Tags

Feeds / Salient feed 2020

This feed is published by Salient.

This feed is read by this Whakaoko subscription

Added on 26 Apr 2020. Last read 3 minutes ago.

To subscribe to this feed, enter the following location into your feed reader.

This feed currently contains the following newsitems (total count 113):

    • The Young Candidates Vying For Your Vote
      • Azaria Howell | She/Her This election, there are more young people vying for your vote than ever before. No matter where you’re registered, there’s probably a person under 30 you can vote for. But don’t quote me on that. Here are a few: Independent candidate Jesse Richardson is a newcomer to politics, based in Wellington Central. Only 18 years old. His campaign is centred around solutions for the climate crisis and rising house prices in the Wellington region. Richardson also studies at Victoria University, alongside New Conservative candidate Liam Richfield.  Liam Richfield supports the values of the New Conservatives, including reducing taxes and opposing abortion, to name a few.  Promising a plethora of policies, young candidates went head to head in the TVNZ young voters’ debate last week. This debate focused on the topics which youth voters care about, such as education, climate change, and the cost of living.  Green Party MP Chlöe Swarbrick was a notable presence in the young voters’ debate, being the youngest MP in Parliament, aged just 26.  Running to be the MP for Auckland Central, Swarbrick stands for climate justice and recognition of Te Tiriti O Waitangi. She is also a part-time student at Victoria University, studying towards a Masters degree.  The Greens are running many young candidates across the nation, and have also committed to lowering the voting age to 16, as well as giving tertiary students transport discounts and promising a guaranteed minimum income of $325 per week for all. Rising in current polls, ACT Party deputy Brooke van Velden, 27, contributed to the debate with witty comebacks to government policies.  The Wellington Central candidate pointed out the Labour Party’s shortcomings including the Kiwibuild housing programme and the fees-free tertiary scheme.  Van Velden also proposed free-market values to young voters and promised lower taxes and a strong economic recovery plan.  Simeon Brown was National’s representative at the young voters’ debate; he showcased New Zealand’s need for economic growth during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which thousands of kiwis lost their jobs.  Brown stated that despite election promises, house prices and the use of coal had increased under the Labour government, which he deemed unacceptable.  Simeon Brown, 29, is the current MP for Pakuranga and is campaigning for National. Other young National candidates include 18-year-old Palmerston North candidate William Wood. New Zealand First was also present at the young voters’ debate, with Dunedin candidate Robert Griffith representing the party. Griffith was passionate about mental health issues and promised to write off student loans if the student works in New Zealand upon finishing their degree.  Te Tai Tonga, the Māori electorate which Wellington is in, is also hosting an exciting election—with incumbent Rino Tiritakene facing off against five candidates, including the Māori Party's Tākuta Ferris. Ferris is an advocate for Māori voices in Parliament, and has accused the Labour Māori caucus of being ‘invisible.’  The Māori Party’s Rawiri Waititi, 39, is challenging Tamati Coffey’s seat in the Waiariki electorate. Coffey, 40, has been the MP since 2017. Last election, only 69% of eligible voters aged 18-24 actually cast a ballot, compared to 88% of voters aged over 65.  This year’s election is even more crucial as voters have a choice whether or not to support the Cannabis Legalisation and Control referendum as well as the End of Life Choice referendum. You get a free pen, and you get to exercise your democratic right to vote.

    • OPINION: I’m Going To Have My Voice Heard This Election—But I’m Not Sure Who’ll Listen.
      • Gina Dao-McLay | She/Her <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > PHOTO: Stuff Having turned 18 between the initial election date and October 17th, I, all of a sudden, have a couple of important decisions to make. Being able to vote means taking part in national politics, which feels really overwhelming. As a young person, being immersed in social media means we have access to more information than ever before. This gives us a huge awareness of what is going on around the world. We see how politicians’ decisions overseas make a massive difference in people’s everyday lives and change the future we’ll inherit forever. We know how what we do (or don’t do) now can change the course of history. In New Zealand, 18-24-year-olds make up the second-largest eligible voting block. More than ever, our futures and our children's futures will be tied to the decisions of politicians today. With all this voting power, and our lives on the line, you’d think political parties would be knocking down doors to appeal to young voters. But unfortunately, that is not the case. I was at a Local Body Election event last year and an older man stood up to tell then Wellington City Council candidate Tamatha Paul that, “if young people finally got organised you could have a serious impact on the results of elections.” He wasn’t wrong, but as was rightly pointed out to him, there are many reasons young people don’t go to the polls. Young people will show up for politics when politicians start showing up for them. I know I’m going to have my voice heard this election, but I’m not sure who’ll listen. Our current political parties have a history of promising to make things better for our generation and then doing the exact opposite. If they think they can opt-out of improving our lives and securing our futures—then, of course, young voters opt-out on election day. Throughout Aotearoa, youth continue to make clear what we want to see from our Government. The New Zealand Union of Students' Associations want universal student allowances. Te Ara Whatu and School Strike for Climate want a commitment to climate action. The whānau  at Ihumātao want their whenua protected and free of housing development. Make it 16 want to lower the voting age. It’s beyond clear that many young people know what they want their futures to look like. We know what we want to see in our communities. Yet, because of lack of Government action and civics education in schools, young people and other marginalised communities often opt out of voting. Without the belief things will actually change or knowledge of political systems, our confidence in our own political engagement crumbles—automatically cutting us from the conversations we've intentionally been kept out of. They don’t have to serve us if we’re not at the table. I believe we have the power to break this cycle. We may not own houses, or very much at all, but we do own our vote. We are able to say no to the status quo and to those who push us and our lives out of politics—we literally have the power to change the country, it’s there for the taking. This year has proved that anything is possible. Only we can show our next Government what real change looks like. Young people know what we want now, and for our future. We will be voting this election, for whoever can answer our calls.

    • 2020 In Review: How VUW Fucked Us
      • Kirsty Frame | Ngāti Kahungunu | She/HerAnnabel McCarthy | Te Whakatōhea | She/Her It’s been unprecedented. It’s been filled with controversy. It’s financially fucked. It’s VUW, and here’s a recap of all the lowlights they served (and keep serving) students in 2020. Summer rebranding sneaky After spending literally millions of dollars on the failed attempt to rename VUW, the University underwent cheeky rebranding over the summer. In what’s been dubbed as a “rebrand by stealth”, the University has rebranded within the limitations of the failed attempt. New signage, designs, website domains, even the wifi name were implemented over Trimester 3.  Pastoral care? Earlier in the year, a  resident at Te Puni Village was unable to reach any night staff before being hospitalised for severe influenza. It was later confirmed that on their “quietest night[s]”, night attendance staff are not present, leaving responsibility to RA’s via a duty phone.  COVID communication is key In the lead up to the country’s lockdown, many students were out of the loop at VUW. Some courses had blanket extensions, some didn’t, and students were unsure if they’d need to vacate Wellington or not. Before any news of the teaching break and online learning for current students, VUW thought ahead to new enrollments—offering free study to new students affected by COVID-19 for Trimester 2.  VUWSA swiftly came with a fiery statement, outlining their disappointment with the University’s response to COVID-19. Grant Guilford told Salient a week later he was “proud” of the University’s response. In Salient’s March interview, Grant Guilford explained there had been years of crisis management planning at VUW, particularly due to our seismic risk.  When asked how effective their communication to students during this time period was, the University reiterated the unprecedented nature of this year, adding “at some points, it took time to gather this information, but staff worked long hours and as quickly as possibleto provide it.” Acknowledging they received some feedback of dissatisfaction from students, the University “took this feedback on board and are committed to a process of continuous improvement in this area”. International students To add to an already distressing situation, many international students felt the support they received from VUW during this time was lacking. Students felt they should be refunded the financial difference between international fees and domestic fees, given that classes were moved online and the “thriving capital city campuses” they were paying to study at were no longer accessible. Course fees for international students are roughly four times that of domestic students. Part of paying increased fees is access to education students may not otherwise have in their home country and the opportunity to engage in New Zealand culture. Despite VUW acknowledging international students “are not able to have the on-campus experience they anticipated” and conceding it was “not the situation they signed up for”, requests for an equitable fees reduction went unanswered. This left many international students feeling forgotten about and as though the University lacked empathy towards them. As one international student told Salient, “[VUW] are our guardians, they should help us”. The halls fiasco After being told their halls would remain open, the University gave residents less than 48 hours notice of their halls closing for lockdown. The choice was simple: to vacate or be relocated to a few halls that wouldremain open. During lockdown, a number of students were assured by Student and Campus Living staff that they wouldn’t be charged for any time they weren’t in their halls.  Come April 24th, the University doubled down and announced to residents (and RA’s) that they’d be charged a “discounted” fee of $150/week, despite the country still under Alert Level 3. Thus, those who vacated were going to be paying for empty rooms. The cherry on top is the timing: The Uni graciously gave students five days notice from when they’d be invoiced. Emails were sent on Friday evening, ahead of a three-day weekend.  What ensued after was a rent-strike movement, led by a number of VUW students, supported by many public figures. Come May 1st, the University backed down, announcing they’d delay hall fees until May 11 (when the country went down to Level 2). We asked the University, with particular focus on the rent-strike, if they acknowledge that charging students for rooms they could not relocate back to was not in the best interest of students. The University reiterated that they did not charge students for these rooms, and highlighted the costs to the University these discounts incurred. They did not acknowledge student interests further. No grade bump When Otago and Auckland Universities made the decision to scale up student’s Trimester 1 grades in recognition of the stresses caused by COVID-19, VUW tried to match this by adding statements to student’s academic transcripts. VUWSA launched a petition in protest calling on the University to listen to and act upon the concerns of its student body. Despite gaining over 7000 signatures, the petition ultimately fell on deaf ears when the Senior Leadership Team confirmed no grade bump would be given. The University reiterated their decision, noting their approach to assess scaling grades against previous cohorts of students taking the same course. They note that this may lead to some courses being scaled up more than 5 points.  All academic transcripts now include the line “students studying in 2020 were impacted, in a variety of ways, by the COVID-19 pandemic”, which undoubtedly makes up for the GPA disparity between VUW students and students from Universities who scaled up grades. When they blew $30k In an attempt to welcome students back for Trimester 2, the University organised a Drum & Bass gig. There was little to no promotion on the University’s behalf, and a multitude of internal miscommunication. This led to 6% of tickets being sold, and the event being cancelled just 24 hours before.  Students foot the bill for this one, with the University having to cough up $30k.  The chaos that is Whiria The recent major restructure was hit with exceptional push-back from staff, key student groups, and the wider public. The 30-page document was by no means digestible for students and there were no student-focused consultations. VUWSA spoke out of their disappointment that students were not involved or engaged with. While the Whiria project did not officially progress further, many restructural plans are continuing with similar essence as VUW prepares for significant financial losses. The restructure threatens significant changes to the current structures, which will have direct impacts on students and their courses as they know it.  Tensions have clearly been building between senior leadership and wider university staff amid these threats to faculty structures and job security.  With serious job losses threatened, staff have now come forward saying they’ve gone from working in a “low-trust environment” to “an active distrust environment. A recent survey by the Tertiary Education Union found 88% of staff did not trust the senior leadership team to lead a restructure, and more than half of our VUW staff were suffering from fatigue and anxiety.  So there we have it, who knows what they’ll try to sweep under the rug over the summer. 

    • Meet The Candidates for Te Tai Tonga Panel Held at VUW
      • Te Aorewa Rolleston | Ngāi te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui | She/Her Candidates standing for the largest electorate in the Māori electoral roll met at Victoria University last Monday to outline their policies and discuss issues posted to them by the student community.  The Te Tai Tonga electorate covers the area from Rakiura/Stewart Island to the bottom of the North Island, including Wellington.  Tākuta Ferris from the Māori party, Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati from the Green party, and Anituhia McDonald from the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis party all took part in the panel discussion hosted by Victoria University Lecturer and Te Kawa a Māui staff member, Maria Bargh.  The absence of tertiary student support and funding particularly during COVID-19 was posed during the discussion with the candidates.  Paretutanganui-Tamati shared the Green Party policy of introducing a $325.00 weekly universal basic income that would assist students and also their aim to push for tertiary education to be free in the future.  “We want to address those issues around equity... in terms of student loans, over-time we actually want to phase those out,” said Paretutanganui-Tamati.  The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party was aiming to support students so they can have an accessible opportunity to pursue education.  “The Aotearoa Legalize Cannabis Party has been saying for 24 years that the money that comes from these tax revenues are going to go to the areas that need it, education, housing, jobs, healthcare systems”.  The Māori Party focused on an income policy where a universal student income would be promoted.  Ferris explained that living costs and student debt needed to be decreased and that connecting Māori students to more scholarships especially those provided by iwi was a focus.  “A universal student income should be there and it will be there with the Māori party.” Ferris made it clear that when it came to advocating for Māori issues, there needed to be an independentMāori voice.  “Despite there being clear evidence and assertion by Te Ao Māori that Māori solutions will be the solutions that build and free our people..., in 2020 we find ourselves at the bottom of almost every possible debt there is in society.” McDonald was focused on sharing the potential benefits for Whānau and the wider country if cannabis was legalised.  In particular, the party member outlined how legalization would open opportunities related to re-connection for Māori in particular to whakapapa, tikanga, and whenua. “Is it going to cause more harm? The answer is no, it’s going to reduce harm, it’s going to create more jobs and more opportunities for our people,” said McDonald.  Representing the Green Party, Paretutanganui-Tamati acknowledged the effect policy and legislation has had upon Māori and Pasifika communities especially since the last economic reset occurred. Paretutanganui-Tamati referred to the current impact of COVID-19 and how Aotearoa was at a “critical turning point” for addressing the issues that have exacerbated over-time.  “...We need a universal guaranteed minimum income, raise those levels and stop forcing our whānau to choose whether they put kai on the table or they send their kids to school.”

    • Damage of Whiria Project Furthering Distrust
      • Finn Blackwell | He/Him <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > PHOTO: VUW While the highly controversial Whiria project did not progress further into stage 2, many restructural plans are continuing with similar essence.  The impending financial issues VUW face are further building tension between University staff and University senior leadership. A university staff member spoke to Salient about their concerns shared with many colleagues, saying they “actually expect nothing good anymore [from the University]” “Trust is non-existent. We used to call it a low trust environment, but I would now call it an active distrust environment.”  This comes as the University is anticipating a forecasted $19 million deficit for this year and a further $33 million loss for 2021.  “There are still many concerns staff have over their faculties and budgets. It looks like there will be attempts to restructure faculties [...] the budgets are now held at or even above the faculty level, which means schools don’t have a budget anymore, which means we can’t decide to hire tutors, to give marking relief, which means we cannot decide to give work to students.” Students have previously reported feeling nervous and left out from discussions, both before and after the Whiria Project came to light.  As VUWSA stated in their submission on the Whiria Project, they were disappointed that “this so-called ‘discussion document’ was produced with no student consultation.” Since the Whiria Project has been prevented from furthering to stage 2, key restructure plans with similar essences are being discussed at the upper level. The fears of job losses for these restructures are a concern for some staff and students of VUW. The University previously stated that cost-reduction measures unrelated to job cuts “can be progressed immediately” however, the timeline for these immediate measures and consultation with staff and students is unclear. When asked how students can contribute to discussions surrounding these “immediate” measures, the University previously stated stakeholders “will be engaged in developing the solutions and advising on the consequences of the options.” When asked whether they thought this restructure was a result of the poor planning over lockdown, or whether it was simply an inevitability, a staff member explained that “it’s a byproduct and, as I view it, a growing complete detachment from how a university works and what we need.”  The staff member remarked that “it’s also a lack of respect. For me, it was a very clear lack of respect for students, to VUWSA, but also to us, the staff.”  “[I] see that as a breakdown of good faith, of respect, and of a university management that isn’t interested anymore in communicating with the most important people in this University and that’s the people.” The staff member’s message to University senior leadership was a plea for trust.  “Trust us to do our job. Trust us, listen to us, go to the faculties, to the deans and associate deans and say ‘what are you doing’, ‘what are the best examples of coping in your faculty’, let’s exchange ideas, let’s roll that out across the University, listen to staff and students and implement it University-wide.”  “The leadership thinks they know what’s best, when in fact they haven’t taught for years and years and years, and they don’t know how it functions and they’re not interested in best practice.”

    • Everything Grant Guilford Should Cut Before Cutting Jobs
      • Salient Staff <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > So, you’re a University in need of some good old fashioned restructuring. Time for a fresh coat of paint, some grease on the wheels, and you’re good to go. There’s just one problem, what to ditch and what to keep? A restructure is the perfect opportunity to cull some expensive jobs. But is it the best thing for staff and students? Fuck. Naw. So, for those adventurous enough to undergo such an arduous task as fixing a university, here is the definitive list of things that Grant Guildford should get a refund on before he cuts any jobs. 1. The Wall of Hellos in the Hub Ah yes, ‘hello’, ‘kia ora’, ‘ni hao’, ‘tālofa lava’, cuz who doesn’t want to feel like they’re in an airport as they walk to class? While a nice idea to reflect the different backgrounds of VUW students, there must have been a less expensive way of going about it.  2. Failed Re-Oweek Events Uni events are expenny. The Uni blew $30,000 on that cancelled re-O week event, which could have kept a couple of tutors in a job for another year.  If the University decided not to drop that much cash on an event, do nothing to promote it, and cancel it two days beforehand, ruling out any refunds, they’d save themselves a lot of money and dignity. 3. Buying the Gordon Wilson flats Sure, buy them to build high-density, sustainable housing, but not a glorified front door. VUW bought the abandoned flats at the bottom of the terrace (you know, the super haunted-looking ones) in 2014 for $6 million. The site is heritage listed for some absurd reason, but the uni is trying to change this. They want to knock it down and build a multi-million dollar entranceway to the uni because fuck jobs amirite? 4. Rebrands or Restructures by Stealth VUW decided it would be a good idea to drop nearly half a million dollars on the infamous brand refresh. HALF A MILLION. We’re trying to save the university money here, so for them to go out and drop HALF A MILLION DOLLARS on something like this is definitely something that could have been avoided, and in turn, saved the uni a lot of cash. Same goes for a multi-million dollar restructure. Someone please explain to me how spending millions on restructure consultancy saves them millions. Make it make sense. 5. The Hunter Building? Cancelled. Not entirely sure what they’re doing over there with all the construction, but heritage buildings can get fucked. Let the gothic architecture crumble, and with it, the colonial foundations of this institution. With all eyes once again turning to senior leadership for any inclination of what’s going on, I hope this list gives them at least some idea of the possible alternatives they could look at (but who are we  kidding, Grant Guilford isn’t reading this). However, if you are Grant, reflect on your shitty spending habits, and consider some of these options before you bring the axe down on anyone.

    • Advance Voting Opens at Kelburn Campus
      • Annabel McCarthy | Te Whakatōhea | She/Her <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > PHOTO: RNZ/Craig McColluch Students and the public can cast their votes in the 2020 General Election at Kelburn campus as part of advance voting until Friday 16 October and as part of election day voting on Saturday 17 October. Advance voting for the General Election and referendums opened on Saturday 3 October, two days earlier than usually would be the case. Advance votes can be cast at select voting places only, of which Kelburn campus is one. Owing to Covid-19, the Electoral Commission has put in place a range of measures at voting places across the country to help ensure the safety of people wishing to cast their votes this election. These measures include contact tracing, providing hand sanitiser for those entering and exiting voting places, managing queues, and allowing more room for physical distancing. Victoria University’s voting booth this year is located in the Student Union Building Memorial Theatre Foyer at Kelburn campus. Despite efforts to increase the size and number of voting places across the country, allowing for added space and social distancing, students on campus will only have the one voting booth to choose from. In the run up to the 2017 General Election, the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (VUWSA) set up two advance polling stations: one at Kelburn campus in the Hub and one opposite Pipitea campus in Asteron House. Free rides to nearby voting booths were also provided by VUWSA to students studying at Te Aro campus on certain days. This was part of the Students’ Association’s efforts to get 100% of students voting. Such a service is not being provided in the run up to this year’s election. This year, VUWSA’s election campaign ‘Ask Me Why I’m Angry’ consisted of multiple panel discussions on the topics of welfare, the environment, and the End of Life Choice referendum. Panellists included Disability Human Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero, Labour MP Ruth Dyson, Wellington City Councillor Tamatha Paul, and several Victoria University lecturers. The panel discussions are currently available online to view. VUWSA also hosted a debate between the Wellington Central electorate candidates in September. Additionally, as part of the ‘Ask Me Why I’m Angry’ campaign, a National Tertiary Students’ Forum will be hosted online on Thursday 8 October at 6pm. Labour MP Chris Hipkins, Green Party Co-leader James Shaw, National MP Simeon Brown, Māori Party Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and The Opportunities Party Leader Geoff Simmons will all speak at this panel. In terms of the impact of Covid-19 on election day proceedings, Chief Electoral Officer Alicia Wright has indicated measures are in place to ensure people will be able to vote in person if the country moves to Alert Level 2. Protective gear will also be made available for voting staff if necessary. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission is working with the Ministry of Health on how to adapt these measures if areas of the country are placed at higher Alert Levels. The Commission has also increased capacity for takeaway and postal voting if needed. The Electoral Commission is asking people to bring their own pens to polling booths, although there will be pens available for those who forget. Those wishing to vote can do so any time from 3 October to election day, 17 October. People can also enrol to vote any time, including on election day. Once voting starts on 3 October, people can enrol and vote at the same time at any voting place. To find your closest advance or election day voting booth, head to the Electoral Commission’s website at vote.nz. The voting booth at Victoria University is located in Memorial Theatre Foyer in the Student Union Building, 1 Kelburn Parade.  Advance votes can be made anytime between Monday 5 October to Friday 9 October from 10am to 4pm and Monday 12 October to Friday 16 October from 9am to 5pm. Election day voting on Saturday 17 October will be available from 9am to 7pm.

    • VUWSA AGM 2020, Version 2, Electric Boogaloo
      • Rachel Trow | Kāi Tahu, Ngāti Tūwharetoa | She/Her <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > VUWSA CEO Matt Tucker considers quitting his job as Johnny O’Hagan Brebner poses a question at the AGM. The VUWSA Annual General Meeting was held last week and was actually able to meet the quorum before midday. Here’s the rundown. Acting President Taylah Shuker started the meeting by totally denouncing the “harmful” behaviour at the cancelled VUWSA AGM. Shuker was referring to the “Zoom-bombing” of the online meeting, earlier in September. The minutes of the 2019 IGM and AGM were passed unanimously, duh. Shuker said COVID had put “an extra spin on things” but VUWSA had some great events throughout the year regardless. The exec had run several campaigns and made submissions on a bunch of issues that matter to students. Shuker encouraged everyone to enrol and vote in the General Election, telling the audience that “politicians are only going to make policies for young people if they get out there and vote”. Shuker moved to elect the Independent Arbitrator, Fleur Fitzsimons (Wellington City Councillor and former VUWSA President). Returning Officer, Millie Osborne asked, “what does that mean?” CEO Matt Tucker answered that the arbitrator was an independent oversight on VUWSA business but added that the person needed to be someone who understood how VUWSA worked and joked, “how independent can they be?”  Former Salient News Editor, Johnny O’Hagan Brebner asked who’d been doing it since the IGM seeing as the IGM didn’t happen. Tucker replied that it had been Fitzsimons all along, un-officially elected. Yikes. Motion passed. The 2020 Half Year Statement was carried with a unanimous yes. Shuker stated that they were “in line or slightly ahead” of 2019 financials. VUWSA is (almost) Living Wage Accredited. The budget has increased from $1,272,956 to $1,309,897.50.  The 2021 Budget was passed despite Treasurer Secretary Ralph Zambrano being unable to explain why there was a $25,000 increase for clubs and rep group support. Zambrano explained $5000 of the increased spending as being funded by “moving a few budget lines.”  Salient clarified after the AGM that “the representative group funding was allocated $7000 in 2019, and this amount was split in the 2020 budget between 2 lines but was still essentially $7000. There is no new spending in the 2021 budget—just a readjustment  of the allocation between these two lines again.” Current Welfare Vice President, Michael Turnbull runs through the constitutional amendment which moves to change the Equity and Wellbeing Officer title to simply Equity Officer. One nay from the crowd on this one, with Millie Osborne stating “Equity and Wellbeing sounds better.” Life Memberships were given out: one each to Associate Director of Mauri Ora, Kevin Rowlatt, Taylah Shuker, and Engagement Vice President Joanna Li.  Johnny O’Hagan Brebner asked why constitutional breaches hadn’t been tabled at the AGM, referring to the fact that there was no IGM in trimester one. He asked how students could be confident in constitutional oversight in light of this. VUWSA CEO Matt Tucker gave answers as to why the IGM hadn’t happened but not why the breaches weren’t recorded at the AGM. Salient sought further comment to which VUWSA replied, “VUWSA will be seeking to address any breaches and have them validated in due course—Most likely at the 2021 IGM.” Tucker stated that students could still be confident in the association despite these breaches, and student media had played a role in holding the Association to account. Naw. Thanks, koro.

    • Student Representative on VUW Council to be Elected this Week
      • Te Aorewa Rolleston | Ngāi te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui | She/Her <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Several University Council Student Representative Candidates' flags hung in the Hub. Voting for the new student representative on the University Council opens Monday the 5th of October and closes on Friday the 9th. All active students can vote and will receive an email to vote electronically. The successful candidate will sit for a two year term, January 2021 to December 2022. The candidate will sit on the governance board alongside current University representative Rhianna Morar (Ngāti Porou, Te Arawa) who has one more year in her term.  Why is it important for students to vote? Salient spoke to Morar about the importance of the upcoming election. Morar told Salient that the value of being a student representative was instilled in the ability to have a voice and that “your vote matters”.  For Morar, it was also important to consider how the culture and support encompassed by University Council members was central to uplifting and acknowledging student representatives. This is so that their voices were heard and their contribution was equally considered amongst those of the other council members.  “In terms of the formalities in voting, students and staff tend to awhi each other, Hugo and I have been a really strong team this year”.  “We actually experience the decisions that are made at council and the flow on effects of that in our day to day lives. I think in terms of a cultural perspective, the solidarity between the student and staff representatives has been really important and really influential in terms of when we have a strong collective front”.  The current Chancellor of Victoria University, Neil Paviour-Smith responded on behalf of the University to Salient’s request for comment saying, “Student members on Council are equal peers on Council and their voice is the same as any other Council member” “At Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, students elect the student Council members... Our students serve for a two-year term (compared to one-year in many other cases) meaning they have an opportunity to deepen their contribution as they spend more time as a Council member”.  The University Council has four members who are elected by the Minister for Tertiary Education and an additional eight are appointed by the Council itself. Decision making surrounding funding, the University’s strategic plan and the actioning of governance and policies related to the Education Act established in 1989 are matters covered by the University Council.  Honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi The University Council currently has one elected representative out of twelve, separate to the Deputy Vice Chancellor Māori, who identifies as Māori sitting within the governing body. There is one ministerial appointed member, Cath Nesus who has whakapapa Māori. NZUSA President and previous University Council student representative, Isabella Lenihan-Ikin said, “Te Tiriti is about Mana motuhake, about sovereignty, about representation, we dramatically need to shift the way that we have representation of Māori and non-Māori on the university council”. Within the current ‘Council Membership Statute’ adhered to by the Council there is no established acknowledgement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles which would ensure representative voices of Māori as a partnering body would be elected. There was a separate adjoining Te Tiriti o Waitangi Statute implicated into the governance of the Council in 2019 but this document would still not allow an equal appointment of Indigenous members both within a student and staff capacity. Paviour stated that,“Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington is the only Aotearoa New Zealand university to have a specific Treaty of Waitangi statute, which was comprehensively updated recently after wide consultation with the University community”. “Our marae is central to life at the University and its name, Te Herenga Waka, is also now the Māori name of the University”. “Te Aka Matua—Māori Advisory Committee is a permanent committee of Council and exists to consider Treaty of Waitangi issues among other things and to advise Council on the University’s relations with Māori communities”. Lenihan-Ikin expressed that, “At the moment there are very limited Māori seats on the council, we’re not going to be able to ensure that there is constantly a Māori student voice at the table if we don’t have that”.  “For a university that calls itself Te Herenga Waka and for a University that has a Marae and talks about the iho and the essence of the University being located within Te Herenga Waka. There is so much more that we can do to ensure that and it begins with those structural changes like who sits at the table, who brings the conversation, who recognizes the importance of Te Tiriti”.  “The law for representation on the university council currently mandates that there is one student and one staff member, I don’t believe that that’s sufficient, as much as i believe that one student and one staff member is not sufficient, I don’t believe that we are actually going to allow for all communities to be at the table unless we have Māori seats on council. So I really believe that there should be a tauira Māori as a student elected equally with staff”.  Morar also stated that “The job of the council is to assess the strategic plan, in the strategic plan it says that the marae is at the heart of this institution and all of our values include things like kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga”.  “Theoretically I think that every single council member knows that there is a duty for them to integrate whether or not those values are being given effect to by management”.  With a new student representative being elected there is an opportunity to elevate the experiences and perspectives of students while also nominating those individuals that will further contribute to the embodiment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document. Lenihan-Ikin emphasized that, “The importance of Māori voices comes back to Te Tiriti in the sense that… as much as we need equal representation of course, we need to have systems and structures that allow for the operationalization of Te Tiriti, beyond it just being a Māori issue”.  “Where we have both Māori and Pākeha coming to the table and talking about how we can advance the partnership that this country was founded on”. Electronic voting will commence on Monday 5 October 2020 and close on Friday 9 October 2020 at 5.00 pm.

    • Where Do The Political Parties Stand on Mental health?
      • Annabel McCarthy | Te Whakatōhea | She/Her Around 1 in 5 New Zealanders will experience a mental health or addiction problem in any given year with up to 80% experiencing mental illness during their lifetime. With this year’s election less than 3 weeks away, here’s a breakdown of how the political parties intend to tackle the issue with your vote this election: Labour: Labour says more community-based mental health and addiction support workers are needed so those seeking help “have someone to turn to” and will therefore continue to train up to 12,000 community-based workers over the next three years. The Party says it has made “record investments” in mental health during its three-year term and will continue rolling out frontline services and re-establishing the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commissions if re-elected. Labour will also continue to pilot the Mana Ake mental health support programme in primary and intermediate schools. National: The National Party has committed to expanding partnerships between police and mental health workers to provide better support for people in distress and for frontline responders. The Party also wants to require schools to teach mental health skills and expand trials of specialist support staff in secondary schools if elected into government. National acknowledges that Māori have “higher demand” for mental health services and will introduce health targets to “drive improvements in Māori health.” The National Party has also said it will “specifically address rural mental health issues”, saying it understands the unique health needs in rural environments. ACT: The ACT Party wants to create a stand-alone mental health commission to commission mental health services through a single body. ACT says the current mental health system is “messy and disorderly” and believes increasing spending on mental health and addiction is not enough to fix it. The Party believes this policy will address a lack of choice in care and “empower patients to choose between a range of providers, rather than simply accept what their DHB offers”. The $2 billion per year currently spent on mental health and addiction services through the Ministry of Health and district health boards will be redirected to the commission. Green Party: If elected into government, the Green Party will provide free counselling to everyone under the age of 25 and will work towards extending this to all adults. The Party believes mental health is a community and country-wide responsibility and the burden of this should not be placed on individuals experiencing mental distress. The Green Party also wants to fund inpatient and community mental health services “at all levels to ensure everyone in Aotearoa can access help if they need it.” Māori Party: The Māori Party says it will establish a comprehensive Kaupapa Māori mental health service if elected into government. The service will cover mental health, alcohol and addiction and will “focus on dropping one of the highest suicide rates amongst any people in the world.” The Māori Party believes the health system fails Māori and is “a mirror image of the degrading way in which Māori are treated”. New Zealand First: New Zealand First’s only mental health specific policy is a promise to fund the mental health programme ‘Gumboot Friday’ by $10 million spread over three years. Gumboot Friday is an initiative set up by mental health advocate Mike King that provides free counselling and mental health support to young people. New Zealand First says supporting the initiative will reduce pressure on publicly funded counselling services provided by the Ministry of Health and on overworked GPs. The Opportunities Party: TOP believes the best way to prevent poor mental health is to “ensure people have a strong identity and sense of belonging in communities” and will therefore increase funding to community groups. The Party says it will fund this by increasing the excise tax on alcohol.

    • OPINION: Asylum Seekers Seek Equity
      • Phoebe Craig | She/Her The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an aspirational document. It is a document that at its core says human beings have value, potential, and importance. It aims to protect the many facets of human existence—one of those things being the right to seek asylum. The right to seek asylum protects a number of other rights: the right to live free from persecution, the right to be free from cruel and inhumane treatment, freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination. If you have the right to live free from persecution, there is a corresponding right to seek protection when you need it. Essentially, the right to seek asylum in another country is a potential remedy for any breach of human rights. New Zealand is a signatory to several international treaties, many of which have been ratified in domestic law. As a result, New Zealand has a legal obligation to provide protection to people who arrive in Aotearoa seeking asylum. An ‘asylum claimant’ is a person who has lodged a claim for asylum and is awaiting the outcome of that application. In essence, they are asking for refugee status under one of the conventions that we have ratified. Grounds for protection may include race, customary identity, nationality, religion, political orientation and more. Once accepted, an asylum claimant becomes a ‘convention refugee’, and legally has refugee status here in New Zealand. A refugee in New Zealand is most commonly understood as a quota refugee. Quota refugees are the 1000 people accepted into New Zealand each year as part of our annual refugee quota. This scheme is in place to meet New Zealand’s commitments to the UN but remains separate from our obligations to accept asylum seekers. Injustice arises because of a distinction in policy between quota refugees, convention refugees, and people seeking asylum. The accessibility of services is different for all three, despite all often coming from the same or similar lived experiences. Many people, including policymakers and support personnel, don’t even understand that these distinctions exist. Or if they do, there is little awareness of the effect this can have. Quota refugees get access to a number of support mechanisms and programs to assist resettlement, such as the refugee resettlement center in Mangere. For asylum claimants, however, there is often uncertainty as to what support they are entitled to. One of the key problems is a breakdown in communication at the pre-acceptance level: sometimes, frontline personnel don’t actually understand what asylum seekers are entitled to, such as the Emergency Benefit (this provides the same pay rate as the Job Seeker Support benefit). One claimant attempted to apply for the Emergency Benefit. They were declined because the official on the other end of the call simply did not know that asylum claimants were entitled to that payment. The miscommunication and lack of understanding carries on even once refugee status has been granted. Essentially, the government takes a hands-off approach, and it's left to unfunded NGOs to pick up the slack. You will often hear officials in charge acknowledge that our system is not perfect, but, they’ll qualify, “we are not as bad as other places.” Since when did we measure our success by saying “It is not great but it is not as bad as over there?” That is not success, that is denial. Asylum claimants are exercising their right to safety and the current system does very little to address needs.

    • Student Health Wait Times and Financial Support: Advocates Push for Welfare Changes
      • Keana Virmani | She/Her The Ask Me Why I’m Angry: Welfare event was held last Wednesday, hosted by The Disabled Students Association and VUWSA. The panel discussion shed light on the current welfare system and its impacts on those experiencing disability, chronic illness, and mental health concerns. The panellists included Jonathan Boston, Professor of Public Policy; community organiser Kate Aschoff; disability rights activist Erin Gough; and Tara Ó Súilleabháin, a VUW student and advocate for mental health awareness. Ó Súilleabháin addressed the issue of Student Health wait times which were typically around three weeks, and expressed that it is “really tricky to navigate health services in general in NZ […] they only know what they know, not about other services around them.” For Aschoff, their experience with Student Health was “good but wasn’t the kind of support [they] needed.” They acknowledged that tertiary health services have a focus on basic student needs such as the attainment of aegrotats but are not equipped for holistic, long-term support. “A lot of it comes down to capacity and funding: what the university sees the purpose of student health as vs what it is being accessed as which is often crisis services […] Students don’t often have anywhere else to go.” Boston added that “there is an acute shortage of healthcare specialists and resources in a context where there has been an explosion of need and demand.” The effect of this pandemic on the University community is nothing like he’s ever seen before. The panel was then prompted to speak of the way communities at the intersections between race, class and disability were impacted by the welfare system. This oppression was acknowledged by Aschoff, and they also pushed for systemic change. “We need to change the way universities run as institutions and the culture within them.” Gough added, “even the diversity of academics who are hired and who gets to be hired are huge issues.” Gough highlighted that not everyone had the privilege of advocating for themselves and enforced the need for support for the disabled community. “It’s not me or my body that’s the problem, it’s the barriers that society has presented that I constantly have to overcome that exacerbates all these issues.” Panellists were asked what policies they’d like to see enacted post-election. Jonathan Boston believes that the current financial support for students and those on welfare benefits is insufficient. For the Professor, “reducing financial stress is one way of reducing mental health stress.” Moving forward, the panel united in Gough’s belief that a “collective sense of rights and responsibilities” are vital. Ó Súilleabháin parted with some knowledgeable words to voters. “Think of the most vulnerable person you know and vote in their best interest [...] it’s easy to forget what’s outside your own bubble.”

    • MMP and “More Māori in Parliament”
      • Te Aorewa Rolleston | Ngāi te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui | She/Her On Friday the 18th September, Salient was joined in the office by Mona-Pauline Mangāhia, Safari Hynes, Dr Maria Bargh and Dr Carwyn Jones for the panel discussion, ‘Māori and political empowerment’. Civic Participation Dr Carwyn Jones, a senior lecturer at the faculty of law told Salient that “civic participation is very much about participation in public life.” “It is really important that we think about participation as not only happening by casting a vote but by ensuring that the representatives remain accountable and informed about what our issues and concerns are”. For Māori, the major factor that influences civic and political participation, is the systems in place which have “dispossessed” Māori communities, said Safari Hynes, an executive representative of the Ngāi Tauira Māori students association. Hynes said, “Civic participation in the sense of participation within the pākehā political system is incredibly important as a temporary measure, as a temporary necessity for us as a people to develop.” Engagement & systematic oppression Mona-Pauline Mangakāhia, the Senior Project Manager for Community Engagement for the Electoral Commission said that there is a disparity in the age group of those participating. “Effectively the older generation are making decisions or having their voices heard in relation to policies and legislation that are set that may not actually be around for their lifetime.” As referred to by Dr Jones it is impactful to focus on where the issues exist within legislation currently being introduced that are going to affect Māori, such as the two referendum options in the 2020 elections. MMP MMP is the system of voting currently used which was established in 1993 and in legislation stands for ‘mixed-member proportional’. Māori are able to decide whether they would like to participate in the Māori or general electorate system. In the 2017 election, all 7 of the Māori electorate seats were won by the Labour party which indicated that the system of MMP does not guarantee an independent Māori voice will be elected into parliament. Māori and voting Māori voters are able to change their electorate vote every 5 years which means if they are currently signed up to one roll, they need to remain on that roll until the next Māori electoral option returns which may not coincide with the next election year. Being bound to one roll also means Māori voters are only able to vote for those members who stand within the electoral roll system the voter is signed up to. “There’s a connection between the number of Māori on the Māori electoral roll and the number of Māori electorates and it’s a very political matter,” said Dr Maria Bargh, an associate Professor from Te Kawa a Maui at VUW. Student participation Dr Carwyn Jones reiterated to Salient that “one of the really nice things about working within a university environment is that there are always lots of interesting discussions and conversations and ways to participate in those, it’s really important for us to stay politically engaged and connected”. Many issues such as The Māori language petition, the mental health movement and the climate strike movement have been sustained by students following on from the work of their pakeke and tupuna who initiated the momentum said Hynes. Hynes said, “Rangatahi stand on the shoulders of giants and they will continue to do so” “Just being Māori and your pure existence means you’re political”. Mangakāhia told Salient “the easiest way to register to enrol to vote is by heading to our website, vote.nz. You can enrol there and update your details but if you don’t have access to the internet or these things you can give us a call on 0800 36 76 56”.

    • VUW Academics Stand with Māori Academics at University of Waikato
      • Rachel Trow | Kāi Tahu, Ngāti Tūwharetoa | She/Her <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Photo: Stuff After incidents at Waikato and Otago Universities, an open letter to Education Minister Chris Hipkins has been undersigned by Māori academics across the country. The open letter calls for a national enquiry into racism at New Zealand universities “for the purpose of committing to, and accelerating with urgency, a tertiary sector that honours te Tiriti o Waitangi.” The letter comes after caps on Māori and Pacific entry to Otago Medical School and an independent enquiry into racism at the University of Waikato garnered national attention. Leading academics Dr Linda Tuhiwai Smith (Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Porou) and Prof. Brendan Hokowhitu (Ngāti Pūkenga) have not had their contracts renewed at Waikato while the review takes place, according to RNZ reporting. In a statement to Salient, Victoria University expressed support for the open letter sent to Minister Hipkins, adding that they “do not conduct specific cultures [sic] reviews as such” themselves. The University listed their “commitment to decolonisation and indigenisation” as ranging from “symbolic changes” such as changing the University’s name to “active and visible commitments” such as including Māori leadership at all levels of University structure. VUW also recognised that “there is always more to do.” Academics at VUW have come out in active support of Māori academics at the University of Waikato, participating in a solidarity event on Friday the 18th of September. Staff were encouraged to wear purple and “incorporate Waikato Indigenous academics” into their teaching. Salient spoke to Dr Emalani Case (Kanaka Maoli) and Dr Vincent Olsen-Reeder (Ngā Pōtiki a Tamapahore), representatives of the solidarity event at VUW. Olsen-Reeder commented on the situation at Waikato, stating that “it’s really hard to see your colleagues, friends and whānau in distress. So many of us have been victims of racism in some form, at some time, so we’ll always want to show solidarity in that way.” Case and Olsen-Reeder were in agreement that VUW had “solid fundamentals in place” in regards to race at the University citing their Treaty Statute and Māori Outcomes Framework. However, the pair echoed the University’s assertion that there is always more that can be done. Dr Case offered that “one of the things I think all universities can do is hire more Māori and Pacific staff.” Case highlighted the importance of hiring Indigenous staff in permanent positions. When asked what they would like tertiary staff and students to consider moving forward, Olsen-Reeder told Salient, “I would love for us all to review what it means to be a great citizen of Aotearoa, regularly… Ask yourself how you can dismantle harm today, or open up space for someone, or challenge the stuff your parents taught you. Those are great things to do not just to combat racism, but to be anti-racist.”

    • OPINION: Free Speech Costs
      • Dr Vincent Olsen-Reeder | Ngā Pōtiki a Tamapahore | He/Him There are more attitudes and opinions in our face now than ever before­—the good, the bad, and the ugly. As an academic community, we want our students to know how to critique different viewpoints responsibly. So, when an unlikely visitor was invited to speak on campus about ‘free speech’ recently, we decided not to can it.  We want our students to become great scholars who know when to limit the energy they give to a platform, and that includes ‘free speech’. I draw my line at anything that represents—or has the potential to promote in others—hate speech. I think it’s a pretty good line, so I want to share it. Free speech offers a mask for hate speech. People define ‘hate’ differently, but ultimately, regard for the statement’s victims is scant, and that’s a human rights issue. Most of us can go about our entire lives enacting our right to free speech, without saying anything hateful. Not everyone develops this ability, and many choose to ignore it because it benefits them.  Let’s be really clear here: you NEVER have to be repressive when you talk, to talk freely. A neurotypical person who isn’t able to control their speech without transgressing on someone’s human rights seems to me, a problematic person. Maybe they’re appealing to the psychology of emotional coercion; they’re not actually stating a point, as they actually believe it. Maybe they just enjoy gaslighting people, or maybe it makes them good money or garners votes. Either way, it’s not something I’d give energy to. As an academic community, theorising about free/hate speech is a privilege not everyone has. The targets of hate speech are awarded immediate negative outcomes by hate speech, and they’re rarely present in any capacity to defend themselves—it’s not an academic exercise. If someone has a tendency to preach or promote hate towards a particular group of people, it’s rather insensitive to sit down with them and debate the theoretics of their statements, especially if the community they attack has not invited that discussion. Real damage has been done. It is harmful to let that person run rampant with ideas, when we could simply ignore them and let them fizzle out. As a final thought, if someone is venturing down this path on campus, there are controls for hate speech within our University walls, and there is accountability attached to them. Every person who walks through our walls is subject to one or other Conduct Statutes. If hate speech is invited into our walls, those Statutes would have been contravened.  The personal safety of staff and students (especially students who are the targets of hate speech) should come before everything else. It’s not just about what is said by the visitor either, it’s about the attitudes they can invite once they’ve been. It’s a slippery slope from a lecture theatre on a chilly night, to a hate-speech porno zoom-bomb. Then, there is a responsibility to consider the legitimacy of the opinions being brought to campus, and the opinions that might have been neglected through oversight. We want to protect our reputation as a trusted source of information. So, while the University is the place to discuss the gamut of theories out there, and academic staff support students thinking critically, there are ethics the University community must abide by. We can examine free speech if we want to, but we should totally reject performers of hate speech, or those known to promote it in others. We are a community of critical thought, not one that accepts theoretical intolerance just because it’s interesting.

    • Postponement, Post-COVID and Piwakawaka: A Sit Down with Brooke Van Velden
      • Finn Blackwell | He/Him  Rounding out Salient’s interviews with the general roll candidates for the Wellington Central electorate is the deputy leader of the Act party Brooke Van Velden. Election Postponement With the election now taking place on October 16th, Van Velden discussed how this postponement was going to affect the goals of the Act Party, as well as her own campaign for Wellington Central. “It was the right thing to do,” she commented. “It was so uncertain what we were dealing with and it’s incredibly hard to run an election campaign when, potentially, it could have been a nationwide problem. Yes, it was the right thing in delaying it, I don’t think we should delay it any further, but, what we do need is a period where people who are potential politicians can actually go out and talk to people.”  Van Velden continued, saying “you can’t do that in a lockdown situation. You can still have online Zoom meetings and virtual public town hall meetings, but it’s not the same as knocking on peoples doors and asking them how they are and their concerns. I think it’s really important that, in a democracy, we’re actually listening to the people.”   Get Wellington Moving When asked her thoughts on Wellington City Councils proposal for the Golden Mile, Van Velden commented that “I think around forty per cent of Wellingtonians walk to work anyway, I don’t actually see an issue with the cars on the street as it is.” “People are crossing freely, and most people are driving pretty slow, so I don’t actually see what the benefit would be because some people still need to drive into work. It’s not a huge priority issue,” she continued. End of Life Choice Referendum Van Velden herself helped to draft the End of Life Choice Bill and has acted as an advisor to party leader David Seymour on this referendum. When asked what she believed was the significance of this referendum, Van Velden stated that “what is really important here is that we are giving choice to people who are suffering bitterly at the end of their lives.” She went on to say “this is not a decision on whether people should live or should die, it’s a decision on how a person who is already going to die dies.” “It’s a decision on ‘if someone is going to at the end of their life, and they can’t be helped with palliative care and treatment, should they have the decision to say now is my time to go’ and I think they should because it’s morally and ethically the right thing to do.” Post-COVID Economy With the country facing a significant economic downturn, Van Velden stated: “the important thing that we can do is have a growth-led recovery, instead of a debt-led recovery.”  “If we go with a debt-led recovery we’re just pushing back the inevitable. There is going to be some economic downturn. We haven’t seen the full ramifications of that yet, because we’ve just been pushing it out through wage subsidies. That will, at some point, have to end.” Van Velden outlined that in order to counter the economically damaging tactics already in place is to “make sure that we have a position where we’re helping businesses rebuild so that people have jobs to go to. We do need to also be very mindful that we can’t just spend our way through the recovery. We have to be very careful with how much money we are spending because it will need to be paid back by our generation.” Good ol’ Fashioned Yarns As with all previous Wellington Central Candidates, Salient asked Van Velden who had her vote for New Zealand Bird of the Year. “I haven’t checked out all of the candidates yet, but my immediate thought goes to the pīwakawaka. They’re very cute.” Having spent a decent amount of time in Auckland, Salient inquired as to whether or not Van Velden thought the capital was better, or if her heart still belonged up north. “Wellington is my home” commented Van Velden, “so Wellington is better.” Through spending time working in the media, Van Velden has developed many different takes on media outlets both local and international. When asked which of these were her favourites, Van Velden remarked that “I can’t lose friends in any of the New Zealand media. Currently, I would have to go with Interest.co.nz because I have a column which comes out every fortnight. They’re also really good for business-related content, anything to do with the Reserve Bank, OCR, economic forecasts. Probably not widely read in the Wellington student area, but very important for people who are looking at where the government should be going.” “Internationally,” she continued “I’d probably just go with The Guardian, to be honest, because that’s the one I read most. Also, they have a New Zealand correspondent that puts out really good New Zealand material even though it’s from The Guardian. Even when I’m reading international media, it’s usually how it affects New Zealand.” Focussing back on National Politics, Salient asked Van Velden to describe party leader David Seymour, a man who has been called many things, in just one word. “I’d say he’s quick-witted” She described.

    • Politicians Start Dishing Out Promises to Tertiary Students
      • Annabel McCarthy | Te Whakatōhea | She/Her With education and re-training set to be a critical requirement of the country’s COVID-19 recovery, political parties are promising big when it comes to the tertiary education sector this election.  Issues such as fees-free, student accommodation, and living costs are high on the agenda, but parties are still split on the way university education and research should be funded and prioritised. Labour announced last week it will not extend the fees-free programme beyond the first year of tertiary study if re-elected in October.  The fees free policy, which was a cornerstone of Labour’s 2017 election campaign, was scheduled to extend to two years of university study in 2021 and three by 2024. Labour’s education spokesperson Chris Hipkins said the economic fallout from COVID-19 means the party will instead prioritise spending in “areas that are critical for the country’s economic recovery” such as in trades training and apprenticeships. Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association President Taylah Shuker said the decision "contradicts Labour's promise to reduce student debt and make education more accessible”. The Students’ Association said student debt and high living costs remain a barrier to tertiary education and “without good policy to address these barriers, many individuals and communities will continue to be excluded from our education system”. Hipkins also confirmed Labour will not reinstate postgraduate student allowances, despite promising to do so in the 2017 election campaign. The Green Party labelled Labour’s policies “disappointing” and have promised a $325 weekly universal allowance for all students, including post-graduate students. The Green Party has also pledged to reform the student accommodation sector “to ensure students get a fair deal” and would make student loan repayments more progressive, meaning repayments would increase with income. In comparison, The Opportunities Party has said it will put the responsibility of student debt on tertiary institutions if elected. Under this policy, TOP would put student loans on tertiary providers' balance sheets to “encourage them to create value for their student clients in the shortest time”. The Māori Party has pledged to double the student allowance and make it universal to include post-graduate, part-time, and long course students. The Party believes tertiary education “should not mean a huge debt burden for students” and have said they will write off living costs from student loan debt and work towards writing off the total student loan for those who work in Aotearoa for a period of five years. The National Party is still to release its full tertiary education policy but has said it will consider re-introducing fees on the first year of university study if elected into government.  Leader Judith Collins said the party would also allow tertiary institutions to bring international students into New Zealand under strict quarantine and testing protocols to help cover the shortfall in funding. The ACT Party would also abolish the fees-free programme, as well as re-introducing interest on student loans and scrapping the student allowance payment. ACT leader David Seymour said his party has a goal of reducing government debt and returning to a budget surplus by 2024, and to achieve this, spending in areas such as tertiary education would need to be reduced. Instead, ACT would create a system of student education accounts where each student is given $250,000 over their lifetime to be spent on education. Students wishing to study at tertiary institutions will be able to draw down funds from their individual accounts to pay for course fees and living costs. Additionally, tertiary institutions would no longer have their fees capped under ACT, allowing them to “compete on price and quality as they choose”. New Zealand First is yet to release its education policy but last election promised to wipe student debt for new students staying and working in New Zealand for five years.

    • Te wiki o te reo Māori - ‘Ka whawhai tonu mātou’
      • Te Aorewa Rolleston | Ngāi te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui | She/Her The Native Schools Act was established in Aotearoa in 1867 to assimilate Māori as they entered the education system, forcing them to learn and speak English.   Speaking Te Reo Māori in schools was initially accepted when communicating to missionary officials. However, this was eventually suppressed, when speaking English was made compulsory. Corporal punishment was inflicited if Māori students and whānau were not complicit.  It was this oppression of linguistics, culture, and heritage that initiated the long ascending fight for Māori to reclaim, revitalise, and normalise their native language.  Anarina Marsters-Herewini Co-President of Ngāi Tauira Māori Students’ Association stated that “we need to ignite those flames to support Te Reo Māori within ourselves first and that means being consistent with Te Reo Māori. I would challenge every individual within the University to ignite that flame.”  It was during the 1920’s that pioneers of Māoridom, like Sir Apirana Ngata (Ngāti Porou) and Princess Te Puea Herangi, took the first major steps towards revitalising Te Reo Māori.  The composition of Waiata-a-ringa were a reflection of this effort, where oral forms of language such as waiata were composed for Māori to engage with and learn as a way of reconnecting with the language.  During the 1960’s and 1970’s, Te Reo Māori was one generation away from dying out. However, the introduction of Kōhanga reo, Kura kaupapa, Wharekura and Whare Wānanga in 1982 embodied a revival for Te Ao Māori, kaupapa Māori and Te Reo Māori. Dr Olsen-Reeder, a lecturer at VUW commented “I think it is important that we all know—not in a whakahīhī way that quite literally everything that you do for the Māori language or have done in your life started with students here at Vic.”  Te Ao Mārama is a reflection of this. This is the Māori student led and orchestrated publication which is released each year during Te Wiki o te Reo Māori at Victoria University of Wellington. Georgia Gifford, Co-Editor for Te Ao Mārama 2020 told Salient, “Te Ao Mārama is really important for tauira to see because it contains challenging narratives. It’s cool to have a platform that’s safe to be able to share those narratives.”  The Māori language petition delivered on the 14th of September 1972 was signed by 30,000 participants by hand and was taken to parliament by student led groups. These were Victoria University’s Te Reo Māori Society, Te Huinga Rangatahi (the New Zealand Māori Students’ Association) and  Auckland-based Ngā Tamatoa (The Young Warriors). This day became recognised as Māori language day and then Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori in 1975. It was through The Māori Language Act, installed during 1987 that Te Reo Māori was finally acknowledged as an official language within Aotearoa. This year ‘ Māori Language Moment” was hosted by Te Taura Whiri, The Māori Language Commission. This initiative encouraged all of Aotearoa to participate in a united moment where one million people would be speaking Te Reo at the same time. The initiative was formed as a way to direct attention towards the commission's goal of getting 1 million people speaking Te Reo by 2040. Kaihau Paitai Co-President from Ngāi Tauira said, “we see it every year for a single week. There are a lot more people using Te Reo Māori but then every year unfortunately you also see everyone using it for a week and then dropping it a week after, so that’s what it’s about—it’s not the end game. Should Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori be put to rest and should Mahuru Māori be the main thing?”  “Me whakahehe tatou ki to tatou reo Māori ngā te mea kei roto i to tatou reo Māori me whakanoho ake e ai te tīrewa e whakareake ai ngā wheako ko Ao”—Te Wharehuia Milroy 

    • VUW Loses $30k on Cancelled Re-O Week
      • Rachel Trow | Kāi Tahu, Ngāti Tūwharetoa | She/Her In emails obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA), Salient can confirm that the total cost to the University for the cancelled Re-O Week event, Drum & Bass In Your Face, was $30,723. According to the emails, only 92 tickets were sold, equating to 6% of all available tickets. The OIA request was returned to Salient the same week Chancellor Neil Paviour-Smith emailed University staff preparing them for imminent job cuts. The event was scheduled to take place on Saturday July 11th, and was intended to encourage students to return to the Halls of Residence at the start of Trimester 2. A second event, hosted by VUWSA but funded and organised by the University went ahead on the Sunday night at approximately 50% capacity. Promotion and Cancellation Little promotion for the Saturday event took place outside of the event listed on Victoria’s Facebook page. This was despite VUWSA urging the University to promote the event a month before the event was scheduled to happen, and again a fortnight before the event.  VUWSA was informed by the University on July 9th, only two days before the event was scheduled to take place, that the Saturday show had been cancelled. Ticket holders were notified shortly after. Refunds Ticket holders reported delays in receiving refunds following the event’s cancellation. Emails dated four days after the cancelled event show Freshman Tours LTD urging the University to pay the $30k “ASAP”. That company says they “never envisaged having to front costs for VUW to this amount or scale.” Safe Rooms and Hall Student Intoxication The emails also reveal concerns raised by VUWSA over the University’s commitment to running a safe event. VUWSA told the University that they had not agreed to run the event safe rooms, despite the University claiming that they had agreed to the task at an in-person meeting.  VUWSA denied these claims and sought “assurances around how risks were being mitigated for hall students.” VUWSA was reluctant to agree to the terms until the University could demonstrate that they were “proactively” communicating to hall students and taking meaningful steps to reduce alcohol and drug related harm. VUWSA said the issue of intoxicated hall students at O Week events was “systemic” and “without the halls being a part of the solution, VUWSA do not believe that the risks will be mitigated in a meaningful way.” In response to the emails released to Salient, VUWSA commented further on the importance of well-run safe rooms at O and Re-O Week events, stating: “VUWSA’s experience with managing safe rooms has highlighted an issue of intox occurring before event goers enter the venue. Without the assistance of halls, this can often present a health and safety risk for our staff and volunteers.” Victoria University declined the opportunity to comment further on the issue.

    • Students Nervous for Impacts of University’s Anticipated Job Cuts
      • Kirsty Frame | Ngāti Kahungunu | She/Her Roughly two weeks ago it was revealed publicly that VUW is anticipating up to a $33.5 million dollar loss in 2021, adding to the $19 million forecasted deficit for this year.  These heavy forecasts have brought job cuts and cost-reduction measures to the spotlight, though many key stakeholders—especially students—are still out of the loop. This comes only weeks after VUW received wide-spread criticism for the controversial Whiria Project, with many key stakeholders being excluded from consultations. The project has since been taken off the table.   VUW staff received an email on Wednesday 9th September which outlined that the University Council asked the Vice-Chancellor to begin considering options to cut costs.  The email, seen and reported by Stuff, outlined that measures which reduce costs without relation to jobs “can be progressed immediately”. Salient asked VUW several questions, including how students can contribute to the discussions surrounding these “immediate” measures, in which they provided a short statement: “Staff and students, unions, the University Council, stakeholders and many others will be engaged in developing the solutions and advising on the consequences of the options.” The University added in their statement to Salient that they’re still developing the approach to the COVID deficit reduction programme, and that it will operate over the next two years.  The University’s spokesperson added that this can be attributed to the Vice-Chancellor.  Currently, students have reported to Salient that they’ve only been made aware of the deficit through mainstream media, and are unsure how they can contribute to discussions. VUW’s Tertiary Education Union (TEU) Co-Branch President, Dougal McNeill, highlighted the necessity for students to be part of these processes. “We don’t need to accept the idea of austerity without detailed arguments being put forward and a transparent case being made.” McNeill added that this is a good time to remember that “'The University' is, under law, its students, staff and graduates—cuts may be proposed by management, but the University as a community can respond to them.” VUWSA is aware of the University’s financial situation, but said they have not been involved in any formal financial discussions.  They added that “only with proper consultation can we ensure vital student support services are not diminished, our more vulnerable workers protected and will allow for  collaboration to find creative means of reducing costs that are not the seemingly default measure of reducing staff.” Students have expressed concerns for the impacts such cost-reduction measures will have on their future studies, especially students who are employed with the university.  TEU reiterated that these students are members of their union too, and that they will fight for students' jobs and conditions at the University. McNeill said it “would be counterproductive to cut what’s best about Victoria, and do long-term damage, to fix a short-term problem.” TEU values the close links they have with VUWSA, and their members value students as part of this community. “We’re not fighting job losses just because they’re our jobs—we’re also committing to this University as a community.”  It is unclear when the University’s engagements with their outlined stakeholders will commence.  If you’re concerned about your employment with the University, we’d like to hear from you. Contact editor@salient.org.nz

    • Māori Party Pushing For More Than Just The Vote for Incarcerated Whanau
      • Te Aorewa Rolleston | Ngāi te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Māori Party Logo. PHOTO: Māori Party Website The Māori Party are urging for more effort and consideration to be included towards the current voting rights of incarcerated people. This is by acknowledging the need for incarcerated voters to be informed, as well as having access to the right to vote.  Currently, incarcerated people with sentences of up to three years are allowed to vote in the upcoming election.   This comes after the The Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Bill was amended and passed during June of this year. The Bill was proposed by Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, in February. In a statement to Te Ao Mārama, Little said the law was changed “to allow those with sentences of less than three years to vote.”  However, when asked whether he believed incarcerated people contributed value to civic participation in society, Little said that the question was “ludicrous” and “it’s not about adding value to society, it’s about them as an individual.”  Māori Party Co-Leader and Māori electorate candidate Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told Te Ao Mārama “it's one thing to be given your rights to vote but you also want to be informed and be able to have access to the ability to be informed and have that mātauranga and to feel empowered to make that difference.” “From our perspective you’re never incarcerated alone—when one goes we all go. Our view is that there needs to be reconnection. There’s a lot of complexities that we have to deal with, there’s a whole lot of unraveling of the discriminatory and systemic racism that you really want to address.”  Neil Beales, Chief Custodial Officer for the Department of Corrections told Te Ao Mārama that they’ve begun “engagement and enrolment with prisoners and aim to enrol as many prisoners as early as possible.”  Beales also mentioned that the delayed election means there is more time to enrol more newly sentenced people. The Department of Corrections also stated that all voting services, polling booths, and political party material are delivered and established on site and facilitated by electoral commission and corrections staff.  Awatea Mita is an advocate of the pro-voting rights movement and also has had experience as anincarcerated person. Mita reported that having the right to vote is defined as a social activity for Māori, rather than an individual event. Māori are more likely to have discussions together at a whānau, hapū, and even iwi level.   “When you remove people's rights to vote, they come back to their communities and can start to foster a negative voter identity.”  Support for the incarcerated community has also been driven by the public campaigning organisation, Action Station. A report submitted by the group looks at reforming the justice system and directing attention towards the immense intergenerational trauma inflicted upon Māori, who make up more than half of the incarceration population.  Dr. Keri Lawson-Te Aho, a Māori public health researcher at Otago University, and foreword writer for the report stated that “we have reached a point now where something has to be done to stem the tide of Māori incarceration and support the rebuilding of Māori lives shattered by the justice system, a punitive, destructive, and harmful process.” National Party member and electoral law reform spokesperson, Nick Smith, however, did not recognise this process and said in a statement to a Te Ao Mārama reporter that “losing the right to vote is a consequence of serious offending.” “Prisoners who have received sentences of up to three years aren’t petty criminals. They are people who have committed serious assaults, robberies, family violence, and sexual offences.” Smith further stated that losing the right to vote is consistent with the loss of other freedoms when going to prison. He added that “once offenders come out of prison and have re-joined society then they will have that right to vote returned to them.” Green Party MP and justice spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, has expressed her support for voting rights for incarcerated persons, saying “our Government now accepts that our prison system disproportionately targets Māori and other communities of colour, so this is also a serious breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and a race equity issue which we know has caused serious unrest internationally and here in New Zealand.”  The Māori Party acknowledged that there were many complexities that were still causing adversity for incarcerated people that needed to be deconstructed and that the Department of Corrections was one of those constructs that was not working. 

    • Which Election Policies Adhere to Te Tiriti?
      • Annabel McCarthy | Te Whakatōhea <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Te Tiriti o Waitangi. PHOTO: University of Waikato Te Tiriti o Waitangi is central to politics and governance in Aotearoa New Zealand. As this year’s election looms closer, the question of how the next government will be an honourable Treaty partner should not be too far from voters’ minds. Here’s a rundown of policies proposed by political parties relevant to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Green Party: The Green Party says it is the only party pushing for major constitutional reform based on Te Tiriti. The Party believes current and previous governments have not honoured Tino Rangatiratanga, or Māori sovereignty and self-determination, as set out in Article Two of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. If elected into Government, the Party would implement the recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal in its kaupapa inquiries; inquiries into breaches of the Treaty by the Crown. The Party would also ensure the Waitangi Tribunal is well-resourced to undertake current and future inquiries and would implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Labour Party: If re-elected, Labour would continue to support Kōhanga Reo and Whānau Ora through government funding. The Party says it is committed to improving the intergenerational wellbeing of whānau by working in closer partnerships with Māori.  Labour would also continue to partner with iwi and Māori housing providers to “get more whānau into healthy and secure homes and to create solutions to the housing crisis beyond COVID-19”. Last week, the Labour Party also pledged to make Matariki, a celebration of the Māori New Year, a public holiday from 2022. Māori Party: The Māori Party believes the COVID-19 recovery period presents an opportunity to strengthen the Māori-Crown relationships under Te Tiriti. They have proposed requiring all recovery projects to observe the Te Tiriti relationship in their structure and membership. This would mean guaranteed Mana Whenua representation in local, regional, and national projects. The Party also wants a quarter of Covid-19 recovery projects and resources to go to or involve Māori. Other policies by the Māori Party include dis-establishing Oranga Tamariki and replacing it with kaupapa Māori-based processes and structures for child protection. This would  require the Crown to acknowledge Māori rights and interests in freshwater, restarting negotiations with the Crown to implement these rights and interests, stopping water bottling consents, increasing Whānau Ora funding and ensuring the Crown works with Māori to establish climate change adaptation plans. National Party: The National Party currently has no policies specific to Te Tiriti but has said it will be releasing further 2020 campaign policies ahead of the October 17th election. National has previously said it would maintain existing funding to Māori media outlets. The Party says the creative work of Māori media is vital to Aotearoa’s cultural landscape. If elected into government, National would also recognise that iwi have concerns and work with them to progress the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, while exploring options for the establishment of new marine reserves. ACT Party: ACT has said it would prevent any government from buying the whenua at Ihumātao. The Party believes the group Save Our Unique Landscape is staging an “illegal occupation of private property” at Ihumātao and said using taxpayer money to buy the whenua would set a precedent undermining all private property rights. Additionally, ACT has pledged to remove the Māori seats in Parliament, saying they are outdated and “offensive to the principle of equal citizenship.” The Party would also abolish the Human Rights Commission and repeal existing hate speech laws which make it illegal to discriminate against a group on the grounds of their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins. New Zealand First: NZ First is yet to release many of its new 2020 campaign policies but believes historic statues such as those of colonial figures should not be removed because “they celebrate figures who embodied values that are now outdated.” NZ First would also hold an independent review into the arming of frontline police officers with assault rifles. The Party says it is concerned the police are becoming increasingly militarised. The Opportunities Party: TOP has proposed to resolve past breaches of the Treaty by 2040, including resolving water ownership. The Party also wants to develop a written constitution that honours the Treaty of Waitangi and entrenches the Bill of Rights Act and to require residency applicants to show an understanding of the constitution and Treaty.

    • NOPE 2 DOPE
      • This is for all the naysayers, who may not be convinced that voting ‘YES’ in the Cannabis Referendum is the way to go for the collective future. I strongly believe there are no legitimate reasons against cannabis and voting yes.  Since humans began creating communities and societies, we have categorised ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ behaviours.  These behaviours are taught, learnt, and are also fluid to changes as we progress through time and cultural interaction. Things we once perceived as ‘bad’ are now seen or progressing to becoming ‘good’, for example, giving women the right to vote.  Few would say the archaic or often Western ideals of women having to sit on the sidelines is still a good thing in our current communities. Not to say that anything is perfect, but that there is always room for change, be it good or bad.  Policing: The most common argument for the ‘no’ is the mindset ‘cannabis is illegal and should stay illegal, justice can be served by the courts and the law’.  Policing and often the law is NOT a fair process even if the referendum didn’t go through.  Crime is a social construct, linked back to our learnt behaviours and what we deem as the layers of our society within the parameters of illegality.  Think of it like this, if your boss undercuts your pay by $100.00 for the week, the process is harder to get your money back through them illegally underpaying you. Versus if you took that same $100.00 you are owed from the till and your boss could hence call the police on you.  We often place value and regulation in the hands of those with positions of power. The same argument can run for those who get riled up on benefit fraud but not over the millions in tax evasion by massive corporate entities.  In my opinion it is no bold statement to say that policing happens to those with the least power. It is this which leads to discrimination and assumptions of minority groups who fall within lower socio-economic groups.  WCC Tamatha Paul says “people are stuck in this mindset that incarceration solves problems. There is a widespread attitude that we need to take punitive approaches to mental health and addiction problems.”  We are honing in on the idea that we do not equally ‘police’ those in higher society who screw us over more often than we are led to believe.  US President Jimmy Carter acknowledged: “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself”. Pointing out that policing does not distribute a fair idea of justice even if it was to remain illegal. Voting yes means freeing up police time and funding. The average cost of processing someone with a minor drug offense is $18,000 per person with a conviction rate of 12, 895 people between the time period of 2007 and 2011 according to the NZ Drug Foundation. With this estimation there could be a saving of $232,110,000 that could be used for rehabilitation or community projects and this doesn’t count for inflation.  Addiction: In terms of the myth of rehabilitation and funding being so expensive, It can be seen how much we already pay for it per person.  The cost can be covered by the patient at an average of $150 per week if they do not meet the requirements for the WINZ benefit (Higher Ground Drug Rehabilitation, 2020).  If the funding of policing was redirected to the cost of prevention and rehabilitation it would require less cost on behalf of the taxpayer anyway. Gangs and gateways: Drugs are often tagged to illicit activities with gangs. However, voting yes means that cannabis is no longer an illicit activity and gangs can no longer have a monopoly over its distribution.  No longer causing community harm, pressure or not paying any tax on its sale. Imagine the tax revenue and jobs that could be made.  There will also be places for people to have access to safe usage and controlled amounts with cannabis still being illegal for anyone under 20 years old.  Youth: When we think about our future we should consider the impact on our youth. Instead of installing the idea that drugs are bad and create bad people. We need to educate young people on safe usage. This way they no longer have to go to illegal and potentially dangerous sources to get cannabis. On top of this, we can rest knowing that young people will have well educated mindsets on the effects of cannabis. Society doesn’t need it: Cr Paul also comments that “New Zealand has done a lot of things that the country was not necessarily ready to do…homosexual lawreform and Springbok tour, New Zealand has stood up to do the morally right thing.” Cr Paul is absolutely correct that New Zealand has the ability to rise above their own individual views and think of the potential we could embody as a nation. In saying all of this I don’t want to entirely play the freedom of choice card, the health benefits, tax revenue, the cut in crime, the funding for rehabilitation, mental health, the education for youth and the control on gang activity is a step towards equity and the possibility for tourism.  I want to absolutely hit a home run with the fact that if you don’t vote yes, you aren’t invited to the cookout. 

    • Tikanga Maori in The Courts
      • Kelly Mitchell | Ngāti Māhanga Content Warning: Child Abuse <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > Wellington’s Supreme Court. PHOTO: Stuff If you have any Māori law student mates, legal whānau, or just an appetite for criminal justice, you’ve probably heard of the Ellis case.  If you haven’t: Last year Peter Ellis, who had terminal cancer, appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn his remaining convictions of child sexual abuse from 1993. The Court said it would consider hearing the appeal even if he passed away before the scheduled hearing. After he died in September 2019, the case was then centered on whether the appeal should continue. Commonwealth courts have historically found that in death, someone’s interest in an appeal ends. Lawyers in the case turned to overseas jurisdictions which developed the rule to grant exceptional circumstances. An additional hearing on the matter was later granted after Justice Williams (Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Arawa) and Chief Justice Glazebrook raised questions to the lawyers around developing the rule using tikanga Māori. Their questions resulted in another hearing which asked the lawyers to make arguments specifically on how tikanga Māori authorised the Court to develop the old common law and recognise Mr. Ellis’ appeal. The hearing saw top Māori legal talent take the stand to discuss how tikanga Māori operates regarding mana after death, as well as legal precedent on how tikanga Māori can and should inform common law development in Aotearoa.  The arguments from both sides agreed that tikanga Māori means everyone, including Ellis as a Pākehā man, has mana. They were also in agreement that a conviction results in the diminishment or destruction of that mana and the mana of their family.  Furthermore, both sides recognised that the initial granting of the appeal means that there is now hara presented before the Court that needs to result in ea. Where the arguments diverged was on whether ea could only be reached by holding the appeal.  On September 2nd this year, the Court announced that the appeal is to be heard. The decision indicates that the judiciary may now be significantly more open to considering tikanga Māori arguments within common law issues—a striking divergence from when the courts were imposed onto our people and the days of Wi Parata. For this progress we ought to pay due credit to the perseverance of Māori. Their efforts in the legal sphere as activists, advocates, politicians, lawyers, and judges consistently promote tikanga Māori in this space.  This case is a notable example of how these efforts have found success, given that the tikanga issue only became relevant when prompted by Justice Williams. Without his presence on the bench, we may not be discussing this case as we are now. Furthermore, his prompt was supported in this instance by Chief Justice Glazebrook who is Pākehā, exemplifying how Pākehā can uphold obligations as Tāngata Tiriti.  Whilst this is an exciting development, it is important to recognise that the judiciary is a colonial institution and inherently limited in its ability to uphold tikanga Māori.  This case saw tikanga Māori being used as a tool to assist the development of a common law rule which we were forced to adopt. It isn’t an instance of tikanga Māori as law, but rather it acting as a consideration in developing new law. Whilst it is exciting that Ellis’ mana and the mana of his family have a chance to be taken seriously, we must also work to see a Tikanga Māori justice system implemented as guaranteed by Te Tiriti.  

    • Racism at University of Waikato: Maori Academics Take a Stand
      • Te Aorewa Rolleston | Ngāi te Rangi, Ngāti Ranginui& Rachel Trow | Kāi Tahu, Ngāti Tūwharetoa <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > The University of Waikato / Te Whare Wananga o Waikato. Photo: SunLive An open letter to the University of Waikato calling on the institution to address “long-term, unresolved systemic” racism has received thousands of signatures.  The open letter states: “We call on the University of Waikato to actively demonstrate its commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, to mātauranga Māori and Te Reo Māori in every aspect of the management and operation of the University.” The open letter comes after six University of Waikato academics wrote to the Ministry of Education informing them of the University’s culture and history of racism. The University initially refused to acknowledge any of the complaints. But, following backlash, an investigation has now been established.  The mamae staff have felt has been harvested by exclusion, neglect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles within the institution, underpaid staff, and the tokenistic treatment of the Māori academic community. Māori Deans and Professors have also not had their contracts renewed. World-renowned Academic Linda Tuhiwai Smith (Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Porou), Professor of Indigenous Studies at the University, contributed to the open letter and was frustrated and shocked that the University had not acknowledged the serious issues being raised.  Co-President of Te Kāuru, Luke Moss (Ngāti Maniapoto) told Te Ao Mārama that the submission process has been too short to account for student input. Moss stated that with less than a week for students to submit, students were being forced to choose: “do your essay or make a submission.”  Students were feeling “concerned”, overall, according to Moss. Students “come [to the University of Waikato] for the experts” and are worried about the quality of their tohu, their qualifications, if the University is not able to maintain its leading Māori academics. Moving forward, Moss wanted the submission process to be extended, and for the “audit to be truly external” as somes students were worried about having to submit their whakaaro through the University itself. The University told the New Zealand Herald that they “could not comment on individual employment matters.”

    • Your 2021 VUWSA Exec: A Salient Sharn
      • Kirsty Frame | She/Her Kane Bassett | Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairoa | He/Him <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > After an ~unprecedented~ few days filled with dog-shit people hacking zoom and multiple ciggie breaks, we, your hosts of last week’s candidate forums and resident chaotic Salient simps, are excited to present a spiced-up rundown of what we can only describe as a real bland sheet of data. That’s right, team. We’re talking about your VUWSA 2021 Election Results.  2400 out of 22,000 students voted in this year’s election, so we ask those 19,600 to avoid complaining about student advocacy until next year’s election. Nonetheless, it’s not a bad turnout—in fact, we’re up slightly from last year. In terms of representation, your 2021 VUWSA executive is 70% female, 30% male, and, in a completely harrowing yet tragically unsurprising turn of events, 100% not Māori. In again unprecedented events, this year we heard not one candidate utter the word “kaupapa”. Though we had honourable mentions of “he waka eke noa”, and the bilingual “te treaty.” We’re getting carried away, so let’s get back on track. Michael “Mikey T” Turnball Turnbell Turnbull came through with a 72% majority and is your VUWSA President for 2021. Kirsty was invited to his victory party, but turned down the invitation due to obvious conflicts of interest. No Confidence vote was at roughly 6%, meaning Archi-Legend Jack Walker polled in at 22%. Te Aro, we’re sorry you’ve been let down, again.  After campaigning neck and neck against literally no one, Ralph Zambrano smashed the no-confidence vote by a whopping 89.49%, securing the Welfare VP position for 2021. We’re excited to see how he can bring us forwards/moving/let’s do this/together, or something.  Newcomer—and now, official VUWSA nerd™—Cherri-Lyn Lomax-Morris is your Academic Vice President in what was the narrowest of votes for this year's election. Cherri-Lyn polled in 41%, with Laura Jackson behind her at 32%, followed by Blake Steel at 21%. Amelia Blamey is in charge of your money next year, reigning in 42% of the vote. Lachlan Craig came in at 26% (which we’re bummed about tbh, because he campaigned on giving Salient more money), followed by Levi Gibbs at 13%, Troy Brown at 7%, candidate “No Confidence” (king) at 6%, and finally Nathan Campbell at 3%.  In a similar fashion to Zambrano, and after a vicious campaign against—you guessed it—no one, Grace Carr gave it to ‘em and made her relationship official with the Engagement Officer position for 2021. Naws. Carr claimed 88.92% of the vote, with the rest going to King No Confidence.  Campaigns officer went to Katherine Blow, who raked in a 64% majority, followed by Rilke Comer at 17%, and Alexis Mundy at 8%. Zoe Simpson is your Clubs and Activities officer at 56%, beating Tara O’Sullivan at 34%—no confidence for this one was 9%. Education Officers had similar results, with James Daly polling at 55% and Ciara Mitchell at 32%.  Another new-comer, Monica Lim is your Equity and Wellbeing Officer, polling at 71%, seeing George Garnett out at 21%. The role has been revamped for 2021 to absorb Wellbeing responsibilities.  Sophie Dixon, current Wellbeing and Sustainability Officer has reclaimed her title, though we know next year the role is focused on Sustainability. It was a close run between her and newcomer Louise Coram-Lasnier, seeing Sophie on 56% and Louise 37%.  That’s it team, that’s your bloody results. After an exhausting couple weeks of letting candidate typo’s in our magazine, hosting 5 hours of forums, and printing 2 whole-ass issues—we’re exhausted. We guess these guys had a busy couple weeks too.  Na, in all seriousness, yesterday’s shitty zoom-bombing really took away from the deserved celebrations these guys should have had. Cheers to all of VUWSA, current and future, and especially our VUWSA adult staff for their swift actions. Congrats to everyone for putting themselves out there, and remember that Salient and VUWSA aren’t enemies ;-)))

    • VUWSA AGM Zoom-bombed, Election Results Dampened
      • Kirsty Frame | She/Her Kane Bassett | Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairoa | He/Him CW: Antisemitism, Homophobia, Racism <figure class=" sqs-block-image-figure intrinsic " > PHOTO: VUWSA AGM Postponed. VUWSA’s online AGM this afternoon was taken over by a co-ordinated ‘Zoom-bombing’, leaving many students distressed, key proceedings on hold, and anticipated election results announced via Facebook. The AGM was hosted online this year as a result of Level 2 restrictions and streamed from the VUWSA office. Soon after the meeting reached it’s quorum of 100 people, VUWSA lost control of their hosting abilities as the Zoom-bomb swiftly commenced. The attacker(s) took over the hosting screen, meaning all attendees were presented with a hateful display of anti-semitic, homophobic, and racist imagery, audio, and text. The chat section of the Zoom meeting, available to all attendees, was also bombarded with messaging of the same nature.  The takeover was executed by at least two of the attendees present, and there have since been comments suggesting the attack was conducted through the encrypted messaging app, Discord. VUWSA commented that they were unable to end the meeting due to this loss of control, and an additional computer crash, causing the attack to last approximately four minutes. Many students and staff watching the stream were shocked and deeply distressed at the imagery which unfolded. VUWSA President Taylah Shukar, who was hosting the event, briefly came back on screens to condemn the actions before the live stream was shut down. VUWSA promptly released a statement via social media and email apologising to those who witnessed the event, stating they “condemn the people who displayed this behaviour.” They are currently investigating their security protocol to prevent this from happening in the future, “to ensure the spaces and events [they] facilitate are safe.”  VUWSA have since laid a complaint to police.  This also comes after a series of unfortunate and isolated technical difficulties during VUWSA’s Student Exec Candidate and Wellington Central Candidate forums. Both these events were transitioned online due to Level 2 restrictions.  The events today meant the anticipated VUWSA election results weren’t announced to attendees via Zoom. The results were instead announced internally to candidates shortly after 1pm, before Salient published them to Facebook. The AGM agenda this year was also combined with the IGM, which was cancelled last trimester due to Level 4 restrictions. Set for today was a number of key reports and proposed changes to the VUWSA constitution and 2021 budget. VUWSA AGM’s require a quorum of 100 attendees to pass these key changes. There is currently no postponement date set for the AGM. However, VUWSA said they are discussing the postponement possibilities tomorrow. A re-scheduled AGM would require at least 10 days notice, as outlined in VUWSA’s constitution.  VUWSA re-iterated that their focus right now is on the wellbeing of those involved in today’s events. In their statement, VUWSA listed a variety of services available for those who need support as a result of today’s events: -- Free call or text 1737 (24/7 counselling support line) -- Mauri Ora, Level 1, Student Union Building, Kelburn Campus: Duty counselling available Email: mauriora@vuw.ac.nz Phone: +64 4 463 5308 -- VUWSA Advocacy (Erica and Alice) Email: advocate@vuwsa.org.nz  -- Student Interest Team Email: student.interest@vuw.ac.nz -- Rainbow and Inclusion support (Georgia Andrews)  Email: georgia.andrews@vuw.ac.nz -- Āwhina (Māori student support) Email: awhina@vuw.ac.nz -- Pasifika Student Support Email: pasifika-Student-Success@vuw.ac.nz -- International Student Support: Email: international-support@vuw.ac.nz

    • The Rundown: Your Candidates for VUWSA 2021
      • Finn Blackwell & Te Aorewa Rolleston | He/Him & She/Her VUWSA’s candidate’s debate kicked off last week with questions surrounding experience, policy delivery, advocacy and engagement.  Incoming Presidential candidate Jack Walker explains that he will aim to “serve the people, to listen to them, to collaborate with them, to engage with them, and to advocate for them.” “What drew me to [the presidency] was my desire to make a difference in other peoples’ lives: to listen to them, to understand who they are, why they do what they do, and to empower to make a difference.” Second candidate for President, Michael Turnbull, said that his focus is on “reigniting, re-engaging and reforming” VUWSA for the upcoming year. “I know how powerful VUWSA can be in creating change and steering the direction of student advocacy at VUW” Turnbull added. “Some crucial change is needed to ensure that our association continues to deliver for our students.” Both Presidential candidates also spoke on The Young Matt Show to outline their policies. In regards to working with Ngāi Tauira, and introducing a kāwanatanga agreement initially discussed in 2019, Turnbull said “that is something that VUWSA should have at the core of its agreement … myself and members of Ngāi Tauira have had discussions this year about how we can implement that Kāwanatanga agreement and the MOU that was essentially going to be created.” Walker spoke to the need for changes to be implicated towards supporting the welfare of students. In particular a discussion relating to improved mental health support and advocacy was posed to which Walker said “I’ve struggled with my own mental health in the last few years… I’d like to see more counseling at Te Aro and Pipitea, I would also like to see more accessible services for students, the communication and distribution of information could put steps in the right direction to make it more accessible for everyone.” A question was posed during the live debate surrounding how the pair would seek to represent and engage with VUW’s representative groups, given that both candidates were self-classified as privileged. Walker stated that “I don’t think I can speak on their behalf. I’m a cis white male. But with that comes a standing in society where you have a foot in the door. I don’t believe I should be using that foot in the door for myself, I believe that I should be using that foot in the door to open it for everyone.” Taking the podium, Turnbull remarked that “It’s important to acknowledge that, when we’re working in a colonial university system, there are going to be issues where I don’t have the lived experiences of a lot of those marginalised groups that we have to really push for, especially within a colonial system.” He added that “I think it’s about open consultation, having those hard discussions, and being able to actively listen and take on board from those groups. Understanding that, as president, and as someone who is inherently privileged, we have the opportunity to work with groups to help deliver for them, in a way that the University often doesn’t.”      In other aspects of the VUWSA candidacy debates, the roles of Academic VP, Engagement VP and Welfare VP were also presented with candidates squaring off with the definitive again being experience versus delivery.  The candidates for Engagement and Welfare VP are running unopposed. Engagement VP candidate Grace Carr has voiced her focus engagement between students and VUWSA, Empowering student voices, and transforming this role within VUWSA.  Welfare candidate Ralph Zambrano’s campaign has focused on the advancement, betterment and strengthening of the student body.  The Academic VP candidates highlighted a number of focal points for their campaigns. Laura Jackson explained that her platform was one of collaboration with staff to make substantial changes for student learning. Cherri-Lyn Lomax Morris is standing on a platform of advocacy, with focusses on transparency, representation and empathy. Finally, Blake Steel is focussing on delveriving accountability, empowerment and inclusion from VUWSA in 2021. The officer roles were also presented with candidates suggesting ideas for further shaping VUWSA in 2021. Education Officer candidates Caira Mitchell and James Daly shared the views of inclusivity for the role and strive for policy changes that reflect this. Campaigns Officer candidate Katherine Blow brought up her focus towards student voice, student issues, and the student experience, while alternative candidate, Rilke Comer stated her focus on inclusion, involvement and innovation. Third candidate Alexis Mundy was not present for the forum but cited “self-advocacy” as one of her key focusses. In regard to the Clubs and Activities Officer Candidates, Tara O’Sullivan outlined her vision for 2021 by placing emphasis on networking for VUWSA events, establishing working groups for engagement at campuses outside of Kelburn, and creating more accessible relations between students and clubs.  Alternate candidate Zoë Simpson discussed her three initiatives during the forum which were inclusivity, sustainability, engagement and advocacy as key factors she’d bring to the role. Returning Sustainability Officer Candidate Sophie Dixon and new-comer Louise Coram-Lasnier were next, outlining their policies for a more sustainable VUWSA. These included Dixon’s ideas for reducing food waste, strengthening and promoting existing Uni services. Coram-Lasnier focused on accessible sustainability, specifically flatting and lifestyle changes. Both candidates agreed on the priority for the University to gain a Fair-Trade accreditation. The Equity and Wellbeing Officer role has two candidates: Monica Lim and George Garnett. Both strive for accessibility and accountability, with Lim also focussing on representation, and Garnett on looking toward working with Greater Wellington Regional Council. The final position of Treasurer-Secretary has five candidates. Nathan Campbell focussing on adaptability, accountability and accessibility. Amelia Blamey on financial independence, better services and COVID assistance. Troy Brown for a more vocal, organised, transparent and economical VUWSA. Levi Gibbs on support, reallocation and transparency. And finally, Lachlan Craig on accountability, reform and the student body. The VUWSA elections begin today (Monday) and close11:30am Thursday.  To register to vote and select the new VUWSA exec for 2021, go to voting.vuwsa.org.nz.  Results will be announced at the VUWSA AGM on Thursday, beginning at 12pm.

    • Mediating level two restrictions: accessibility for our disabled community
      • Keana Virmani | She/Her Amid the newly revisited Level 2 restrictions, many disabled students are feeling the additional hurdles placed in front of them at University.    Members of the Disabled Students Association (DSA) spoke of the ways in which the protocols at VUW have affected accessibility. Wider restrictions have meant “less space on buses, meaning some people miss out and fewer people are able to use lifts which slows them down.”    Looking at the University campuses, DSA commented that “the main entry point at Kelburn isn’t close to many accessible car parks, meaning it’s very difficult to get inside.”  Once inside, it’s also difficult to get to the access suite, as the ground level entry of the Library is closed off.  Pipitea campus accessibility has been especially difficult. DSA specifically noted that Rutherford House the accessibility ramp has been blocked off.   To add, the lift in the Student Union Building has in recent weeks, broken twice. This elevator specifically allows access to VUWSA offices, Student Health, enrollment offices, and key club spaces.  The lift first broke on August 10th, and after being repaired the day after, broke again. The lift was out of action thereafter until August 26th while parts were delivered. This placed those who require elevators to access key student services disadvantaged during this period. DSA emphasised the urgency of getting such issues fixed, highlighting that “other accessible routes are often slower, are outside and exposed, and ultimately really difficult.”   VUW commented on the ways in which the university aimed to mediate the challenges of level two accessibility for the disabled community, specifically in regard to physical distancing.   Recent feedback received by Disability Services indicated that “the majority of students with disabilities were making full use of the blended course and service delivery and valued having the choice.”  Many have decided to study remotely in order to “reduce their commute and fatigue,” ultimately moving at their own pace to meet their needs.   The University further stated that many students with disabilities are “developing new strategies to navigate our campuses and access study and university life,” with many doing so “with the advice of our disability and inclusion advisers.”   These strategies have involved “sticking to accessible routes, accessing the orientation and navigation services provided by Blind Low Vision NZ, avoiding crowded spaces, and developing confidence in disclosing their disability needs to staff and others.”   For those disabled students learning remotely, Disability Services at VUW have placed student wellbeing at the forefront of their response, with all services for students now available online.  Such services include education access plans, tailored notetaking and sign language interpreters, to name a few.   DSA did, however, highlight some difficulties that have been overlooked by the University.  There have been “issues with the recorded lectures in terms of transcribing, and some students finding it difficult to learn online.”   Furthermore, the unavailability of printed materials “is extremely difficult” for some students, whose disability makes it hard to read on a screen. DSA noted scans are often “too difficult to read or be picked up by OCR’s.”  DSA also stated that lecturers themselves have found the dual model difficult in order for “equitable learning, which has meant the learning hasn’t been great.”

    • OPINION: Disability Pride is Not a Pedestal, It's Normalisation
      • Connor Adamson | He/Him ‘Inspiration Porn’ is detrimental to disabled people. When disabled people are used as inspiration this can slow down and even reverse the normalisation of disability. What is Inspiration Porn?  It describes how people with disabilities are often used as objects of inspiration rather than being seen as human beings. The term was used in a TED Talk by Stella Young in 2014.  Now you might be thinking, “this is ridiculous, I am inspired by people with disabilities and still see them as human beings.” Stella points out that often disabled people are just living their lives and not achieving anything exceptional if their disability is not a factor. Images of disabled people simply living their lives hinders the ability of disabled people to be a normal part of society, as we’re always being viewed as exceptional.  On the flip side, when a disabled person achieves something that is noteworthy, circulating inspirational images of the person downplays their achievement. Their achievement is suddenly seen as easier and people decide “well if they can do it then I can as well.” In reality, the task is still just as difficult, all that has changed is the person’s perception of how much work is involved. People are more likely to appreciate and understand the work involved when an able-bodied individual achieves the same task. The social model of disability argues that individuals are not disabled by their bodies, but by what they are required to do with their bodies. I like to imagine completing a task is like a sprint with hurdles but everybody has a different number of hurdles they have to jump. The sad truth is that disabled people are often thought of as inspirational simply for trying to overcome hurdles that are often ignored. That is, until they receive enough attention from everybody else, like the ability to work from home, for example. Listening to and fixing issues that disabled people face would allow us to become more active in the community. It would also allow us to become a normal part of society instead of being thought of as inspirational for simply trying to overcome these hurdles.  Many of the hurdles those with physical disabilities face can be removed if architects spent more time planning accessibility options for buildings. Those with cognitive or learning disabilities may require more time or assistance with learning. Funding teacher training to help these individuals or hiring support staff would help overcome these hurdles. Some hurdles will be difficult to remove and I acknowledge that there is not a one size fits all in these situations. The important thing is that we try to address these issues and find out what works.

Updated Feeds

Recently updated feeds from local organisations.