapidly to represent all people who are concerned about multiple issues affecting our country and our various communities. We stand for a clean, healthy, vibrant environment, free from toxic poisons. We stand for freedom and true democracy and the right of our people to be heard and listened to by the people who are paid to represent them. We stand for better health care and education and want to place a holistic lens of both of these fields.

2. Do you feel as though the environmentalist message of the Outdoors party will, at any point, deplete votes from the Greens, the environmentalist party already in parliament? How exactly do your two parties differ?

A: We are the people’s party of choice who can’t stand the way the Green party has evolved to anything but Green. 1080 is a big issue and many people in NZ see the Predator Free Movement (including many ecologists and scientists, farmers, rural communities – including pregnant women, hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, trampers, tourists, animal rights activists and animal lovers and spiritually minded people) as an assault on our previous clean, green way of life, and a continual and ongoing threat to our health and wellbeing. 1080 is not a fringe issue at all but one that has resulted in great distress and hardship to many New Zealanders and their families and communities and has spurred people and communities into action through hikoi movements and ongoing protests. There are countless anti-1080 and anti-poison groups across NZ and now also overseas. It has prevented ecologically sound industries to flourish and has damaged our reputation as a provider of ‘safe’ ‘healthy’ foods due to the heavily contaminated water and undoubtable potential for 1080 to be in our food chain. Did you know that one 1080 pellet can kill a small child? There is also concern that due to the fact it is an insecticide and affects microorganisms it is contributing to the Kauri die off and has damaged the soil and microflora in our native forests and has reduced our native bird’s food sources.

How do we differ from the Greens? Well for one we listen to the people and their well-founded concerns. We are against the current carbon tax and would prefer to work with our rural communities and farmers to develop biodiverse farms and teach ecologically healthy farming practices that increase yield, help the soil and clean up our ecosystems. We would also support widespread hemp production and provide financial help for communities to get into industrial hemp production. Think biofuels, ecologically sound clothing, medicine, food, housing, furniture, hemp steel and hemp-based cars/plastics/rope/ etc. We see the rural communities as the heart of our country and a vital part of the economy, culture, and our way of life. We are the party that farmers will love. We also have a really good cannabis policy which is fair and reasonable.

32

3. You are one of the many candidates going against Gerry Brownlee, who has not only held the seat since 1996, but has now become Deputy Leader of the National Party, making an already steep hill just that much harder to climb. How do you fancy your chances?

A: The thing about Gerry Brownlee and myself is that we are both are qualified secondary teachers, in fact I even taught at the same school as him, so we have a common background. In my time living in this area Brownlee has never responded or addressed any enquiry I have sent him. I felt completely unrepresented by him as my MP. I think I will have a better connection with the people and just that much more of a modern and compassionate human response. I see my job as an MP as more of a representative of the people than a career politician wearing a suit and eating fancy dinners with big power players. I think families and students will resonate with me and my vision for this region and New Zealand. If they want change, they are going to have to say goodbye to Brownlee with their next vote.

Simon Walmisley New Conservative party

1. Your party leaders have said some worrying things in the last few months, especially your deputy leader, Elliot Ikilei. Do you agree or endorse with these statements? Do they necessarily align with the beliefs of your own campaign?

A: I don’t believe any of the things Elliot has said are worrying at all, in fact I commend him for having the courage to speak out and challenge the apparent status quo around these issues as he has. It’s easy to go with the crowd. Elliot is not such a person! I am supportive of his statements and it would be odd if they didn’t align with my own campaign; we are on the same team after all!

4. New Zealand thrives on its environment, generating most of our economy through farming and ecotourism, both of which seem at odds with each other. How will you prioritise preserving our natural environment when so much as giving the farming sector a side-eye sends farmers into a panic?

2. You’ve recently made promises to do with your party’s income splitting policy, offering tax incentives to families who keep one parent home to care for kids. How exactly is this going to work, and wouldn’t this get in the way of women wanting to forge their own careers and lives outside of the homestead?

A: The Outdoors Party is probably the party more in touch with our rural regions, farmers and ecotourism than any other party. Farmers won’t fear us and nor will tourism operators. We will work with these very important sectors to foster solid relationships, provide assistance and education and help with securing jobs in these areas for New Zealanders and residents. I encourage all people to contact us and go to the website and read our policies. We are also only a phone call away!

Our co-leader, Alan Simmons, has had a long career in nature-based tourism and is part of a rural community up in the North Island. I think I answered a great deal of that question in my response in number one. We aren’t about penalising farmers; we are about providing them with solutions that will work to benefit farmers and the environment.

A win-win!

A: So, a two-part answer then. Firstly, how exactly is this going to work? Income for a couple in a legally recognised relationship gets averaged across both people to allow them to take advantage of lower tax brackets. If one person is earning $60,000 and the other is earning nothing, they would be taxed as if they were both earning $30,000.

This has several benefits: an economic one obviously, but also a societal one as the policy gives much greater recognition to people who have legally committed to each other. It significantly raises the perceived value of committed relationships, encouraging, and rewarding people who stay together providing more stable homes for raising their children. It also has a philosophical benefit – it shows that the government believes your money is yours and not theirs. Governments who believe that taxpayer money is theirs – as seems to be the case with our two main parties here in NZ – have a tendency to waste it, or at least not treat it with the value it deserves. Secondly, would this get in the way of women wanting to forge their own careers and lives outside of the homestead? Not at all. The policy provides new options for parents who want to commit time to parenting which do not currently exist. It doesn’t take away anything that already exists so it’s not going to get in anyone’s way for any reason. It’s not compulsory, so women who want to ‘forge their own careers and lives outside the homestead’ as you put it, are not going to be disadvantaged. In fact, they may even be advantaged through being able to pay less tax on their personal income if they are the main income earner in their relationship.

Your question seems to read as though you’ve assumed it would be the woman who stays at home? However, if you read the policy, you’ll see that who stays at home to parent is irrelevant.

5. If elected, what will be the one thing you’ll fight most for in parliament?

A: The thing I will work hard for in parliament is to ensure our young people receive educational opportunities that are not a one-size-fitsall solution. We want to see nature-based schools evolve nationwide (not just inaccessible costly private ones!) and get children and youth in touch with the real world rather than just the virtual one. I want to empower our future generations by providing real world natural experiences on a daily basis in their schooling. We want schools and our education system to have a holistic focus that provides practical learning experiences so that we can build resilience and boost self-esteem and allow our children to grow and develop into healthy, confident, mentally-strong, well-educated adults. I want to see New Zealand become the clever country. Children and their families need to be able to have a choice between digital heavy modern learning environments, that don’t actually provide choice or suit all children, and more holistic nature-based schools where kids are responding to natural stimulus and learning to read and write and do math’s utilizing paper, pencil and real-world objects and materials. I want to see the arts in every school – we need painters, musicians, and theatre directors as much as we need computer scientists. We need to cultivate a NZ society that promotes the artist as much as the rugby player and entrepreneur.

The mental health crisis is one that motivated me to get into politics. I want to help make New Zealand and Ilam a friendlier, happier, healthier place to be and grow up. I think at the end of the day what I stand for is what most parents stand for – a better home and world for their kids.

3. You’ve shared your opinions on removing New Zealand from the Paris Climate Accords and rescinding the Carbon Zero Bill.

Why exactly? What would kiwis have to gain from such a move?

A: Currently New Zealand pays hundreds of millions of dollars every year through the ETS. The amount we pay is going up year by year too and will soon be billions of dollars every year. New Conservative sees no benefit to New Zealand (or the planet) by paying this money to overseas recipients. However, New Conservative are not saying that nothing needs to be done to deal with pollution. We would rather New Zealand withdraw from the Paris accords and the ETS so we can have that money to invest at home. New Zealanders have always been innovative and as a country we regularly seem to punch above our weight.

Think of what we could achieve if the ETS money going overseas was actually invested into our scientific institutions for research and development – targeted towards developing pollution solutions. Then, those solutions could be exported to the rest of the world providing real benefits to the New Zealand economy, our environment and the

plight of the planet. It could also be used to support our primary industries rather than penalise them. Here’s an example. In 2017, $1.5 million was granted by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise to Massey University for further development of metal-organic frameworks technologies. MOF’s are a new class of materials which, among other things, can be engineered to remove CO2 from the air.

Discoveries at Massey have already contributed strongly to a global surge of interest in the new materials. If we are serious about saving the planet, we need to work smarter. Throwing money overseas – and bizarrely most of our ETS money goes to China which is the world’s biggest polluter – is not smart. What could be achieved if $1.5 million worth of research and development was actually $150 million, or $1.5 billion? What if half of that was put aside to assist farmers to help clean up waterways or boost the Department of Conservation with their efforts? The Minister – a Green Party MP, has herself said that there aren’t nearly the resources available to do what needs to be done. Kiwis, New Zealand, and the earth itself have so much to gain from such a move it seems nonsensical to me that we would want to continue with the current scheme. At its heart it is a punitive one – correctly thought of as a tax or a fine. New Conservative are looking to develop an approach that encourages and supports our scientists and producers, giving them options and resources rather than taking them away.

4: You are one of the many candidates going against Gerry Brownlee, who has not only held the seat since 1996, but has now become Deputy Leader of the National Party, making an already steep hill just that much harder to climb. How do you fancy your chances?

As you say – Gerry Brownlee has been at this for over 20 years and I am just starting out. But everyone has to start somewhere, so while I may not take the electorate this time, Gerry Brownlee will not keep it forever either. I am not in this for just September 2020; I am in this for the long haul and however well I do this year will be my benchmark to improve from when we get to the next election. If I can continue to build support for myself and New Conservative, then I could win Ilam one day!

5. On that subject, the Ilam electorate has a large population of students and young adults, many (if not all) of whom don’t necessarily agree with your party policies. What will you do to appeal to the younger generation who find these policies morally questionable?

A: What I would most like to do is encourage any such members of the younger generation to come and discuss the policies they are concerned about, and their underlying ethical principles. While it is true that there are many young people who would be as you describe, I know many young people who are conservative in their views too, who support New Conservative and what we are standing for. My suspicion is that the younger generation is more ideologically diverse than you give them credit for. Watch this space though because very soon we may have two extremely young candidates running for the party. One thing our society seems to be losing is the skill (and recognition of the importance) of public discourse and I hope to engage with people who have issues with New Conservative as much as with those who agree with us. Perhaps if you could provide a particular policy you would like me to address then I could do so specifically rather than trying to imagine what they might be and only being able to make general comments. Perhaps we could set up such a discussion time at the university for students to attend and engage in some of that public discourse? *Following this exchange, the candidate’s wife went and personally contacted my old primary school teacher and accused her of teaching me leftist doctrine. Apparently, the fact I’m a grown-ass man with different opinions than their theocratic cryptofascism is too much to handle admirably. *

33

UNDERSTANDING THE ELEPHANT(S) IN THE ROOM FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS: REFERENDUMS

By Law for Change

This year Kiwis have the option to pōti (vote) in two referendums as well as in the general election. Most of us understand how a national election works (and if you don’t please check out vote.nz), but this may be a lot of tauira (student’s) first time voting in a referendum.

A referendum is a general vote by the people on a question or statement. Referendums are a direct decision by the people which can inform or guide the Karauna (government) when making legislation.

The referendums this year surround the legalisation of cannabis and the End of Life Choice Act 2019. For more details about what these referendums entail, referendums.govt.nz explains everything very well. That information is readily available, but we’d like to explain now what the referendums can actually do, and what your pōti will actually mean.

What are the legal implications of a referendum?

In Aotearoa New Zealand, a referendum can be binding or non-binding. This means that a referendum can either bind the government to put into force the decision reached by the people’s pōti, or they won’t be bound, and the referendum decision may not produce any results.

This is not to say that non-binding referendums are pointless, they can provide valuable information to the government, and can inform policy makers about what the interest of the people is. Parliament may also choose to enact legislation based on the result of a non-binding referendum as well. But ultimately, because Pāremete (Parliament) is sovereign, the result of a non-binding referendum may never come into fruition.

Most recent referendums in Aotearoa have been non-binding with the exception of the 1993 Electoral Referendum. This referendum allowed the people to decide if they wanted to change the then firstpast-the-post electoral system to a mixed-member-proportional one.

This decision was binding meaning that if the people decided in favour of switching, which was the case, that the new Electoral Act 1993 would become law.

There have been seven non-binding referendums in recent history.

The 1992 referendum, which asked whether the 1993 binding electoral referendum should be held was followed by the Karauna (government). Parts of a few others have also been followed, but the majority of the others, despite public engagement, were largely ignored. In many places, a non-binding referendum is said to have moral force and should be followed as to reflect the will of the people; this could certainly be the case, and has been the case in places such as the UK, but ultimately Pāremete (Parliament) is supreme and can decide how and what to legislate regardless of a referendum.

A binding referendum has not been held since 1993, but this year the decision regarding the End of Life Act 2019 is binding. This means that if more than 50% of the votes in the referendum support passing the legislation it will come into force (12 months after the announcement of the decision). This is a very significant decision. But again, since this referendum is also run in conjunction with an election, even

34

if the Act comes into force, there is nothing stopping a new parliament from repealing it once they form government.

On the other hand, the cannabis referendum is a non-binding referendum. This means that the result of the referendum is reliant on the government of the day following through with it.

While this might all sound pessimistic, just as easily as the Karauna (government) could choose not to act on the decision, they could choose to listen and follow the people’s decision. There is no way to know how Parliament may respond to the results of the referendum’s, so we, especially as a new group of voters, should not disregard the power our collective voice can have.

What happens after we pōti (vote)?

Hold your horses!! The results of the referendum will NOT be released at the same time as the general pōtitanga (election) results. The preliminary result will be announced on Friday the 2nd of October. However, the final official referendum result will be confirmed on Friday the 9th of October.

d n a a s i v y r a r o p m e t a n o u Are yo ? t r o p p u s f o in needrking with the New Zealand GoveVrnIDm-1e9n.t to ip due to CO d Cross is wo h e s R rd d a n h s la a u e o Z ri e w s Ne e experiencing ’r u o y if u o y help

Due to the binding nature of the End of Life Choice Act 2019 – where the referendum achieves a majority assent from electors it will come into force 12 months after the official result of the referendum is declared. Where the referendum falls short of a majority the Act will automatically be repealed and will have no legal effect.

On the flip side, if the legalisation of cannabis receives a majority of our pōti (vote) it will go back into the hands of Pāremete (parliament). So far, we have only seen a draft of the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill. Therefore, that Bill will be subject to ordinary parliamentary procedure. Throughout this process Kiwis will have the opportunity to submit their feedback on the Bill. Only once the Bill makes it past these constitutional stages will it become an Act of Pāremete (parliament) and enforceable by law.

He kupu whakatepe -- Conclusion In Aotearoa New Zealand we are lucky enough to be living in a democracy, where we have the opportunity for our voices to be heard.

It is important in this election (more than ever) that we use our right to pōti (vote)! The statistics across in America speak for themselves – 43% of eligible voters did not vote in the 2016 presidential elections.

That means that more people chose not to vote than all the people who voted in the election.

If you are thinking yeah nah WE are NOT like the USA, don’t be so sure. Here in Aotearoa in the 2017 election approximately 692,155 people who were enrolled to vote did NOT. If there is anything you take away from this atikara (article) we urge you to thoroughly educate yourself about the upcoming referendums and then PŌTI PŌTI PŌTI – VOTE VOTE VOTE!

if Want to know you’re eligible ? for this support

RE AT

FIND OUT MO

33 276)

RED CROSS (7 0 0 8 0 z .n t v .services.go ls a n io t a n n ig e for

Working with the

35

Entertainment

by Ella Somers

Just like COVID-19, politics is everywhere at t he moment and you j ust can't escape it. W e've had t he UCSA election and now the 2020 New Zealand general election is speeding t owards u s – at a slightly slower pace thanks to COVID-19 putting the brakes on. And as if we didn’t have enough political shit to think about all day, every day, in New Zealand right now, the 2020 US presidential election is looming in the very near future as well. Ahhh politics; get up close and breathe it in (but not t oo close, remember t o socially d istance because you don’t want to disappoint Ashley Bloomfield).

36

Podcast: Gone by Lunchtime

Web series: Youth Wings:

TV Series: Sextortion

Gone By Lunchtime is excellent listening fodder for any bored eardrums or pols enthusiasts obsessed with New Zealand politics who want even more political content in their lives. Toby Manhire, Annabelle Lee-Mather, and Ben Thomas host the podcast and take listeners through the latest political shit to hit the fan in New Zealand politics which at the moment IS EVERY BLOODY DAY. Needless to say, there’s a lot of episodes and a lot of stuff to talk about. As a ‘this podcast has to be good enough to drop everything in my life and listen to it otherwise I think it’s a piece of shit and will not only hate it but will spend the rest of my life thinking about the time I wasted on this podcast’ person, it would be fair to say that I had high expectations going into this. Thankfully, I wasn’t disappointed. Highly entertaining, lots of great discussion, all round would very much recommend to any eardrums out there. 8/10, perfect to listen to while you fold that massive washing pile you’ve put off for weeks.

Youth Wings is one of the latest web series from The Spinoff, made with the support of NZ On Air. Who knew a web series following five very different youth wing leaders from Young National, Young ACT, Young New Zealand First, Young Greens and Young Labour would be just the thing to take the edge off Hell Week™, aka the week before the semester break? Split into six spicy episodes, the first five episodes focus on a particular person and youth wing while the sixth episode is a feisty political debate between all the youth leaders in front of a live audience. Were there times I felt such intense second-hand embarrassment that I would’ve rather danced on a floor covered in Lego pieces than carried on watching? Yes absolutely, but the addictive quality of all the episodes more than makes up for it. My favourite episode was the one on Young ACT which was a masterclass in what storytelling magic can be created within 633 seconds of video footage (TW for content on sexual harassment and online bullying though).

9/10, would happily step on a whole box of Lego if The Spinoff makes this series again in 2023.

Tom Sainsbury aka Paula Bennett’s alter ego stars in this as Darren Bellows, a conservative Christian politician whose political career starts to crumble when a sex tape which definitely doesn’t hold up his party’s very conservative values gets leaked just months before the election. This is one of those TV series that knows it has a ridiculous premise and just decides to go all out with it. Unfortunately, it gets so distracted in hamming everything up that it’s hard to remember at times that the series isn’t shit – it’s just enthusiastically pretending to be. Tom Sainsbury tries his hardest but isn’t at his best in here – super surprising when you consider that if he can convincingly pull of Paula Bennett, you’d think his talents should have no limits. However, Kathleen Burns is amazing in her role as a dominatrix called Shona and manages to carry the show from borderline shit territory to ‘this is intriguing enough for me to keep watching’. 6/10, big clap for Kathleen Burns.

37

Club Notice Board UC Football

UC Football is calling all members – past and present – to take off your boots and chuck on your dancing shoes! All members and alumni are invited to the UCAFC 75th Anniversary Ball on the 12th of September in the Haere-Roa building.

There are single, double, and team tickets available at discounted prices, and a free drink on entry! Nibbles will also be provided and some prizes to give away!

Vegetarian Club

VEGETARIAN CLUB CURRIES ON CAMPUS – Every Tuesday and Friday 12-2 pm @ the Living Room lounge next to the Book Shop on campus. All welcome! (you don’t have to be member). $6 vegan curry & rice (a different one every time) prepared by a professional cook.

Also available: samosas, pakoras (battered-fried veges), and apple pies. All vegan! Cash only – please try to bring some change. Bring your own plate/container to avoid a 50-cent surcharge for paper plate and spoon. Can take-away too.

Tickets are available through the event on Facebook: https://facebook.com/events/s/ucafcs-75th-anniversary-ball/733543950818976/?ti=icl

CRIMSOC

Coming up in Week 1 of Term 4…

NZIIP EVENING: 9th September The NZ Institute of Intelligence Professionals are coming to talk to you about career avenues in the intelligence professional sphere.

There will be panellists from The Ministry for Primary Industries, The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as well as ex-police and defence force members. If you are interested to know where your CRJU degree could take you then come along as there will be opportunity to meet the panellists as well as food and drinks provided after the event.

QUIZ NIGHT & BUS TRIP: 10th September

Law for Change

Do these headlines sound all too familiar to you or someone you might know? Or do you want to get prepared and make sure this is not you!

Law for Change in conjunction with Community law invites ALL students to our seminar. We want you to know YOUR rights when it comes to tenancy and employment issues.

This will be a seminar followed by private Q+A where you can consult a lawyer with your issues on these topics. So, make sure to come take advantage of this free opportunity! Date soon to be confirmed so be sure to keep up with our Facebook page to not miss out on this event!

Any issues email Kenzie at social.events@ucfootball.co.nz :)

LEGAL RIGHTS SEMINAR TENANCY& EMPLOYMENT

https://www.facebook.com/LawforChangeUC/

Forestry Society

Walk into a winter wonderland at FORSOC ball. You will have more fun than a fantail in a native forest

UCASS

UCASS is finishing 2020 with a bang! A plethora of events are on for Term 4.

We are holding our first ever Clubbies Night to celebrate the success of our Social Sports teams over this year! To thank all our amateurs for an awesome 2020, Clubbies gives everyone a chance to get together, let off a bit of steam, and enjoy a fun evening.

This night-time event is set to take place on the 19th of September 2020, so clear the calendar. If it’s anything like last year, it’s definitely not to be missed! Unlike other club balls the FORSOC ball offers an open bar for you battlers so prepare your liver, because it’s gonna be a big one.

Tickets will be up on Eventbrite in no time, so keep an eye out for the link. The cost is a mere $50 for members and $60 for non-members.

This includes transport to and from the venue, plus food and live music from none other than Lunar Intruder. More information can be found on the Facebook event “Forsoc Winter Wonderland Ball”.

CRIMSOC x TP x WIL present to you QUIZ NIGHT! Get a group together and battle it out for some sweet prizes. The team that shines victorious will even win a round on us. The Quiz will be held at the old Vicarage with busses provided to and from the event. Your ticket will even include a meal and a drink! So, start binge-watching The Chase because you will need all the practise you can get!

Q-Canterbury

QCanterbury is Coming Out... of Lockdown! for the 2020 QC Ball on Saturday the 19th of September. Kicks off at 8 pm with live music in Ti Kouka, Haere Roa. Limited tickets available now and found on our Facebook page.

Also coming in hot and heavy is potentially our biggest event of the year! Coming soon to a Haere-Roa near you is the UCASS 3v3 Basketball Tournament. Live DJs, Crowds, lighting and the Foundry Bar open – a recipe for a fantastic time! Interhall and Competitive teams will battle out for some top-notch prizes. Not only do the teams have a chance of taking home the loot, but crowds can also gun for them as well.

Finally, we are looking to have a Can-a-Hole event to cap off the year in style. We will be shuttling groups to and from the course for a day of golfing extravaganza. More details to come, so keep a keen eye on our social medias.

Overall, it is going to be an absolutely killer term so get hyped, get some mates, and bring that amateur spirit! UCASS out.

38

39

CLIMATE JUSTICE

By Rose Balydon

Generation Zero’s slogan is A Future That’s Not Shit – and we want that to go for everyone!

Let’s talk about climate change, baby.

Okay wait! Before you turn the page, already overwhelmed and a bit bored of hearing about the “C” words, hear me out. We need to talk about climate change, and not just as an environmental issue (we know that you know that it’s sad to see forests burning and lonesome polar bears stranded on melting ice). So, let’s dive in a little more, and try to see it as the multi-faceted issue it is. A social one. A political one. A justice one.

We know that changes coming about from climate change will disproportionately affect those already on the margins of society. This might be quite literally in Aotearoa, with those on our coasts being the most susceptible to sea level rise and more intense weather events. But we are also talking about those socially on the margins. Because let’s be very clear – this is a justice issue. This will not affect people equally, and the way people are able to deal with this will not be equal.

By Serena Grace

levels, people in different locations around Aotearoa, people with varying abilities, and skill-sets, and cultures, and historical legacies?

Will introducing a fuel tax help? Or will the rich brush it off as another cost, while the poor struggle with this burden while having to get themselves to a low-paying job every day? Some people’s livelihood depends on the fossil fuel industry – how will they be treated when their job is phased out?

And how does all this relate to the elections? Well one of the ways that we can act on this issue is to ensure we are voting for people who see the importance of these issues, have solid policies and will actually act on them.

So, how do we vote with Climate Justice in mind? We aren’t asking you to vote for one specific party necessarily. But there are things you can look out for when deciding who represents you best: Does this party consider climate change to be a social issue as well as an environmental one?

Social inequalities play a big part, both within a country and between countries. We can look at a country like the Netherlands, which is very low lying, but is better able to adapt to sea level rise through technology, more funding, and implementation strategies. Compare this to another low-lying land such as Bangladesh, which has less of these adaptation capabilities. The people of this country may face more displacement, and may even be forced to become climate refugees in the future.

Will they actively involve iwi and hapū in creating and implementing policies and plans?

The countries with a higher proportion of people in poverty have historically emitted much less than those we today consider to be “Western” countries, and they will face the consequences of our actions in a more severe way and have less ability to deal with it. Same goes within Aotearoa. The average person and people living in poverty have contributed the least to climate change, yet will have the least ability to adapt to changes. And we know within Aotearoa that demographics such as Māori and Pacifica, as well as new immigrants and refugees, struggle economically and socially, so this is also a question of racial and cultural equality.

Do they have a plan to ensure that the transition to a low-carbon economy will be a fair and just one, with the potential for retraining opportunities for those whose jobs will be affected?

Indigenous cultures will be affected disproportionately, they tend to have an integrated relationship with the environment. These relationships are increasingly being threatened with our natural world being degraded, and various cultural, spiritual, and traditional practices suffer from it. In Aotearoa, Tangata Whenua have the practice of Mahinga Kai – food gathering. If collecting shellfish is endangered by waterway pollution, ocean acidification, and overfishing, then this cultural practice will be endangered, not to mention the spiritual connection to the land that will be disrespected.

By Rose Bayldon on behalf of Generation Zero

We also need to look wider than our borders. We know our Pacific neighbours are in danger of rising seas and intensified weather events; arid countries already struggling with food production will have more droughts.

https://www.generationzero.org/vote

So, we need to get excited about a transition to a low carbon economy. And to our credit, we are. The introduction of the Zero Carbon Bill was a major step in this direction (and a success story in how campaigning for policy change can happen). But we need to also get excited about a just and fair transition.

How are our new policies going to affect people of different income

https://www.mrfcj.org/pdf/Geography_of_Climate_Justice_Introductory_Resource.pdf

40

MUNCH WITH ME

Do they have a climate change mitigation plan? (Mitigation meaning reducing further emissions).

Do they have a climate change adaptation plan? (Adaptation being a way to live with the current and future changes).

Do they look outside of our own borders for a wider response and responsibility?

Please vote these elections – and please vote with climate change and climate justice in mind. These issues are something that will be with us for generations to come, so it is important that we get it right now.

Generation Zero is a New Zealand organisation who are keen for a zero carbon future, and actively try to make that happen both locally and nationally. Check out our facebook page or follow the link below to see our website.

If you want to find out a wee bit more please check out these sites:

https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/pledge-to-use-your-votefor-climate-justice-in-the-20 2 0-election

https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/03/planning-just-transition-leaving-no-worker-behind-shifting-l o w-carbon-future

Hello and welcome to the first instalment of Munch with Me! My name is Serena and I am honoured to be writing for CANTA and reviewing everyone’s favourite food spots on and around campus.

To start this series off, I wanted to review two of my favourite snacking spots I have visited over the past few weeks. First, let’s start on Campus. As a Fine Arts student myself, it is not uncommon for us to be seen tripping across the courtyard to the Meremere (Law and Business) building for a wee munch in the early afternoon. I didn’t discover Mix Café until the second semester of this year when a friend introduced me to their toasties and me-oh-my, are they good! The wait time is potentially undesirable for things like paninis and toasted sandwiches but if you’re trying to get out of a boring class then this is the perfect excuse! (skipping class is not encouraged but you’re all adults, make your own mistakes chickas). Paninis are mildly overpriced but excellent value for a lunch treat, or alternatively, get your desired fillings between two slices of bread to bring the price down.

I’ve just discovered Mix Café is now available on flamingo food and for click and collect so if you’re after their toasties but don’t want to wait, give this a go! I haven’t tried flamingo food or the click and collect option within the app, so please take my advice at your own risk.

Some other recommendations from Mix Café is their peach iced tea and other cold beverages – they make it all on the spot for you in minutes so with warmer days coming up it’s totally worth the extra walk for something refreshing. The only food item I would have to discourage you from are the cheese rolls. As a Wellingtonian, I came to the South Island expecting cheese rolls that make my heart melt as much as the cheese. However, if this is something that you’re after, I’d stay clear of Mix Café’s cheese rolls. The brioche bread combined with the straight cheese (no onion was a HUGE let down) became a very rich combo and my stomach was not a fan – could be because I’m a little bit lactose intolerant though. If you’re willing to take a risk and give them a go, I recommend ordering one instead of two. Depending on what you order and for a carb-filled lunch to power you through some evening lectures I’d give the Mix Café in the Meremere building a solid 7/10.

get over the fact of how literal the squid tentacles looked! Everything else we ordered was off the trollies, such as pork buns and a variety of dumplings. The service was incredible because all the food comes out hot within the first 5 minutes of being seated. Even at level two, Madam Kwong took excellent precautions and still delivered the best service possible. A downside for me was that a few of the servers delivering ordered food to our table did not speak enough English to understand when we asked for a bottle of water, but it’s a minor issue.

The real winner for me was the pineapple bun for dessert. The pineapple bun is a large, soft, doughball filled with custard and topped with a delicious crust. The consistent deep-fried and oily food did cure my hangover in time for work but I definitely felt some flow on effects from eating quite unhealthily. All together for about six dishes split between two people the cost was $30, so affordable for a massive feed! I’d recommend trying Madam Kwong’s restaurant for a Friday or Saturday night venture. Madam Kwong’s allows B.Y.O. and an uber from the wider uni flatting area wouldn’t be more than $15 – definitely a banging spot for a 21st with mates. Overall, I’d say it was a lovely experience but time of day does matter and the company you bring too. I’m giving Madam Kwong an 8/10. Don’t forget to wear some stretchy-waisted pants!

Over the course of my reviews I’d like to keep you all up to date with my top 10 places to eat or go for a munch. Top five on campus and top five off campus.

Obviously, both of these places are taking number one on the leader boards but come back next issue to see if their placings change!

On Campus: Off Campus: 1. Mix Café (7/10) 2. Madam Kwongs (8/10) 3.

4.

5.

For my off-campus recommendation, I recently discovered the wonders of Madam Kwong on Blenheim Road. Yum cha is typically a Cantonese brunch meal which is why I chose to visit Madam Kwong’s on a Sunday morning (was a bit of a hangover breakfast if I’m honest).

I only ordered one thing off the menu, which was deep fried squid at my boyfriend’s recommendation, and it wasn’t the worst but I couldn’t

41

Name: Pereen Age: 22 Height: 17 King size joints Talent: Finding filthy DnB gigs and convincing the flat to go along, has a sick muffler on her Swift Flat role: Flat mum, hype girl, baker of tasty goods and cleaning sergeant Dream job: Mayor of Greymouth Name: Malcolm Age: 22 Height: 7 Basketballs Talents: Provider of gum and water at gigs, best phone camera, 5am smoothies, muscles, bucket hat Flat roles: Bong cleaner (tobacco use only), lawn mower, young professional Dream job: 2Chainz ‘Most expensivest’/coffee shop owner

42

Gloria :Name

22 :Age 0.34 orca’s :Height Vegan specialist, actually re-watches lectures for revision (who does that?), has a cute British accent :Talent Making sure we know what goes in the recycling, updates us on whale facts, has rechargeable LED bike lights :Flat role Mother of Orca’s and Protector of the Environment. :Dream job

Francesco :Name

33 - 5: Age 6.2 Subway footlongs :Height Makes a half decent coffee, self acclaimed barista, green thumb and surf go :Talent The Aussie of the flat. Need I say more? :Flat role Jaime O’Brian’s board caddie / errand boy OR life time ENG student. Could go either way really:Dream job

Church Corner

334 Riccarton Road, Upper Riccarton Christchurch 03-348 0789

43

DE-BUNKING THE VOTING MYTHS

By Anonymous

It’s common knowledge by now that 18-24-year-olds are the lowest group to be enrolled and vote. We can change that!

Pockets of student flats make up a large amount of the Ilam and Wigram electorates and with most students changing flats each year it’s pretty easy to forget to update your details, let alone even know if you’re enrolled or not.

Although housing situations change and interest in politics, political parties, and candidates varies for everyone, one thing that doesn’t change is that your individual voice matters.

Five Facts in Five 1) Vote.nz to enrol Enrolling is easier than it’s ever been. For the first time you’re able to enrol and update your details online at www.vote.nz. All you need is a valid New Zealand Driver’s License, a New Zealand Passport, or a Real Me Verified Identity. Don’t have any of these? Easy – all you need to do is fill out your details online, provide a postal address, and a form will be sent to you. Once it arrives, sign the form and upload it online or send it back.

2) Advance voting is for everyone (you can vote in advance and still enjoy Tea Party!)

With the change of the General Election date, you can now vote from Saturday 3rd October until Saturday 17th October, with voting closing at 7pm. This year at UC there will be Advanced Voting available – which means even if you’re going to tea party there’s a way to have your say and voice heard for the two weeks prior. Advanced voting is easy and is for everyone!

44

3) If in doubt, check it out A lot of the time we either think we’re enrolled, enrolled a few years ago, or you’re reading this and don’t even know what we’re on about.

Moved address and not sure if you’ve updated your details? Enrolled in High School but now it’s been a few years since? Not really sure if you are but 88.8% certain you are? If in doubt check online at www. vote.nz and enrol. Better be safe than sorry.

4) Don’t be a Vote Ghost In Ilam electorate, only 65.5% of eligible 18-24-year-olds are enrolled, and in the Wigram Electorate (which covers Riccarton from Deans Ave all the way up to Hornby) only 56.8% of eligible 18-24-year-olds are enrolled. This means there’s a lot of 18-24-year-olds who either aren’t enrolled or haven’t updated their details. Maybe it’s apathy, maybe it’s laziness – perhaps a lack of awareness on how easy it is to enrol and vote. Simply put, don’t be a Vote Ghost – have your say and don’t leave it up to the 90% of people over 70 who are enrolled.

5) You don’t need ID to vote Voting is easy. Just tell the person at the voting place your name and they will sort you out. You don’t need to bring any ID. To make things even easier, enrol to vote before the 13th September and you’ll get an easy vote card. Then when you vote, all you need to do is take along your easy vote card and voting is quicker and easier for all. But remember, your vote won’t count unless you’re enrolled.

Enrolling is easy and takes five minutes ... which means the time it took you to read this you could’ve enrolled online at www.vote.nz and asked all your flatties and friends if they’ve enrolled and updated their details. Enrolling and voting in this year’s General Election and Referendums is one way you can have your say on the future of New Zealand.

45

The Students choice

Kick start your career.

Whether you’ve got a solid life plan or only a faint idea, Silver Fern Farms can help you get there.

Join our Graduate Career Programme today.

46 Guaranteed savings

Free hour of off-peak power every day

No contracts T&C’s apply

Apply online.

careers.silverfernfarms.com47

ONE SIDE Presents...

LUCKY DIP

Finally I’m on Lucky Dip! Was I going to break my dry spell? Okay I’ll disappoint you now by confirming I did not. Honestly, maybe I could have but I will freely admit I may have screwed up a few times on the date. When I arrived at Sal’s he was already there and I wasn’t disappointed, he looked alright in his pink sweatshirt and jeans. Definitely trying to give off twink vibes.

We hugged and started chatting, the conversation flowed alright which was a good sign. But there was this other random dude at the restaurant who had a really cool pair of dungarees on, so I quickly went to pay him a compliment and it suddenly turned into a bit of a flirtatious back-and-forth. Realising how incredibly inappropriate that was when on a date with another guy I shut it down as quick as possible. But it wasn’t quite quick enough, I turned back and he looked PISSED OFF. I quickly changed to the topic of what we should eat, hoping some food could salvage the huge fuck up I just made.

We ordered and then continued having yarns. We laughed heaps, gossiped about other gays we knew, and had some healthy debate about some hot political issues. It seemed to be going good. Food arrived and he laughed at me burning the entire insides of my mouth trying to eat pizza that had just come out of the oven. I’m pretty sure he thought I was a complete pig.

It was all pretty good, but he wouldn’t shut the fuck up about going to the States. He had to relate every topic of conversation back to his experience on holiday in America. It kinda got a bit predictable. Like, we get it dude, you’ve travelled. Well done. I started to take the piss out of him a bit, which appeared to be another nail in my coffin.

Overall I had a pretty good time, but would’ve liked to get laid. 6/10.

THE OTHER SIDE I was a little nervous heading into the date, so naturally knocked back a few trusty yellow elephants beforehand. I was a little early, so slapped on some hand sanitizer took a seat. Around 10 minutes later he arrived and I’ll be honest, my heart sunk a little. He wasn’t as attractive as I had hoped (that’s Christchurch for you, I guess), but the night was young. We hugged and began to chat about the usual small talk topics. We had a few things in common, like music and a few mutual friends. Unfortunately, that’s where most of the commonalities ended. Also, when we went up to order he started flirting with some other guy over his dungarees, so not a great start.

When I asked him if he had Tik Tok, he told me no because “it’s only for teenagers”. I tried to talk him into it but he wasn’t biting so I decided to change subject. Being an election year and having an interest in politics myself, I asked him if he did too. What a mistake that was.

He had a lot of opposing opinions to me, including that cannabis legalisation would be “terrible” and that wealth taxes are bad because rich people “work hard” to earn their money. Thank fuck I had those yellow elephants beforehand.

Thankfully our pizza arrived pretty soon after that and so we dug right in. He didn’t eat all of his half and offered the remainder to me (oddly generous for a man who doesn’t believe in wealth taxes lol). When the pizza was done we decided to call it a night and head our separate ways home. I was a bit gutted I wasn’t going to get laid, but tbh he gave off so much bottom energy it probably wouldn’t have worked out anyway.

48

Want a Sal’s dinner, drinks and a chance to shoot your shot in LUCKY DIP? Email editor@canta.co.nz

, OW N B N PE HU Y O HE NB T R O AT H

RICCARTON HORNBY TERRACE NORTHLANDS LICHFIELD ST Authentic Ingredients. Original Recipe.

SINCE 1975

49

50

51

VOTE you have from the 3rd of october till the 17th!

52