Issue 88.7 by On Dit

n Dit

ISSUE 88.6 ISSUE 88.7 AUGUST SEPTEMBER 2020 2020

Get more from your Uni experience Grab your Union card and...

GET AHEAD

Access the best professional and academic advice, tips and tricks on study and employment, and build your skills and your resume.

GET SOCIAL

Fill your calendar with amazing events, workshops, comedy, live music, trivia, festivals, pop-up bars, campus challenges and loads more.

GET FREE STUFF

Claim discounts all over campus, upgrades, free lunches, rewards, and the best competitions and giveaways.

GET BALANCE

Stay motivated with health and wellbeing support, activities, adventures, and a life outside of lectures.

$55 2.5 Years

$40 1.5 Years

$20

Semester 2

auu.org.au/join

n Dit 2020

Want to get involved? Check out our content callout lists and submission dates at facebook.com/onditmagazine Find us on: Instagram @onditmag Twitter @onditmagazine Email onditmag@gmail.com

ON DIT CONTENTS Editorial Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s On? State of the Union SRC President Left, Right, and Centre Vox Pop Vox Hack Club Spotlight Econ Dit Rural Student News International Student News Pop quiz ARTICLES Why we should stick with the paper ballot Why we should have genuinely online student elections Telling tales with numbers 2 Stop avoiding talking about politics How to sell a revolution On the value of long books Stupol anonymous Uyghurs in 700 words or less Wearing a mask Covid, MMT, and deficits The Palace Letters From October to now Fake news Understanding charismatic leadership

5 6 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 66

26 28 30 34 36 40 43 44 46 48 50 52 54 56

Sustainability in politics I have a note on my phone Now is a great time to be in education

58 60 62

CREATIVE WRITING AND ARTWORK Artwork by Angvs 39 Stupol poetry 64 My morning with Mr. Reaper 64 Rants of a summer dress 65 EDITORS Nick Birchall Felix Eldridge Taylor Fernandez Larisa Forgac SUBEDITORS Will Broderick Ivan Bucalo Mirco Di Giacomo Michael Genrich Oliver Hales Isobel Moore Annika Pietek Rory Spiers Emily Woodcock DESIGN Larisa Forgac COVER ART Voice By Isobel Moore Instagram: @issimoore_

We wish to acknowledge the Kaurna people as the traditional custodians of the Adelaide region on which the University of Adelaide is located. We also acknowledge Elders, living and past, and understand that the cultural and heritage beliefs that the Kaurna people hold are still important to the living members of their community today.

EDITORIAL

Hello from Felix, Taylor, Larisa and Nick Another year, another student election. While many people hate student elections, student politicians and perhaps politics altogether, it’s surprisingly relevant to you. Like the famous quote from Nietzsche: “if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you”, regardless of whether you pay attention to politics, politics pays attention to you. Whether it’s raising your taxes or pushing a social view contrary to your own, politics will affect you, regardless of your interaction with it. The same is said at a student level. It’s up to all of us to hold our student representatives accountable for their actions and to press them to make the changes that we want to see at our university. You may not be aware, but you have representatives at a student level, mainly those on the Student Representative Council (SRC) and the Adelaide University Union Board (AUU). Every year, the campus will be packed with students in t-shirts trying to tell you why their policy is better than another group’s and the whole thing might seem off-putting. But it’s important that you go out and vote and participate in democracy, because if you don’t then you lose the ability to have your say in who represents you. There is a perceived disconnect between student reps and students and every time students refuse to vote, it just means that the reps become less representative of students and then this furthers the disconnect in a vicious cycle. The only way to break it is to actually go down to the polling booth, listen to what the groups have to say and then after making an informed decision about which group or candidates support your views, vote for them. The biggest killer of representative democracy is not extremism, it’s apathy. So get out there, get one of the cool ‘I’ve already voted’ stickers, and vote! This edition brings you current international political issues and the hot takes of students about whether the elections should be held online or in person. We are also featuring a few nonpolitical articles in this issue, in case student politics isn’t quite your cup of tea! On Dit

N O S ’ T A H W ? N O S ’ T A H W UoA’s Insight + Flinders’ HHRG global health short course WHEN: September 1st, 6pm-8:15pm WHERE: Details to be posted via the Facebook page

Affiliate the Women’s Collective and Pro Choice Club to the AUU event

WHEN: September 1st, 11am WHERE: Adelaide University Hub (More details available on the Facebook evet page)

Sir david attenbeerough’s pubcrawl WHEN: September 11th, 6pm till late WHERE: Details to be posted via the Facebook event page

W ? N O S ’ T A H W ? N AUAC Weekly Anime Screening

WHEN: Every Friday, 5:10pm - 8:40pm WHERE: G03 Napier Building

GAMES at Adelaide Uni Friday Game Nights

WHEN: Hosted every Friday night at 5pm till late WHERE: G13 Hartley Building

German Club Kaffeeklatsch

WHEN: Thursdays of even weeks, 2-3pm WHERE: Aroma Café, Ingkarni Wardli

STATE OF THE UNION Words by AUU President Stella Seung-Joo Woo

For those of you who have been reading On Dit, you may know by now that I’m the President of the Adelaide University Union, but some of you may not know how I came into this position. I ran in student elections for the position of a board director in 2018, which is for a two-year term. In my second year on the Board, my fellow board directors elected me as the AUU President. For all of the first year students out there, you may not be familiar with what’s going on. Student elections are coming up and students will be running for different positions of the Adelaide University Union, the Student Representative Council and for student media (On Dit and Student Radio). As student representatives we engage in meetings with the university, we make them aware of student concerns, suggest to them what should to be changed around campus, and I believe that this year was particularly hectic for our student representatives. Decisions that were made by the university had input from students. Although all the decisions that were made may be what you had expected, we try our best to ensure all voices are heard. Those of you who have been at uni for a few years now may hate student election week! But it’s important

to come out and vote, as the AUU is a student-led organisation. Although not all the students that run in elections may agree on the same issues, they are all out there, running for what they truly believe in. It only takes a few minutes of your time and if you get it done at the beginning of the week, all the people asking you to vote will stop harassing you for the rest of the week! But remember that if you want to change something at uni, you can always run in the elections yourself! If you have any questions or feedback you can always email me or message me on kakao talk! Stella Seung-Joo Woo auupresident@auu.org.au Kakao Talk ID: snipshot

SRC PRESIDENT Words by SRC President Oscar Ong

You’re probably on your 10th lap to the hub this week, or trying to come up with excuses to escape taking one of the “How to Votes” (I come from Uni SA is the best) while you are reading this. But seriously, while you are doing your cardio, running through all the people with colourful T-shirts, if you have time, you should stop and listen to what they have to say! I know, voting for your representatives sounds like a boring, tedious, pointless, or trivial task and probably doesn’t affect your life either! What’s worse are arguments between campaigners while you are trying to navigate your way to classes. Being a fourth-year student representative, I’ve really learned the value of a vote that is given to me every year, especially in challenging times like this. The SRC and AUU are both student-led organisations, with the SRC comprised of 23 elected members and the AUU Board comprised of 10 elected members, 5 of whom are elected each year for two year terms. The SRC is here to represent your voice on campus whereas the AUU offers a range of important services including Clubs, Student Care, Events and Volunteering. Many of you are not aware of this, but the SRC and AUU President have regular meetings with the senior university management team and sit on important committees in the university (this is where all the key changes happen). These meetings are very important, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. I’ve attended

a weekly update meeting to ensure all your concerns are addressed! We are here to represent you whether you have voted or not, so why not have a say in who your reps are and how your reps represent you. Another key point is both organisations are funded by a portion of the Student Services & Amenities Fee (SSAF), the extra 200 ish you paid on top of your course fees! The tremendous achievements of the SRCs of the past can be found in past meeting papers and my last column, but two notable changes the SRC have achieved in the last few months are the Student Support Packages and Pass Non Graded (PNG). I hope that I’ve got your attention and that you’ve realised how important your vote is, so to every single student of Adelaide University, come out and vote! Questions/suggestions about the SRC/ university? You are always welcome to email me or send me a message through social media! Oscar Zi Shao Ong SRC President oscarzishao.ong@adelaide.edu.au Facebook/WeChat ID: oscarong1997

LEFT RIGHT & CENTRE LEFT Tom Auld Socialist Alternative 1. While right-wing criticisms of Daniel Andrews are laden with hypocrisy, attempts to blame the spread of Covid in Victoria on an ignorant minority miss the reality of Labor and Daniel Andrews’ legacy in that state. To start with, the reintroduction of lockdown laid bare the inadequacies of public housing in Victoria. Tenants, in already cramped accommodation, were forced without warning into multiple days of isolation without food and necessary supplies such as medicine. Overly militarised police blocked family members from rectifying this and Labor’s state planning minister denied the dissemination of public health orders in the relevant languages of the people living in the area. The effects of privatisation on aged care facilities by Labor and Liberal state governments worsened the effect of the health crisis, with multiple outbreaks coming from understaffed and underfunded workplaces. Like the security guards outside quarantined hotels, many aged care workers have been forced into working multiple jobs due to inadequate pay, which has only served to spread the virus locally. We have to criticise Daniel Andrews and Labor if we are going to get a better situation for workers and the poor, let alone deal with the multiple crises we are faced with.

2. Politicians are an entitled joke! It’s been clear to most people for a long time that politicians have helped themselves to bloated wages and conditions while doing little but screw us over for the majority of the time. They should be subject to the average wages of workers and more accountable to the people they supposedly represent. 3. This is a clear manifestation of the intensifying imperialist tensions between the United States and China. With the US establishment in crisis following the mismanagement of the COVID crisis, the economic fallout from that, as well as the uprising that has swept the country in recent months, Trump uses any opportunity to shift focus to China and conspiracies about foreign interference. There’s little to suggest that TikTok’s data practices are any more fraught with danger than other social media platforms.

CENTRE

Ella Shaw Adelaide University Labor Club 1. I do believe that the situation in Victoria could’ve been handled better. I would say that hiring a private company to operate and oversee quarantine, whilst other states used the police force, was a major downfall. Victoria faced allegations of these guards being inadequately trained and not being

1. With Melbourne going into Stage-4 Lockdown, is mismanagement by the State Government, or irresponsibility by state populace to blame? 2. In the wake of several MP’s resigning from SA Parliament over misuse of funds, should parliament continue to be entitled to regulate its own allowances? 3. Donald Trump is seeking to ban TikTok with an executive order due to concerns of privacy infringement and illegitimate data-sharing. Is this merely peacocking, or is there a legitimate privacy concern?

provided with adequate PPE, which is definitely concerning. However, I do believe that the sheer population of Victoria has a large role to play. The size of the state and the large population makes it difficult for social distancing regulations to exist. It was also found that many Victorian’s became complacent once restrictions had eased. I believe it was a combination of many aspects that lead to stage 4 lockdown. 2. As a rural student, the actions of state liberal MPs of late, has been entirely disappointing. If a Woolworths worker or Coles team member was to steal $42,000 they would instantly be dismissed from the company. These workers, who are considered essential workers during these times, are earning a quarter of an MPs wages. Members of Parliament are on extraordinary wages and with such privilege comes great responsibility. Responsibility to ensure transparency. No MP should fear transparency. Regulation by an external party should not be feared and wouldn’t be feared if the MPs are correctly reporting reimbursements. This scandal has come out whilst rural students are enduring one of the most difficult financial situations that most students at our university have ever seen. Liberal MPs are pocketing taxpayers’ money whilst students from these rural electorates are struggling to make ends meet, working 30 hours a week to pay rent and utilities to be able to study in the city. It’s an absolute disgrace.

3. Donald Trump’s decision to give 45 days for a US company to buy TikTok does appear to be a peacocking demonstration. In today’s society I do believe that there are genuine privacy and data sharing concerns, which is exactly why Australians were so reluctant to download the COVIDsafe app. However, I do believe that this fear is perpetuated by the media. The same people concerned by data sharing through the COVIDsafe app are also likely to be the same people watching TikTok or completing a BuzzFeed quiz to determine what Disney Princess they are. I believe that we all share many aspects of our life online, and often give away too much information. I also believe that we only care about such issues when fear is sparked throughout the media or by the peacocking ways of Donald Trump.

RIGHT The Adelaide University Liberal Club chose not to submit an answer for this issue.

vox pop Cecilia Law and Environmental Policy and Management 1. Fuck

1. Contest

2. I really want student representation that doesn’t focus on external politics. There needs to be more focus on student issues, there just needs to be more balance.

2. Who’s leading the fight-back against attacks on students, staff and racial injustice.

3. Absolutely. The current system is not COVID-safe, nor inclusive of the thousands of students affected by the repercussions of COVID-19. 4. No 5. Stop cutting staff, stop cutting wages, stop wasting money on aesthetic “upgrades”

Tom Arts

3. I think in-person voting is a really critical for genuine democratic debate 4. I think the majority of student reps have been a disgrace in backing up the fight against staff cuts. Only Ahmed Azhar and Ben Foster have shown how to fight back against the Neo-Liberal establishment. 5. Abolish the role of ViceChancellor

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Describe Stupol Week in one word What is the main issue you’ll be voting on this year? Do you think that the AUU should implement online voting? Do you think the student reps this year have done a good job? If you were Vice-Chancellor, what’s one thing you would change about the uni?

Emelia Media (Journalism)

Billy Law and Arts

1. Tripe

1. Chaotic

2. Whatever student party is running against cuts to uni, and making sure that the people running for union positions are actually unionists.

2. Genuine activism on behalf of student issues

3. Absolutely! It’s completely unfair that there are students in other states or countries that can’t vote, as well as students who can’t make it to campus for whatever reason. 4. I think some of them have. I am so proud of Rebecca Etienne’s work. She’s done an amazing job standing up for the Women’s Collective.

3. In light of COVID restrictions, it’s the responsible thing to do, as long as integrity and student engagement is maintained. 4. I legitimately don’t know 5. Increase student and staff involvement in the appointment of university executives.

5. I’d make the VC take the biggest pay cut of all time

vox vox k c a h vox vox 1. 2. 3. 4.

Describe student politics in one word Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the biggest problem with student politics in your view? Why did you initially get involved with student politics? Why should students participate in student elections?

Ali Amin Former SRC President

Patrick Stewart Former SRC General Secretary

1. Volatile.

1. Complicated.

2. Student disengagement due to a variety of reasons leads to a depleted stupol talent pool, increasing illegitimacy and discontent.

2. Lack of participation. The SRC and AUU play a major role in campus life and the student experience, but too few students even know what they do. If more students were engaged, cast their votes and kept an eye on what their reps are doing, the whole system would be much more effective.

3. The Liberal Governments attacks on higher education led to mass student opposition, which I was swept by. Getting involved, helping students and building strong communities were the best decisions I made at university! 4. Vote for student representatives that stand up against the whittling down of the quality of education and proactively support clubs and student communities.

3. When I first got involved, Christopher Pyneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fee deregulation had only just been defeated, and Vice-Chancellor Warren Bebbington was trying to merge faculties in a way that would have negatively impacted our education. Strong student unionism is essential if we want our education system to be affordable, accessible and high-quality for all.

1. Politicised. 4. Because student politics done right can actively improve your student experience - and done wrong, it can have a detrimental impact on your time at uni. Being willing to listen to the different candidates and casting an informed vote is in your own best interest, and in the best interests of your peers.

2. Stupol hacks creating non-student problems and wasting time discussing it. 3. To replace the politics-focused student representatives to actually make meaningful changes to student’s lives. 4. To provide genuine representation for your peers for a range of key student issues.

Angela Qin Former SRC Ethno-Cultural Officer 1. Bilateral! 2. The problem of all politics – too many made-up problems and not enough focus on real issues! 3. Because I was interested (and also had no idea what it is like – but mostly interested in the leadership opportunity). 4. Because it’s a great and unique experience and it allows you to make an impact on real student issues.

Oscar Ong Former AUU President

Olivia Savvas Former SRC Women’s Officer 1. Messy! 2. I once heard someone say that ‘the issue with student politics is that the stakes are so small’ and I agree completely. Student politics can get really personal at times, which disenfranchises some great young politicians. 3. I got involved in student politics at a time when students were fighting against $100,000 degrees. I wasn’t raised political, but I felt that students of low-middle incomes weren’t being looked after in Canberra, to me it was important we had a voice. 4. There is ALWAYS something going on that will impact your life at Uni. Change well and truly starts at the ballot box, so it’s important that you make yourself heard.

Adelaide University Media Association

CLUB SPOTLIGHT

Amy Simons

1. Why did you join the club? I joined AUMA as a member, and also joined the committee, last year because I wanted to get to know more fellow media students and to just get involved in campus life generally. I think clubs are a great way to meet people outside of your tutorials, and with a faculty-based club like AUMA you have a sense of belonging from the get-go. 2. What sorts of events does your club run? At AUMA we run both social and career-focused events. We normally have an annual pub crawl and a themed ball as our main social events, with some smaller events in between. On the career side, we hold industry nights and panel events, which give our members a chance to hear from industry professionals. Not only does this provide insights into working life outside of academia, but also gives students a chance to do some networking.

with Covid-19, unfortunately a lot of our planned events for semester 1 had to be cancelled. But we’ve now got a really great line up of events for this semester that I’m super excited about, including movie nights, pub crawl, industry night and more planned. Our events are a great way to meet both Media and non-Media students, and get more connected with the cohort. Details of all our events can be found on our Facebook page.

University of Adelaide Politics & International Relations Association Steven Morley

1. Why did you join the club? I joined PIRA during its inception. Some final year students and a politics lecturer invited our firstyear course to the old Unibar (R.I.P) to discuss starting a non-partisan politics club. Soon as they started talking about what they wanted to do, I was sold instantly and wanted to help however I could. Two and a half years later, I’m still here loving every moment.

3. What has been your best experience from your membership? The events have been a lot of fun, both to attend and to organise. For me, being on the committee has been a lot of fun. I’ve met great people and it’s nice to have a sense of purpose outside of study (great for procrastinating on assessments!).

2. What sorts of events does your club run? We run many different styles of events, though the running theme of them is politics. We’ve held an event type we call Crash Courses, where we host a panel of lecturers/guests and have a short deep-dive on the topic at hand. We host an annual quiz each year in semester 2 which is personally my favourite event.

4. What are your club’s plans for the future? With everything that happened

3. What has been your best experience from your membership? I think that would have to go be our

4. What are your club’s plans for the future? The plan for us to ultimately keep growing. We’ve only existed since 2018 and were still making our mark on University culture and life. With politics discourse becoming ever more popular, we want to be the neutral grounds where discussion can be heard and solidified among peers.

Adelaide University Geography and Development Society Leah SchamSchurin 1. Why did you join the club? When I joined the The Adelaide University Geography and Development Society, I was looking for a group of likeminded people who were equally as passionate about environmental issues and social inequalities. Further, I wanted to gain clarity as to where my degrees could take me after university. Like any humanities/social science degree, there is no clear-cut career pathway and an overwhelming number of possible options post-graduation. Though I’ve not been a member for long, I’ve already been exposed to people who make me feel like I belong in the university community, and to information that has broadened my future career prospects.

2. What sorts of events does your club run? The Society usually holds live events, typically in a panel-style format. Some of these events have dealt with SA’s GMO policies, Australia’s stance on Refugees and Asylum Seekers, and a career guidance seminar featuring SA Politician Susan Close. We also do more hands-on and social events for members, including informal drinks, coffee catch-ups, gardening days, and beach clean-ups. This year, in response to society-wide restrictions, we also started up a fun and engaging podcast series! 3. What has been your best experience from your membership? I haven’t been a member for long, but I have loved both the people and events. I was welcomed to the AUGDS with open arms and friendly smiles, and have since met so many incredibly kind and intelligent people. There is a huge diversity of students who are members of the Society, meaning I’ve been exposed to unique and interesting perspectives that have influenced the way I think. This is especially apparent when considering the different events I’ve attended – I’ve listened to guest speakers who excel in their industries, and have collaborated with other university clubs. 4. What are your club’s plans for the future? The AUGDS will largely focus on its podcast series for the rest of the year. Specifically, there will be an upcoming 3-part series that highlights Indigenous Australian voices and experiences. The goal is to increase Indigenous representation within the AUGDS, both in the present and future.

CLUB SPOTLIGHT

first annual quiz. I was able to acquire the Belgian Beer Cafe as our venue due to being an employee there. I was the Media Officer of PIRA at the time, so I had a close eye on our suspected number. We initially thought approximately 30 people would attend, however before we opened we had a queue to get in. We ended up with 100 attendees to the event, which was both uplifting and stressful!

ECON DIT In defence of laissez-faire Words by Gurmukh Singh

Now, let us consider the dynamics of government and politics. Some of the government’s duties are to set and enforce laws, collect and spend taxes (a lot of those) and control the country’s defence. These duties are undertaken by politicians who are elected by the people. Precisely, government is a potent tool wielded by politicians. Politicians through government can be a force of immense good or bad for the society. Therefore, politics attract people from the tails, not the peak, of our graph. Individuals who are either very virtuous or very megalomaniac are attracted to politics. It is the case that some considerable amount of power is concentrated at the top in a hierarchical society, like ours. It is also the case that to reach at the top of any profession, one needs to be extremely capable and dedicated. If these two statements are true of the private sector, there is no reason to doubt their applicability in the public sector. It then follows that as we move towards the top of the pyramid, the struggle between capable & virtuous politicians who are also extremely honourable, truthful and ideologically consistent and; capable & megalomaniac politicians with extreme qualities associated with the other tail of the distribution, also reaches its climax.

Let us pause here for a one moment to note an observation from George Akerlof’s Nobel prize winning paper ‘The Market for Lemons’. In essence, it says that people are not fully rational but, they are ‘approximately’ rational. For example, no family sits at the dinner table to discuss that ‘the government has jumped its estimated spending this fiscal year by 2 billion dollars. To recoup this, the treasury will most likely propose a tax raise at some point in the future. Therefore, as a household, we need to cut $13.20 per month out of our consumption spending.’ This behaviour cannot be attributed to the general society. However, people ‘will’ act when the effect of imposed taxes shows up on their payslip. From this observation, it can be concluded that people do not ‘rationally and informatively’ analyse the effect of policies offered to them by politicians. Moving back to the struggle of politics, let’s imagine a scenario where a good politician takes a policy position that is consistent with the politician’s ideology. Also, let’s just say that upon examination, said policy can be concluded as good for the society. Now what would the other politician with no ideological grounds do? It is not hard to see what the answer is: make promises that appeal to the general public but have no grounds in reality or undercut the opponent to the point where opposition’s policy is no longer feasible in

reality. A good person will not make promises that cannot be kept, but a crook would not lose a second’s sleep over any empty promises. As a consequence, the top of the pyramid is filled with people who belong to the unfortunate tail of our distribution. This begs the question: how can we reduce the influence of these megalomaniacs in our society? The problem has two solutions: either break the pyramid (often advocated by the preachers of the Critical Theory) or reduce its size. Problem with the first solution is that: what would replace the existing hierarchies? This solution has been tried by the followers of Marxist doctrine in the twentieth century with no less than catastrophic results (refer to the rise and reign of Stalin in Soviet Union). We are therefore left with the second option. In other words, a system of laissez-faire. But stop! Laissez-faire caused the 2008 Financial Crisis and who will protect ordinary people from those evil corporatists!! It has been a remarkable achievement of western governments that they have been able to dodge all of the responsibility of the 2008 disaster. Let us firstly examine these claims in theory. Firstly, governments grant licenses to operate a bank after certain conditions are met. These conditions are so stringent to begin with that they create a natural monopoly-turn-cartel dynamic in the banking sector. This is NO laissez-faire. Furthermore, when these banks choose to engage in risky behaviour, customers are effectively left with no choice to switch to a bank that is less leveraged than others. Whilst other businesses are constantly gauging customer expectations so that they can stay in business, this is not the case with the banking sector. Additionally, when the government guarantees bank deposits, which again, contradicts the principles of laissezfaire; it creates a moral hazard problem. In layman’s terms, it is effectively telling banks that it will guarantee the principal amount of the bank’s ‘gambling’ money. Consider two very simple markets: one described above and the other with a large number of banks,

serving different consumer profiles ranging from banks, which almost exclusively invest in bond, to highly-leveraged banks. There is no federal guarantee and an individual can choose the level of risk they want to engage in. Scenario two looks like a freer society than the other. In the ‘real’ world: Consider the actions of the U.S. government during the 2008 crisis. It rolled out a line of credit for the baking sector whilst many individuals lost their homes. Alternatively, it could have nationalized the payroll of employees who lost their jobs and let the inefficient institutions be put into voluntary administration and sold to better managers. However, people who were protected were different from people who were affected. One may be tempted to argue that it passed Dodd-Frank however, by the same logic, those same politicians with the tool of government have been stripping it down since 2015. Furthermore, government institutions are often accused of being inefficient. For example, reportedly, up to 50% of the U.N. aid does not reach the people for which it is intended. The allegation of inefficiency has grounds in reality but, even more profoundly, as shown above, it protects the inefficiencies of the private sector even when they are exposed. In this sense, government is the abettor of inequality in this world. Therefore, the notion that it somehow protects the weak from the tyranny of some evil corporatists is naive one. To conclude, I believe that all of the above arguments present a very strong case for limiting government and its powers. Additionally, I showed in brief detail that laissez-faire is a necessary condition for a freer and more equal society. It is a tool for the economically and politically weak class that shields them against the tyranny of the hierarchy. Milton Freedman famously said that the government is a place where “A and B decide what C shall do for D.” Only by stripping A and B of their tool of tyranny, can we make sure that both C and D do better.

Roseworthy – a place to call home Words by Celia Peters

If you drive an hour north of Adelaide, along a long road lined with paddocks and pasture, you’ll find an exceptional community of University of Adelaide students and academics. Home to the School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Roseworthy campus is a different experience to that of the fast-paced city life at North Terrace. Rosey, as it is fondly called by those who go here, is where you’ll find a unique culture focused on a passion for science and animals, as well as a strong sense of belonging. There are only five different courses based at Roseworthy which makes for a high standard of education with specialised facilities and resources. Students of Veterinary Bioscience and Doctor of Veterinary Medicine get opportunities to learn and work in the campus veterinary hospitals (of which there are three!) and students studying Animal science have numerous field and laboratory research facilities at their disposal. Those more interested in the psychology side of things get much needed hands on experience at Roseworthy if they study Animal Behaviour. And we are so excited to

have a new Veterinary Technology course which will bring another wave of animal loving people to campus. With more courses added it is so important to all students here that our education and our academic facilities are given the same priority as those at North Terrace. But if academics weren’t enough, Rosey regularly has lots of extracurricular activities on, catering to pretty much any interest. As there are many students who call the campus a home away from home, the staff at Roseworthy work hard to make sure everyone feels happy and safe. Social netball, football and soccer are run throughout the year, and students love bringing spirit to games and wearing the Roseworthy pink and black colours with pride. The annual Waite vs Rosey event draws big crowds, and big competition, where students who study at the Waite campus face off against Roseworthy in football and netball. We also have a swimming pool and tennis courts, as well as a weekly running club, for those who are looking for a break from academic work.

L STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDE

NT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT

RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL S

STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDEN

The pride and joy of Roseworthy campus however, has to be its extensive list of animal special interest groups and clubs! Only at Rosey could you join a club dedicated to pigs or to wildlife or companion animals – in fact there are six specialist groups! Students are able to further their learning outside of the lecture theatre while working with other like-minded club members, and often the experiences in each club are so extraordinary. Each year, Pig Club members get the opportunity to be hands-on with 12 young pigs which the club raises in a specialty shelter located on campus. Not only is this a highly educational experience, but getting to take a selfie with a pig and give it a big hug is something so uniquely Roseworthy! The Wildlife and Exotics Special Interest Group (WESIG) hosts annual reptile and koala handling workshops, and the Companion Animal Special Interest Group (CASIG) runs sessions not limited to animal first aid, triage and ferret handling. Only scratching the

surface, there is so much more on offer from these clubs and the others, including an Equine Special Interest Group (ESIG), Production Animal Special Interest Group (PASIG) and Aquatic Animal Special Interest Group (AASIG). The Adelaide Veterinary Students Association (AVSA), which despite its name is open to all Roseworthy students, offers nearly weekly social and academic activities as well as the highly anticipated annual Vet Ball. Students, lecturers, and academics get to dress to the nines and boogie the night away, all in celebration of their hard work put in each year. AVSA also host a barn dance, Christmas in July party, and put together the annual Industry week among other things, so there is always plenty to do. If you’re passionate about animals and science, and you’re looking to join social, sporting or special interest activities then you really can look no further than Roseworthy. Here in our close-knit community, there is always someone who will share a textbook with you, lend you a muffin tin for those late-night cooking inspirations, or even just say ‘hi’ on your morning walk.

T NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NE

The community garden is an opportunity for all Rosey students to practice self-care, either doing gardening in the sunshine or cooking up a storm with home grown produce (or both!). It has been a wonderful addition to the campus, especially during early 2020 when many of us found ourselves with a little bit more free time.

WS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RUR

Above: Lily Horner, Celia Peters, and Jordan Blyth enjoying the community garden Left: Celia Peters (Vice President) and Tobias Threadgold (President) of Pig Club at the 2019 Royal Show

L STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDE

NT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT

RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL S

STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDEN

Below: The Roseworthy Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Netball Team

T NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NE

Above: Students don their ugly sweaters for Christmas in July 2019

WS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RURAL STUDENT NEWS RUR

international international student student news news Voter suppression: International student representation in danger Words by Ngoc Lan Tran

You know when you read the Guardian and there is a summary/hook at the beginning of every article? Here’s my summary/hook: Stuck and stranded overseas, thousands of international students will not and cannot turn out to the student election voting booth at Adelaide University campuses. Here is the actual article: If you turned up to this semester’s International Welcome or Orientation Week, you would be one of the few to witness the marked, and almost eerie absence of international students. Any other beginning of a new semester welcomes five to six hundred new international students to a vibrant and hectic campus. This semester, that number dwindles to 150. It is not just the new ones, however. Up to three thousand Chinese students have currently been living in their home country due to travel restrictions enabled in March this year. Many from other countries also reached the difficult decision to book flights home when news of online learning was announced. This absence is a tail sign of a political repercussion that will be taking form in the

September student elections. The AUU Board’s recently passed a motion to maintain an in-person voting system this year. As a result, thousands of international students offshore are poising to be disenfranchised from the annual political voting process. Even the lucky few who signed up for proposed upcoming international repatriation projects will not be able to vote. With only one week to vote, the high possibility of mandatory quarantine may successfully prevent these students from ever getting to the polling booth. The latest stunt around international voice and representation was back in 2019. A ‘racist’ decision from Monash Student Association Caulfield’s SRC, barred potential candidates from running for elections if they are not eligible to work 22 hours per week. This was widely regarded as a direct attack on international students and their participation in the democratic process, as visa restrictions only permit them to work 20 hours per week. Today we have another crackdown of international students’ voice and representation in elections, taking the form of voter suppression. The difference between the 2020 AUU and the 2019 MONSU Caulfield lies the perfect excuse:

However, is online voting worth a tough assignment to stop the disenfranchisement of so many students? The answer is yes. When online voting is done in response to the COVID-19 crisis, it can first be piloted on a limited scale, with due diligence and proper testing to control and minimise potential risks. The longer this pandemic lasts, the more we are developing to the direction of electoral reform—Why wouldn’t we start now? International students are not the only ones excluded in this year’s elections. Students stuck interstate, in quarantine, afflicted with illnesses, etc can also not participate. Thus another problem is gathered to 2020’s cornucopia of bad things: the stunted achievement of true representation. As the virus went global, so have our student elections. We cannot keep on ignoring the peers currently living across the country and around the world. There are no quick fixes or shortcuts. Yet, here we remain in the position to achieve, improve, and revise a new measure to ensure representation and democracy in our elections. This involves the serious consideration of online voting.

d ent ne w u t s dent ne s l w a tu ls

in t e

rnatio

internatio

Regardless of intentions and agendas, the decision to disenfranchise a significant student body within our university warns a persistence of bad governance within our institution. Yet, the ruling has gone into effect. The extent to which this voter suppression is intentional or unintentional, partisan, or a genuine but substandard effort to make sure elections are running smoothly, ultimately does not matter. What matters is the current voting system being extremely hard if not impossible to access. What matters is the undermining of student representation and democracy on campus. Most importantly and presumably hardest to admit, is that there are no straightforward resolutions to this problem. In theory, we can work out of this disastrously mishandled situation by expanding the voting system and voting period. This would allow all students more time and opportunities to access voting sites, while international students contemplate and work around alternative voting methods. In reality, alternatives to in-person voting are riddled with hassles and risks. Postal voting can be logistically cataclysmic, anguishedly time-consuming, suspiciously secure, and tremendously overpriced when done internationally. Online voting is hardly a magic solution either.

Despite allowing students to vote anywhere in the world, it can be highly predisposed to privacy and other cybersecurity risks.

a global pandemic. It is easier to brush off mistakes, incompetencies and foul play in the name of “everyone is trying their best” and “we’re only figuring this out”. But under any other circumstances, this would have been labeled an affront to democracy, an attack on international students—all of which are so disgraceful that stupol hacks defending the voice of international students would surely do something about it, instead of letting this one slide.

WHY WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE PAPER BALLOT

Words by Harry Finn

A few months ago, the Adelaide University Union (AUU) decided to move to a semi-online election format where voters would come onto campus to vote, but that they would vote via iPads. This is an unmitigated disaster of a decision. Online elections distort democracy. If at any point in time the process of voting or counting votes is taken out of the hands of a human being, there is the potential for democracy to be subverted and thus the election results thrown into doubt.

At the end of the day, online elections can be tampered with. We already know that foreign governments are attempting to destabilise the West through interference in elections. Russia almost certainly influenced the US elections in 2016 and China has been exerting influence at several levels of Australian politics. There were even allegations that China was attempting to meddle with the 2018 student elections at Adelaide University itself, although nothing could be proven. Now you might think, why would a

foreign government attempt to hack into a student election of all things? Well, student politicians actually carry a fair bit of local influence. The SRC through university committees and through the organisation of protests can influence universities and public opinion. The AUU is responsible for millions of dollars of student revenue and the provision of student services. Collectively this influence is something that a foreign power with great technological capabilities might consider a valuable use of their time and resources to gain. And then there’s the risk of tampering at a far more domestic level. For instance, I’m sure that any second year IT student at Super Tafe (Uni-SA) would be able to break into the online system as a prank and fiddle with the numbers if they wanted to. So, why would the AUU want to run the risk of a rigged or tampered election? Money. The election is most likely being moved online because it’s a cost saving measure. Paper elections cost thousands of dollars to run. Physical ballots, as well as more than a dozen staff to count votes and enforce election rules, cost quite a bit and clearly penny-pinching AUU bureaucrats are looking to save a few bucks by streamlining it. AUU Board Directors themselves have even confirmed this, with the AUU VicePresident even stating during a board meeting that this decision would reduce costs because it removes the necessity of physical ballot papers.

democratic rights can’t be trusted. There is also the possibility of technical fault. Unlike a fully online election where votes can be submitted from home, work or elsewhere, votes must physically be lodged from within the voting booth. If there are significant issues with the system, this would prevent students from voting for potentially a whole day. As many students these days may not be on campus for most of the week, if they turn up on their one day on campus to vote but find themselves unable to, then they lose their ability to participate in democracy. This becomes worse when looking at the other campuses where voting only operates for a few hours across one or two days. A technical crash would be devastating for students at AHMS or at Waite. And this is nothing in comparison with the international students stuck overseas who won’t be able to participate at all. These problems don’t happen with a physical ballot since if you run out / lose empty ballots you can just print more, as has been done in several years when turnout was unexpectedly high. Democracy is worth a few thousand extra dollars. Democracy should be non-negotiable. Now more than ever we need a return to the integrity of the ballot box, not the step forward towards the uncertainty of the iPad.

This is blatantly unacceptable behaviour from an organisation that claims to promote the ‘democratic decision making process’. Newsflash, it’s hard to be democratic if the means of exercising

Why we should have genuinely online student elections Words by Samantha Johanson

The AUU student elections for 2020 are going to be very different from the elections held in 2019. While this is partly due to the student issues, the candidates, the factional coalitions and the like, the most obvious change will be the repercussions of Covid-19 upon the electoral system. The AUU altered their election rules to move the elections partially online. What this means is that rather than students lining up to cast a physical paper ballot vote in a polling booth, they will be

required to fill out an electronic ballot on a laptop or iPad in that same booth. In my view this is a surprisingly poor decision by the AUU for several reasons. Firstly, online elections are the safest kind of election for the purposes of sanitation. Student safety should be the AUUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s number 1 priority and a fully online election will be very safe for voters. For a start, there wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need to be any physical contact during election week.

Students can choose to come onto campus and vote from a classroom or from the hub or can do so from the comfort of their own home, or elsewhere. There will be no devices to regularly sanitise and less paper usage for how to vote cards. Secondly, we already have fully online elections for several different positions on campus. Faculty board, University Council, On Dit and Student Radio elections are all held online. Why should the SRC and AUU be different? At the end of the day, if the university and the AUU are satisfied that this process is good enough for these roles, why should it be any different for the other student positions? If it’s about trust in the mechanism, why is it that we would prevent the election of an SRC general councillor but allow the election of a person to University Council, the governing body of the university, via this mechanism? If we are worried about ballot integrity, why have we even taken the steps that we have already taken, especially since changes to the elections for student media were implemented just last year? Surely trust in the system is not the issue here. Thirdly, online elections are super easy to participate in. Rather than wade through what seems like hundreds of campaigners to get from A to B on campus we can have an almost completely online system with minimal student interaction. You can vote from home, it takes 2 minutes to fill out the form and then it’s done. No hassle, right?

on campus for whatever reason, including those who are sick, not enrolled in in- person classes or are playing it safe by staying home will not be able to cast a ballot. This is even worse for international students who will be stuck overseas and therefore will not be able to participate at all. And it’s not like the AUU can’t do it. The student media election set-up, which is set to run this year without any issues, is the ideal template for student elections generally, and the rules to enforce it would require only minor modifications to implement for AUU student elections. It seems like a half hearted attempt on the part of the Board to implement only some provisions, thus only conferring a limited benefit to the AUU or its voters. It’s just too little, too late. While the decision of the AUU Board to move elections partially online is a step forward, it is not nearly enough to significantly benefit students and is virtually indistinguishable from a physical election. To their credit, this decision to vote via devices does save paper but this is still not enough to justify this electoral system change. If the AUU really wants to make voting easier for students, they need to implement fully online elections so that all students can participate in a safe, quick and easy manner.

The current decision also discriminates against certain students. Students who are not

TELLING TALES WITH NUMBERS 2:

ELECTRIC BOOGALOO

Words by Maxim Buckley

I decided to write this article in response to two events that occurred recently, one that I’m sure you’re all aware of and the other that mirrored the first and shocked me a great deal. The first of course is Trump’s interview with Jonathan Swan. Ridiculed with various memes and reedits, this interview is a perfect example of the ways in which we can spin numbers in order to get a desired outcome. We saw this when Trump spoke of death as a proportion of cases, or the case fatality rate, and Swan was talking deaths in terms of population. This of course caused some confusion in the interview, providing some comedic moments for our viewing pleasure. The second event was at the PIRA x ASA x Econ Club’s US Presidential Election Panel event. The panel of four was made up by three Americans, though one insisted on calling himself an Australian despite his thick yankee accent. When I asked the question “do you think if another outcome had occurred in 2016 the American response to the COVID crisis would have been different or do you think there is something inherently wrong with all Americans” I was met with some laughter, the obvious statement about the US being structured differently to Australia and then surprisingly, the exact same talking point that Trump issued to Swan, the US fatality rate. According to a panellist, the US is doing better than Belgium, the UK and a number of other countries I can’t remember, in terms of case fatality rate. He pointed me in the direction of some NPR article, made some comment about being careful with regard to media reporting and sent me on my way. I wasn’t exactly stoked with the answer I received since it didn’t necessarily address the question and

instead received some pissing contest answer that political pundits so often reply with. But let’s get back to the issue at hand. Like Swan with Trump, I was referring to a different interpretation of data. It is true, according to the referenced NPR article, the US is sitting at 8th in the world when it comes to deaths per population if those countries have greater than 50,000 reported cases. Putting the same 10 countries used by the NPR article into Our World In Data we see that in actual fact the US had the greatest proportion of cumulative deaths due to the disease, sitting at 160,000 with Brazil sitting 60,000 below that. But at the same time NPR is correct, the US is doing better than seven other countries in terms of deaths per 100,000 population. So already we see an interpretation of data in two different ways to serve a different political purpose. With its current population, the US is doing the worst. But if all the countries in the world had the same population size then Belgium is doing the worst. However, since the goal posts were set at requiring a total of 50,000 cumulative cases, we can see that perhaps this was done somewhat intentionally. If Andorra is thrown into the mix, with their total cumulative cases of 945, the US is now pushed to 9th on that list with Andorra’s case fatality rate per 100,000 being 67, the US’ being 47. The goal posts were set in the interests of “fairness”, whatever that means, but it is a fun thought experiment. The focus on these numbers by both Donald Trump, NPR and the panellist is somewhat misguided. Yes, it is true the US is doing better than seven

other countries when total deaths per 100,000 are considered however, the US consistently sits in the top five worst in the world when daily deaths per 100,000 are considered. Deaths are also an easy aspect to focus on, but theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re certainly not the be-all and end-all. As almost everyone can agree, death is final. There is suffering and then it ends. Human suffering should not be measured in death. The simple fact of the matter is that the US currently has the second highest confirmed cases per 100,000 in the world, sitting at 1,475, 443 behind the world leader Chile. Since June, the US consistently ranks in the top 3 in terms of daily confirmed cases per 100,000. America is sick, whether the sickness is caused by libertarian ideals or quite literally by COVID is up to you to decide. Why the focus on cases? As I said before, human suffering should not be measured by death. Death is just one aspect of an infectious disease. As I said in my previous article relating to COVID, the disease has only been around since circa November 2019, with the first case reported in that month. We do not yet know the long-term effects of an infection with SARS-COV-2. However, I do have some examples. Anecdotally, I was aware of two Americans in my hometown of Alice Springs who were still languishing from an infection with H5N1 or bird flu. The husband and wife required consistent medical care and would struggle to survive an infection with many diseases and would almost certainly die from COVID-19. However, anecdotal evidence is exactly that, anecdotal. Meningitis, in lay terms the inflammation of the meninges, commonly caused in Australia by

Neisseria meningitidis or meningococcal B, is a condition that, if left untreated, has a case fatality rate as high as 70%. However, if treated, the disease sequalae rate, a fancy term for conditions resulting from previous infection, is 10%. Sequalae are varied but can include loss of cognitive function. Throw this in with the fact that meningococcal B typically affects young people but most often children <2 and you have a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, vaccines for this condition exist, but had they not, 10% of all children who catch this disease, are treated, and survive will have long term health effects as a result of that infection. Looking more closely to our present situation, some studies have been conducted on the sequalae of SARS. A study of 123 survivors found that whilst their lung function tests fell within normal ranges, their exercise capacity and health status was still affected by the disease one-year post infection. This was posited as being due to several factors such as muscle deconditioning. We already know that pulmonary fibrosis occurs in some patients due to infection from SARS-COV-2. Sequalae will result from this disease, how it manifests itself is yet to be fully revealed. Numbers are a powerful thing; we use them all the time to describe our world so that we can better understand it. Sometimes numbers are so large its difficult to grasp the full extent of their being, such as the difference between 1 million and 1 billion being greater than the difference between 100,000 and 1 million, despite them appearing at equal distances on linear scales. When we hear that 750+ people have been confirmed testing positive for COVID-19 in Victoria but deaths have only been in the 10s, we

forget that 750+ people will now suffer from a disease and have the potential to die from the infection. Yes, the US isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the worst in the world in terms of death, but is it really a point of pride that despite people not dying, more and more are added to the list of those who must suffer in the US daily. Human suffering is not just a number.

Stop avoiding talking about politics Words by Rachel Stanley

I have had a genuine love of following politics and have been a politics nerd since I was around 14 years old. I specifically enjoy following Australian and American politics. For me, the morning of election days emotes the same feelings of anticipation and excitement that I had when I was a child on Christmas morning. As cliched as it is, I do love that public policy on all levels can make serious change. Australian Federal Politics is my favourite politics to follow. This has reached the extent that when I watch press conferences with our Prime Minister, I can often identify which journalist is asking the question based on their voice alone. I also know less weird things about Australian Federal Politics, such as which legislation the Government has recently passed, and the Bills that the Government is trying to pass. Despite loving politics, I was brought up to not speak about this topic in social settings around extended family and friends. My parents would always remind me to â&#x20AC;&#x153;not bring up sex, politics or religion,â&#x20AC;? which may have been fine

for other teenagers but for me, this was difficult. This was ingrained into my thinking, so the conversation would stay polite and not divisive. I found this specifically annoying because one of the topics that I knew about more than the average person, and the one thing that I could talk about for hours was off limits. This bothered me because if I was interested in other topics, for instance, sports, it would not be treated in this way. Arguably, if we are going to continue this thinking of not bringing up politics for the precise reason that it always leads to an impolite divisive conversation, I struggle to understand how predicting who will win the upcoming United States Presidential Election can be so detrimental. In this case, it is just a discussion about polling numbers and predictions. From my limited understanding of sports, is that not just reflecting on previous actions of a team and making predictions? The stakes are much higher in politics, but people do speak about them in similar ways. Chatting about politics is not always based on arguing that your ideology is superior.

I obviously understand that speaking about politics is not always making election predictions. It often concerns governmental failures and other serious issues that impact peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives. The policy response is often connected to ideology which is inherently divisive. When we do not talk about politics in social settings, we are avoiding confronting these serious issues and governmental failures. Locally, we are avoiding confronting that in this country, the age of criminal responsibility is ten-years old. This means that ten-year olds can be charged with an offence and locked up. This issue disproportionately affects Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. We also avoid confronting that the Australian Government has 1,458 people in offshore detention centres, who are waiting to be granted asylum. We are also avoiding talking about serious issues abroad, such as the Uyghur Muslims locked in â&#x20AC;&#x153;reeducationâ&#x20AC;? camps in China.

After the election of Donald Trump in 2016, I realised that it is impossible not to speak about politics anymore. The world seems so unstable and polarised. It is more important now to speak about politics because it means that we can hear other perspectives. We can also challenge opposing views, and face criticism and defend our own views. It bothers me that older generations often complain that young people are obsessed with social media and their phones. A choice must be made. They cannot actively discourage us from talking about politics, but then complain when young people are not engaged in news and politics. The young people around them probably are aware of the politics surrounding them but have been scared to talk about it. I am conscious that not everyone shares my love of politics, but we can reach a middle ground where we can still be engaged in politics. We can still debate with others around the dinner table about what role the Government should take without the fear of making people uncomfortable.

how to sell a

revolution Words by Anonymous

When criticising an ideology with as many identities as Marxism, a most accurate assessment will be made not from merely reading the prescribed texts, but from observing how they are condensed, packaged, and marketed to those for whom Marxism, and politics in general, is something which belongs in the same sentence as the words “democracy”, “parliament”, and “ballot-box”. In other words, the politics of a functioning state. The ideas of Marx have been subject to such scrutiny the likes of which have no historical correlate except in Christianity. From Das Kapital, one can

draw lines which lead to the Bolsheviks, the National Socialists, Keynesian economics, Protestantism, the anti-war movement, and more; the point is that Marxism has odd bedfellows. But its axiomatic truth is that deviously simple proposition, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. The practice of Marxism has not yet solved the problem of finding someone who can be trusted with the apparatuses of power to implement this philosophy. Hand-in-hand with this problem is the naive idea that once historical circumstances change, human nature changes; what did not work in Eastern Europe will work for us,

because our willpower is stronger, and our historical moment more opportune. Marxist practice has been inflated to the point of delusion. If there is one thing than can be said about Marxist radicalism, it is that it has no room for compromise. Communism is such a perfect system in theory that it has no room for reality. It does not account for famines, oil shortages, or dysfunctional bureaucracies, all of which have led to its downfalls in the 20th century. In fact, the most successful Communist state of the 20th century – Yugoslavia – owed its longevity to market economics rather than central planning. In other words, it was market capitalism with wealth redistribution. In theory, however, the sign above the Party headquarters read “Savez komunista Jugoslavije”. Once again: look to the practice, not the theory. Even in practice, it could have gone either way. It was only so fortunate that the ideal marriage of virtue, incorruptibility, and ruthlessness was realised in the personality of President Tito. So, since no alternative yet exists to this game of chance, the strategy of Marxists has shifted away from policy to politics. The problems of Communism’s application have been outsourced to sheer, stubborn will; as Mao wrote, ‘it is the duty of the proletariat to bring into reality the ideas of the intellectual class’. As Stalin more bluntly put it, ‘one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet’. This is not a critique of Marxist economics; it is a plain observation that revolutionary politics costs lives. Many, many people died to give us the knowledge that the best political

system is one that expects the best, and prepares for the worst… not one that both expects and prepares for the best, and is then surprised when Mount Vesuvius suddenly erupts. Forget all that. Stop thinking about volcanoes and Black Swan events. We’ll decide the finer points of the revolutionary process after it’s already set in motion. For now, we’ll need your help toppling some vital national institutions. Here: take this Molotov, will you, and light it for me? The radical image of contemporary Marxism is a branding strategy, and the brand they are selling is heroism. To defy the existing order is not only a moral act. It is a virtuous act, with parallels from St George slaying the dragon, and David smiting Goliath, to Captain America taking on the machinations of Hydra. The story remains the same, even as the names change. It is a great windfall for Marxists that the enemy of the commons is an ugly beast. It is industrialism, not capitalism per se, which makes life intolerable for most. It is the idea that wealth can be accumulated limitlessly which has led to the limitless disenfranchisement of the working classes. However, industrialism, for all its abuses, is incredibly good at putting food on the table, keeping the lights switched on, and making sure the beer doesn’t run out. In exchange, it asks that the worker sacrifices more of their leisure time for less buying power, ruins the natural environment so that oil barons can keep lining their 37

pockets, and outsources the worst jobs to countries with poor human rights records. Change “industrialism” for “capitalism”, and you’ve reproduced the average Socialist Alternative member’s spiel. But they’re not the same thing. Nowhere have I mentioned private property, enterprise, or the pursuit of happiness and success in one’s personal life, none of which are things to be ashamed of wanting. Marxists can only act when the conditions of life are intolerable. In a material sense, in the Western world, they are not. In a spiritual sense, it is a totally different matter, and that is what they are capitalising on now. If you hate your boss, hate the idea of slaving away in a cubicle, and generally think that modern society isn’t something you want to participate in, Marxist groups will offer you a home. But don’t for a moment believe they have a solution, because the sort of mindset which nurtures this type, as I’ve shown, does not have the capacity for foresight. All it knows how to do is sew discontent, and in a world where borders are becoming more porous due to new communication technologies – social media and global internet access in particular – this is a dangerous thing. The promises of a free, liberal democracy have always coexisted with a strong sense of social cohesion and unity. This is the recipe for a sustainable political system, and a political system is only worthwhile when it is also sustainable. There is nothing sustainable about modern industrial society, but the 38

answer is not simply to make a fuss until things fix themselves. Fringe groups like Socialist Alternative are harmful because they pull people away from real, policy-grounded solutions and into a philosophy of resentment, and the anger which bubbles as a result. Don’t be swept along by the empty rhetoric of revolution and violence. For all the shortcomings of liberal democracy, it is adaptable. That alone is the best argument that will ever be made in its favour. It is better to reform a crippled system than substitute it for one that is about as reliable as a broken clock. Sometimes right, but wrong more often than not.

Artwork by Angvs 39

On the value of long books Words by Taylor Fernandez

In Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84, one character asks another if he has read the entirety of Marcel Proust’s In Search of Lost Time. Tamaru responds, “No, I’ve never been in jail, or had to hide out for a long time. Someone once said unless you have those kinds of opportunities, you can’t read the whole of Proust.” Eerily, being isolated during a global pandemic feels like the exact type of opportunity that Tamaru proposes. Perhaps Tamaru’s words do not exclusively speak to the Proustian epic, but to any lengthy novel requiring a devoted chunk of time—including 1Q84 itself. And so, my commencement of the multiplevolumed journey began, as I read Swann’s Way whilst doing some hiding out of my own. The choice to read—well, possibly attempt to read—one of the longest works of modern literature transpired from that internal syllogism that haunts me when purchasing a book. That is, I’ve generally enjoyed the long books that I’ve read, and since this book is lengthy, I will enjoy it. In fact, I will argue for the merit behind novels of 600, 800 or even 1000 pages: the epic tomes which have rightly earned their status as the “big chunguses” of the literary world. Obviously, there is no prescribed rule that the number of pages will correspond to the quality of the novel, but I can’t help noticing that quite a few of my favourite books are on the longer side. Don’t get me wrong: there’s definitely lots to love about slimmer novels! I appreciate the short and snappy style that the likes of Vonnegut have achieved, or the physical freedom that a thin book affords my back as a serial commuter. But still, I find myself constantly gravitating toward these supposedly unfinishable books. One reason to choose a long novel is the challenge that they offer of finishing them; they scream ‘READ ME’ in Wonderland-like fashion. Though once you’ve fallen down the rabbit hole, a good long book surpasses the expectations of being simply difficult and instead becomes just very, very, enjoyable. I also believe that in the same way that some

authors are best suited to the short story, others are suited to the long form, which is where you will find their magnum opus. Perhaps the reason why we may feel dissuaded by these many paged novels is that concern, “What if I’ve wasted so much time on a book that I didn’t like?” I read relatively fast. Therefore, I am afforded the privilege that my fellow quick readers are allowed: less time will be dedicated to sticking with these longer books. Even if we’re not having the great time we hoped, we can be satisfied with the knowledge that at least it’ll be over soon. But slower readers should not be discouraged, as some people spend months, years, even lives (Joycean scholars, I’m looking at you) devoted to one single epic book. I would argue that this supposed disadvantage— the long duration spent reading the book—is, in fact, the payoff. You can be fully immersed in the story and attached to the characters for longer. This may be especially pertinent if like me, you suffer from attachment issues to fiction. In fact, my sister and I were so attached to the TV show Lost, that we put off watching the finale for months after finishing the majority of the episodes… So basically, like Desmond Hume, you’ll find your constant (yours being the feeling of coming home to escape to the same novel every day). Many huge novels are acknowledged for their value. They have formed a significant portion of the classic literary canon (Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, or Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina and War and Peace). However, longer novels are equally making their way into the contemporary landscape of fiction, whilst also finding

success within the nominations for literary prizes, such as Donna Tartt’s The Goldfinch, Lucy Ellmann’s Ducks, Newburyport, or Hanya Yanagihara’s A Little Life. Therefore, long books are not just regarded for their chunky nature, but the rich merit behind their narratives. You may also ask if it’s easy to retain the information from books over 500 pages. Honestly, no. Some plot points can become hazy (I certainly remember spending lost time reading Don DeLillo’s Underworld, but if asked to recall what happened, the main things that stand out are Ol’ Blue Eyes showing up in the prologue, and a store selling all types of condoms). But from my experience, the memories you gain from an encyclopaedic novel form your own madeleine moment: you’ll see or hear something and remember one particular segment of the book that you thought you’d forgotten about. Though hopefully in a less annoying manner than me, when I pass a tennis court and feel obliged to tell whoever I’m with about a random section of Infinite Jest. So perhaps in some circumstances, more length does equate to more pleasure … because there are simply more pages to love! Long novels should not be considered the exclusive reading fodder of pretentious lit-bros, but should be for anyone. Now is opportune for hiding out for a long period and reading that huge book you have been putting off (though it’s highly unlikely that I’ll be finishing In Search of Lost Time any time soon).

stupol anonymous A story for hacks that don’t know when enough is enough words by felix eldridge Graeme, aged 29, runs his hand through his increasingly thinning hair as he addresses the SRC one final time. “Ladies and Gentlemen. It’s been an honour and a privilege to have served this council for the last 8 years, as general councillor, social justice officer, environment officer, welfare officer, general secretary, SRC President, postgraduate officer and finally as mature aged officer. I remember day one of my notionally three-year undergraduate degree as though it were only last week, and the remaining seven years of postgraduate work I’ve concluded, as only yesterday. Now, some have told me that I should ‘retire’ and abandon student politics once and for all. A lot of people keep pointing out the fact I said that ‘this would be my last semester’ several semesters ago but I doubt this is a really an important thing to focus on. In any case, I’ve thought long and hard about this decision and I’ve decided to leave the SRC. It’s time to let some new blood in, it’s time for me to move to bigger and better things and that’s why I decided not to run a further time for the SRC. This will be my last meeting before we hand over to next year’s SRC reps in December.”

He paused for a second to let the significance of this point sink in. Here was Graeme, the biggest student political powerbroker on campus, the man who had never lost an election, the man who had been in power for almost a decade. And here was Graeme now, finally leaving student politics. This was the end of an era in the making. “But of course, I won’t really be leaving you because as an incoming AUU Board Director for the next two years as well as being Clubs Committee Chair Elect, I’ll be just around the corner from you guys, keeping an eye on everyone here. Anyway, I thank you all for coming and listening to my final report for the SRC. I hope to see many of you in December for my first Clubs Chair report” When the meeting concluded Graeme chortled as he left the room: “Retire from student politics? As if I’ll ever leave!”

Uyghurs in 700 words or less Words by Adila Yarmuhammad Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic people residing in East Turkistan, which was colonized by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 and renamed Xinjiang. Since then, Uyghurs in Australia and the diaspora have been fighting for basic human rights and independence. Over the last few years, especially after the 2009 Urumqi massacre, the Chinese Government has tightened their control over Uyghurs. Since 2017, it has been estimated that 1-3 million Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples have been arbitrarily detained in euphemistically named “re-education camps”. There are reports that in these camps Uyghurs are being physically and psychologically tortured, and that women are being forcibly sterilized and raped. Uyghur women outside of the camps are forced to marry Han Chinese men or have their husbands taken away and replaced with Chinese officials. Uyghur children are being displaced and taken away from their families to be taught more Chinese propaganda and

forget their Uyghur heritage. But, let’s also get some things clear and out of the way: The term “Chinese Muslim / Uyghur Muslim” China is not interning ALL Muslims. There are Muslims that can freely practice their religion, go to Hajj (pilgrimage), and attend mosques. They are unlike Uyghurs and other Turkic people who are imprisoned and interned for observing their religion, ranging from praying, to even growing a beard or wearing a hijab. “Chinese Muslim / Uyghur Muslim” is problematic and causes more harm than good. It is spelt Uyghur, not Uighur. Uighur is an incorrect spelling and violates the linguistic rule of vowel harmony in the Uyghur language. Uyghur has both Latin and Arabic

scripture, using Latin more often online. There are different transliteration systems, but they all agree that the letters I and Y are different. Thus, when translating the word ‫( رۇغيۇئ‬Uyghur) to English / Latin scripture, the correct spelling is Uyghur with a Y. Pronunciation of Uyghur. It’s not pronounced wee-gur. The pronunciation of Uyghur as wee-gur is derived from the Chinese translation. To be precise, it’s pronounced oy-ghoor. Although it is difficult to pronounce for some, it’s better to be slightly wrong than completely butchering the pronunciation and being politically correct. Using the term, “Xinjiang”. The full title of the region is Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. However, Xinjiang is a colonial term given by the CCP meaning “new territory” or “frontier” in Chinese. Uyghurs in the diaspora prefer to use “East Turkistan” when referring to their home country.

to speak against forced labour by Uyghurs. They estimate that around 20% of the world’s cotton is produced in occupied Xinjiang. Almost every major apparel brand and retailer selling anything made of cotton are potentially implicated. Want to do something about this? Contact fashion brands and forced them to sign on to the coalition’s call to action, forcing them to remove Uyghur forced labour from their supply chain. Or, better yet, boycott Chinese products where you can. Stay updated at: • @raphaelglucksmann_english on his campaign to force 83 companies to stop profiting from Uyghur forced labour. • Enduyghurforcedlabour.org to helping to stop Uyghur forced labour. • @uyghurcollective to stay updated with Uyghur culture and Uyghurs in the diaspora • @peopleofet to stay updated with Adelaide Uyghur youth • Standwithuyghurs.carrd.co for further links, information and places to donate to

Many Uyghurs in the diaspora have lost contact with their families and friends in the last few years, with only a rare phone call or the occasional message to let them know they are ‘safe’. Cryptic words that so and so has left to work in another city. Or, even stranger, watching a video that resembles some sort of hostage clip, insisting the person is safe, alive and only being investigated after speculation about his reported death. https://www.abc. net.au/news/2019-02-11/chinese-statevideo-tape-of-uyghur-musician-reporteddead/10798536. But, that’s not all folks. Apart from the fact that we have no clue where our family and friends are, there is one thought that goes through almost every Uyghur in the diaspora: Made in China? Was this made by my family member? Do I know the person who was forced to make this item? Recently, a new coalition of more than 180 global human rights groups have come out

WEARING A MASK: Infingment of human rights?

Words by Rebecca Etienne

Here we are. As if 2020 couldn’t have been more overwhelming, hey? I bet you’re thinking, “She’s joking right? She’s not actually agreeing with all these anti-maskers and calling for us to ditch the mask?” - The answer is no. Not at all. Instead, I’m here to talk about what the term ‘human rights’ means and look at some of the ways these rights have been abused. According to the United Nations, Human Rights are defined as ‘rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status’. These include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Now, based on this definition, do you believe that being told to where a mask while engaging with the local community is an infringement of someone’s human rights? Not really? I’d assume not. Let’s review some of the key declarations:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights - I don’t think I need to remind you all about the Black Lives Matter Movement that is happening all over the world. We have seen such heartbreak, such strength and we will continue to stand with people of colour in such a difficult time. We are still demanding justice for Walker. For Breonna Taylor, for George Floyd, Elijah McClain… just to name a few who have suffered at the hands of racial injustice. Where were their rights? Everyone has the right to education Did you know that around the world, 132 million girls are out of school? 34.3 million of primary school age, 30 million of lower-secondary school age, and 67.4 million of upper-secondary school age (UNICEF, 2020). Additionally, only 45 percent of rural boys and 60 percent of urban boys go to school (UNWOMEN, 2019). Everyone deserves the opportunity to have an education, but many have not been given a chance. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person - A bit closer to home, on average, one woman per week and one male per month are killed by a current or former partner in Australia (Mission Australia, 2019). One too many. Labeled as a ‘silent pandemic’, domestic or family violence has been labeled as a major health problem in Australia, imagine its prevalence worldwide?

so inaccessible, but how can one put a price on someone’s life? Some may say, “But, the UN Declaration of Human Rights isn’t even universal law!” and this is true. No government is bound by law to put this into practice. But, why not? What systems are in place that advantage some and disadvantage others? I don’t have all the answers. I’m not a scholar. But I do know that if someone bickers to me about how wearing a mask in the middle of a GLOBAL PANDEMIC is abusing their human rights, I will not hesitate to inform them otherwise. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not when lives are at risk. Protect yourself, but most of all protect others. Think about what the term ‘human rights’ means and who it actually protects, examine how they are being abused in our society today, and take a stand when necessary - it’s not hard.

Stop the spread. Wear a goddamn mask.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of (themselves) and of (their) family - To this day, hundreds and thousands of women are still being refused medical care: abortion, contraception, hormone treatment, perinatal and sanitary care. Healthcare has now become something

Words by John Maynard Gainz

If you haven’t heard about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in recent times, then chances are you’ve been living under a rock. With governments around the world dramatically increasing their debt and deficit levels to cope with the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been gaining significant traction with some mainstream economists and financial journalists. The logic, the intuition, and the evidence that MMT proponents present is solid. All of the arguments that I have seen that attempt to disprove it are usually lacking evidence or solid logic and are usually drawing from talking points of an old, outdated, and disproven way of thinking about the economy. However, I do have one issue with it: the way that it is argued.

If MMT is to be successful, at least in the short to medium term, its main aim should be to alleviate the public’s concerns about deficits. Thus, allowing governments to borrow in order to spend using the knowledge that the federal government can’t go broke but instead can cause inflation—two very different constraints—and that there is in fact good debt and bad debt i.e. if a company, a household, a government borrows to fund projects or programs that is expected to fetch a return greater than that of their borrowing costs, then it is good debt. In a recent speech, Philip Lowe addressed MMT, where he basically expressed that the responsibility for stimulus is on the government to provide through

deficit spending. With the Morrison Government dramatically expanding the nation’s debt and deficit, the debate on this issue should be dead and buried using the simple arguments of: the government can’t go broke, there is good debt and bad debt, and the basic arithmetic that if the government runs a deficit it has added money into the private sector, whereas a surplus takes money out.

While the MMT framework is solid, it is untested, and will likely remain as such for the foreseeable future. Most governments of monetary sovereign nations have the option to deficit spend to fund their spending. While this option is not only possible at the moment, it is attractive for governments in the current climate. As such, it is incumbent on elected governments to make those decisions, not unelected bureaucrats.

The thing that I took from Philip Lowe’s speech wasn’t that he had just shut down the debate over MMT, it was that he was highlighting that good old fashion deficit spending is an option for the government with historically low borrowing costs as they are able to finance their spending very cheaply. Deficit spending by governments is a tried, tested, and proven way to solve economic issues and cushion economic shocks. So why not just do that?

So MMTers and those interested in the topic, I guess what I am trying to say is this: don’t get bogged down in the semantics around what the central bank should be doing, or the process in which taxation and bond issuance relate to the government’s ability to spend. You’ll look like a crackpot to most people you’re speaking to. In order to have the most impact on achieving positive economic outcomes for the average person, try and convince people that the deficit not only isn’t bad, but is actually good for the economy. You’ll have a much easier time and you’ll look a lot less like Morpheus holding out a red pill and a blue pill. The arguments for greater deficit spending by monetary sovereign governments are simple and logical. Keynes’ ideas are as old as your grandparents and proven to work without disaster. Use those arguments when talking to the average punter and you’ll have a lot more success.

As discussed above, I am yet to see any argument that disproves MMT. Their logic and evidence is solid. But what about the arguments that nobody has been able to think of? The issues that nobody knows exist or that maybe don’t even exist yet? The unknown unknowns. As with everything new, no matter how well thought out your plan is or how solid your logic is, you can never predict exactly what’s going to happen. This is what I believe Philip Lowe was trying to say: the economy doesn’t need saving by the Reserve Bank because the government is more than capable of doing it themselves without adding unknown risk into the economy.

We don’t need MMT specifically to save us, we just need to convince the public that the deficit is a good thing. With borrowing costs at record lows for our government, it would be an unnecessary risk for our central bank to do the heavy lifting.

The Palace Letters: A matter of opinion Words by Lazaras Panayitou

In May, the High Court of Australia ruled in favour of Professor Jenny Hocking, declaring the ‘Palace Letters’ as public property. These letters, containing correspondence between Buckingham Palace and the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr around the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam Government, were being stored in the National Archives — but kept secret, with an embargo extended to 2027. Queen Elizabeth’s current private secretary had expressed the Palace’s desire to keep them sealed five years following the end of the Queen’s reign if released at all. Yet, following this ruling, the letters were released on 14 July. Often referred to as the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis, Governor-General Sir John Kerr’s dismissal of the Whitlam Government and commission of Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister resulted in a favourable political outcome for the Liberal-National Coalition in the following double dissolution election. Gough Whitlam sought a half-Senate election on 11 November in the hopes of achieving a temporary Labor majority to pass supply but was instead greeted by his dismissal. Fraser was quick to take advantage of the opportunity. Already being invited inside the official residence of the GovernorGeneral, Government House, during the dismissal, Fraser soon left to inform the Opposition to support the supply bill in the Senate before Labor became aware that he was commissioned as the

caretaker Prime Minister. Once in motion, although they had then learned of Fraser’s appointment, it was too late for Labor to block supply themselves with their own Senate minority. Following the passing of supply, he advised the Governor-General to call for a double dissolution election as per their agreement. The letters have since been regarded as a hidden piece to this history, filling in the gaps of the Governor-General’s reasoning and motivations, as well as a chance to expose the Queen’s political machinations. Following their release, Monarchists and Republicans both were quick on the draw. On the side of the Monarchists, David Flint OAM laid out a neat narrative of how Kerr dismissed Whitlam without the prior knowledge of the Queen, detailing correspondence with the Queen’s Private Secretary Sir Martin Charteris following the dismissal on conservative media outlet The Good Sauce among other places. Flint, the National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, quotes from a letter dated 11 November 1975, signed by Kerr: I have taken a decisive step and terminated the commission of the former prime minister Mr Whitlam and commissioned Mr Fraser to act as a caretaker Prime Minister… I decided to take the step I took without informing the Palace in advance … because the responsibility is mine and I was of the opinion

that it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance, though it is, of course, my duty to tell her immediately.

Charteris, the Queen’s secretary, responded positively on Buckingham Palace’s behalf: If I may say so with the greatest respect, I believe that in NOT informing the Queen what you intended to do before doing it, you acted not only with perfect Constitutional propriety but also with admirable consideration for Her Majesty’s position.

Hence, Flint produces the appropriate evidence to confirm that Kerr’s memoirs already offered an accurate account of how the dismissal occurred. That is, that the reserve powers of the GovernorGeneral were used for constitutional and not political purposes. Unless you find the facts of the matter as raised by Republicans more compelling. Sandy Biar, National Director of the Australian Republic Movement, selects from a broader range of the released letters when building a case that Kerr was consulted and reassured in his discretionary use of the reserve powers as a last, but sometimes necessary, resort. Biar raises how Charteris sent a letter on 27 October 1975 stating: you question whether the material you are sending on the Crisis is too detailed. I can assure you that it is not. The Queen is absorbing it with interest and is very grateful to you for taking so much trouble to keep her informed.

Hocking herself argues that the Palace appeared politically entrenched in the circumstances leading up to the dismissal, citing Charteris as well:

Minister advising The Queen to terminate your Commission with the object, presumably, of replacing you with someone more amenable to his wishes. If such an approach was made you may be sure that The Queen would take most unkindly to it.

One week before the dismissal, on 4 November 1975, Charteris again wrote to reiterate advice about the use of Kerr’s reserve powers. The implication of all this being that the 11 November 1975 letter sent by Kerr and the subsequent response from Charteris were both written with the intention of ‘covering their arses’ following the dismissal and that Kerr’s use of his reserve powers to legitimise the dismissal was politically motivated. Namely, that Kerr war-gamed possible scenarios with the Palace through letter correspondence, and possibly in-person with Prince Charles in September 1975 as well, acting in the interests and under the encouragement of the Royal Family while simultaneously avoiding his very own dismissal by acting before Whitlam. So, which side is right? Do the letters favour the side of the Monarchists or Republicans? Well, as things stand, the facts appear to be a matter of opinion. While both sides were quick to act, trying to dominate the headlines so they could best plead their case for donations and revive their movements, it appears that no clear winner has emerged… not unlike the nature of the dismissal itself. Author’s Note: Fitting that David Flint OAM has served as National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy since 1998 – why haven’t they voted him out yet?!

Prince Charles told me a good deal of his conversation with you and in particular that you had spoken of the possibility of the Prime

Words by Mirco Di Giacomo

from october to now: Chile’s path to its constitutional plebiscite and implications explained Seemingly ended in April, Chile experienced continued protests between 2019 and 2020. Beginning in October 2019 with Santiago’s students vandalising metro stations in response to a 4% increase in metro fares, protests spread across Chile within a month with protestors – and large portions of the public – demanding extensive social and institutional reform. By late October, President Sebastián Piñera declared “war” on protests and sent the army to curb them, only to back down days after sacking its cabinet and accepting a multi-partisan agreement to call a plebiscite on whether to rewrite Chile’s constitution. It should be noted that amending the constitution was never on the table.

How did a ‘metro fares protest’ expand into a nationwide movement demanding social reform? Why is the constitution so important? Two reasons stand out as to why the protests spread so rapidly and why the constitution the focus of them. First, Chile is a nation which bears the scars of one of the most brutal, and recent, South American dictatorships. The constitution is arguably one of the scars of this dictatorship. Introduced during dictatorship years, the legality of its introduction was questioned on the basis that the constitutional convention was hardly representative of the people. Second, Chile’s profound inequality

also contributed to the rapid expansion of protests. For instance, of 37 OECD countries, Chile ranks 35th for income equality. In a way, this combination of inequality, and looming memory of the dictatorship and its surviving institutions created a social powder keg in the country, and it is surprising that it did not erupt earlier. In voting whether firstly, that the constitution - “seen as the embodiment of Augusto Pinochet’s neoliberal model” - should be changed, and secondly, how it should be changed, many Chileans hope to symbolically break from the former dictatorship and tangibly introduce guarantees for equality. Why has Piñera backed down and met the protesters’ demand for a plebiscite? Like most of these decisions the motivating reasons are hard to identify, and the official explanations rarely match the pragmatic considerations politicians make. Most likely Piñera realised the implications of the scale of popular dissent and anger towards him, which, along with the widespread inequality, could have jeopardised his presidency. Unsurprisingly, the public demanded his resignation, with the National Congress moving Chile’s first Presidential impeachment motion on October 15. With his coalition lacking absolute majority in both legislative chambers, and Piñera’s party lacking an absolute majority even in its own coalition, Piñera must have concluded the support of his coalition to be finite – and as public outrage towards him grew, coalition members could have chosen not to sink with him. Moreover, Piñera must have felt the pressure of the grim November’s economic forecasts the protests caused, with an expected annual economic growth falling from 3.3% (2019) to 2.3% in 2020. In the first month of protests alone there was a 10% reduction in electricity

consumption, and value-added tax revenue fell by 20%. In a way, Piñera had two choices; continue the ‘war’ on his people and risk losing coalition support (and risk an impeachment) or ‘impeach’ the constitution – and his cabinet – in his place. Pragmatically he chose the latter. What will a new constitution mean for Chile? Also hard to pinpoint, as the plebiscite merely entails whether the constitution should be changed and, if so, how. A new constitution will take nine to twelve months to be drafted, an (additional) similar period of time will be needed to elect the constitutional convention following the plebiscite, and another nationwide vote would be needed to approve the draft. Thus, Chile will not have a new constitution, should the plebiscite establish to change it, until at least December 2021, if not later. This means that, partly due to the political and social developments that will inevitably occur in the next year and a half, and the fact the constitutional convention is yet to be elected, what the constitution will entail is impossible to know. Still, changing the constitution will be a powerful symbolic national statement. It will be a major historical judgement, breaking away from its dictatorial past, and may bring some equality. If however it fails to bring the hoped change, like 13 constitutional amendments before it failed to, this constitutional change may also be the final blow to the Chilean people’s faith in their political institutions.

FAKE NEWS: 5 NEWS STORIES THAT NEVER HAPPENED Words by Felix Eldridge

1.Independent candidate in

student politics attempts to purchase advertising space on campus. On Dit understands that 2nd year Finance Student Plive Calmer, who is throwing his hat in for a position on the AUU Board, has attempted to purchase advertising space all over campus for his campaign. When asked about it, he gave On Dit the following comment: “Look, politics is all about perception and I need people to look at me in a positive light. So, I’m buying up space on every billboard, public bench, campus newspaper, anything that might help me cover up my campaign’s shocking lack of policy.” On Dit understands that he has requested the ability to project slogans onto Bonython Hall at night as well as ask the University merchandise store to stock ‘Plive Calmer for AUU Board’ merchandise. He has since been denied both requests.

2.Stupol hack denies flip flopping on crucial vote.

An unnamed member of the SRC denies changing her mind mid vote when voting upon a crucial education funding related motion. On Dit understands that she said the following during the meeting: “No, I want to dispute that comment about me earlier this evening. I have not flip flopped. I’ve said I will vote no, then I said I will vote yes, then I clarified that I will vote no, then I came to the realization that I should vote yes, then my colleague told me I should vote no, then decided that I should abstain and then I confirmed that I would vote no, which is what I did. I did not flip flop at all.”

3.Board Director denies taking courses from Flinders University.

An AUU Board Director, who cannot be named, is under investigation by the Board for allegedly being enrolled in a course at Flinders University while concurrently studying full time at Adelaide University and serving on the Board. A member of AUU staff gave the following comment: “AUU Board Directors are privy to significant sensitive financial and legal documentation and as such it is inappropriate for such Directors to be partaking in courses from other institutions.” When asked by the ‘Board Committee into Un-Adelaide Uni Activities’ if he “is or has ever been a student at Flinders University” the Board Director failed to reply and sought an immediate adjournment of the committee. More to this story as it unfolds.

4.News Corp merger with On Dit called off due to ACCC monopoly provision.

On Dit has been in negotiations with News Corp to potentially merge organisations for several weeks, however the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ruled today that

the acquisition of On Dit into the News Corp portfolio would push News Corp 0.0000000000000001% into the next tax bracket of media ownership and thus would need to pay millions in additional taxes. As such, the proposed merger shall not be going ahead.

5.AUU Board Director denies

filibustering his own motion to access the Director’s food subsidy. Under AUU rules Board Directors may be entitled to a reimbursement of up to half the cost of any meal under $20 if a Board meeting runs for longer than 2 hours in the evening. At 7.38pm, as a Board meeting was about to close, a Director allegedly brought up a surprise motion to discuss the health and wellbeing of the AUU front desk’s pot plant. The director’s speech regarding the pot plant dragged on for a further 18 minutes ensuring that the meeting closed at 8.01pm and conveniently allowed the Board Director to access his meal subsidy. The Board Director in question denies having stalled the meeting for this reason and referred to the discussion about the pot plant to be of: “Great cultural, strategic and financial importance to the AUU”.

Understanding charismatic leadership Words by Leah SchamShurin

Throughout history, some of the most celebrated political leaders have been ones that were labelled as ‘charismatic’. The term gets thrown around like confetti, be it in the media or in academia, and is often, though not always, attached to men who inspired nations with their speeches - for better or worse. Yet, if you ask most people the question “what makes a person charismatic?” chances are you’ll be met with uncertainty. This uncertainty is exemplified when considering the plethora of different leaders who have been labelled as “charismatic” – Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, Theodore Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, John F. Kennedy, Margaret Thatcher, Jacinda Ardern. While these examples have indisputably been influential figures, there are many critics who would argue against using the term charismatic to describe such leaders. To unpack the term, we must begin with its origins. German social scientist Max Weber was a pivotal thinker in the conceptualisation of political charismatic leadership. In his theory of legitimate domination, “the charismatic” was one of three ideal types of leadership (among rational and traditional). The

authority that charismatic leaders hold is based not on a position they hold or system they operate in, but rather on “the individual.” That is, a charismatic leader retains devotion from followers through self-legitimacy. This differs from standard leadership in a number of ways, namely that the charismatic leader is believed to possess seemingly “superhuman” qualities and, thus the statements a charismatic leader makes are correct merely because he/she is the one uttering them. The followers are willing to unconditionally comply with the wishes of the leader, and followers are emotionally committed to the leader. Charisma is inherently subjective, meaning any group of devout followers can attribute to their leader such a label. This means no set list of traits that a political leader must possess to be “charismatic” exists. However, for the sake of clarity, oratory skills can be seen as essential. Such oratory skills relate to both what the leader is saying and the way speaking is conveyed, with gestures and timing seen as just as important as confidence and cadence. While many will refute the idea that Hitler was a “good” leader, his ability to inspire followers through captivating speeches is

irrefutable. While many would argue that Gandhi was not captivating in the way he spoke, his ability to clearly communicate ideas with pleasing cadence is obvious. While many would insist that Obama was full of shallow rhetoric, his ability to rally a nation in a way that could be understood by all remains unquestionable. Further, when considering the context of all three leaders – a country ravaged by economic depression, a country struggling against colonialism a country fragmented by overlapping social and economic factors, respectively – the importance of situational uncertainty cannot be overlooked. A charismatic leader is one who displays certainty and security in a time of crisis. The charismatic leader is someone who has a vision and is able to communicate it in a way that instils confidence amongst followers. Therefore, even if a leader is perceived to be simply “ordinary” in the way they communicate, the label ‘charismatic’ is often applied long after the time of crisis has subsided when criticism is easier to prescribe.

In other words, they exhibited masculine traits. When women display similar traits, they face double edged issue: balancing on one hand the risk to pass as assertive, over-confident and as not sufficiently feminine, while on the other with being perceived as passive and overly compassionate. The outcome of this dilemma being perceived as incapable of handling the seriousness of leadership position. This adds to the fact women consistently face discrimination in public positions of power, primarily because they have long been associated with private affairs (i.e. the domestic sphere). But even with a more progressive society, the fact remains that women, to be charismatic leaders, must balance displaying feminine and masculine traits, dressing in an appealing way that isn’t perceived as scandalous, living up to expectations of being a mother while not letting such a position get in the way of leadership duties, facing inappropriate criticism without being “too uptight about it.”And the list goes on.

Another trait that many associate with charismatic leaders is that of dominance, a fact that inherently disadvantages women. Look to some of the most famous speeches in history and you see men passionately speaking in an attempt to rally their followers. Google ‘famous speeches of all time’ and the results will consist primarily of men speaking during a momentous time in history. JFK spoke about sending a man to the moon; Churchill spoke about fighting for the protection of the country during World War II; King Jr. spoke of daring to dream for a better world. These men, like so many more, were confident, assertive, and displayed the impression of power.

Does this mean women can’t be charismatic leaders? No. Does this mean it is harder for women to be charismatic leaders? Absolutely. Charismatic leadership, including in politics, is a complex phenomenon. One the one hand, we are seeing more and more men and women labelled as charismatic. On the other hand, there still remains uncertainty as to what constitutes a charismatic leader. It would seem that charisma, just like anything in politics, presents a perfect opportunity for disagreement.

SUSTAINABILITY IN POLITICS

WORDS BY THE ADELAIDE SUSTAINABILITY ASSOCIATION We all have been in the same boat for the first half of 2020 with online university studies, Netflix parties, Zoom drinks, and obsessive gardening. The year so far has been an odd one to put it lightly. But that doesn’t mean that the political, ground-up push for sustainability has stopped. From our homes we have seen local, national and international policies be adapted and legislated to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. What the news is calling a ‘war-cabinet against COVID-19’ is the same instant action that climate activists, climateaware politicians, and mother nature have been arguing for. No more can we just wait - we have seen politicians make decisions that aim to help the general public be put in place overnight, whilst a Green New Deal, or even an ambitious target on emission reductions is “umm-ed” and “ahhh-ed” while we are seeing the consequences of climate change already. Ingrid Mowbray: My name is Ingrid Mowbray and I am in my third year of a Bachelor of Laws. I am a committee member of the ASA. Sustainability in politics stems from the determination of individuals and groups who act to ensure future generations have a place on Earth. Awareness of sustainable practices has grown exponentially from grassroot movements, which have made it difficult to ignore the climate crisis. Most of us have likely heard of Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and the School Strike 4 Climate movement. Despite some perceptions that individuals or protests are unable to infiltrate the minds of political leaders—environmental movements have received widespread coverage and have increased the dialogue surrounding sustainability in politics.

For the first time, the Australian Federal Government has a case against them for failing to take action on climate change. This was lodged by Torres Strait Islanders through the UN Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) complaints process. Through my time studying subjects in law, politics, and environmental policy, I’ve recognised the overlooked importance of how deeply individuals can penetrate levels of law and governance. I’ve also come to understand the symbiotic relationship between law and politics when it comes to sustainability. The case against the Australian Government relies on Australia’s human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). On the surface, this could be perceived as an international law dispute—which requires

Australia to ensure its citizens are not denied their human rights. However, just like other nations, it is integral that the executive incorporates these obligations in domestic law and government agenda. What must not be forgotten is the starting point of such cases—the Australian Government would not be in strife for its climate change obligations without the determination of the Torres Strait Islanders. We cannot depend on parliamentarians; we have to find the drive in ourselves to hold leaders accountable to ensure sustainability has a place in politics. Sustainability in politics is multifaceted and requires various tools of activism and knowledge. However, despite the need for global cooperation, it is important for individuals to ensure sustainability is prioritised in domestic politics. For instance, voting for candidates that will ensure sustainability is a priority, or through educating oneself in ways to live more sustainability so that you can educate your own community. Greater involvement in local sustainable practices can lead to promising changes made on a widespread level. Jack Gill: It isn’t just politicians that hold the cards for a green future. We, the people constituents, consumers, and advocates, have the power to make change. Politicians are designed to represent the people in their electorates, so they work to represent us and our views, concerns, and ideas. That is where you come in. By using your voice, your social media, joining clubs, organisations, and committees, you join a global collective of like-minded individuals. History has shown that mass

grassroots movements have achieved significant change, and it is required again to prevent the catastrophic impacts of climate change, and give the future generations the best planet for them to succeed. Examples of such collaboration include the 2019 Climate Strike in Adelaide with over 10,000 people protesting for a sustainable, green future. This point hasn’t been lost to AUU clubs. Throughout the peak of the pandemic, the ASA ran a variety of events that provided hands-on demonstrations of what a collective can achieve. The Community Isolation Garden provided 100 students with seed kits for them to make their own study-buddy and a distraction from the screens. On top of that, the ASA ran a regular catch-up zoom session for a social setting. It was a visual demonstration of how many individuals, from a variety of different backgrounds, degrees, and careers have a shared interest in sustainable living. To continue with this theme, the ASA is holding Sustainability Week in Week 5, to demonstrate that sustainability is a topic that will influence everyone’s degrees, lives and careers. The power of your choices, purchases and decisions plays a large part in achieving sustainability goals. Your actions as an individual can stop putting money into fossil fuel industries and instead into renewable energy, and money from sweatshops to socialenterprises funding education in developing regions, for example. There are non-monetary options you can take too: using reusable coffee mugs instead of disposable cups; walking instead of driving; using a reusable bag at the store and going vegetarian as some options to make a difference.

I have a note on my phone with the names of all the men Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve been intimate with. Words by Anonymous

It started in my high school clique, where the lists of boys we kissed at parties was confirmed through their names etched in Helvetica into our phones. At the time, those with the longer lists of conquests were seemingly cooler, contemporary and desirable in my impressionable mind. What I most admired about these people was an unapologetic attitude to sexuality, and a refusal to deny themselves. I desperately wanted to also embody comfort within my desires, and present myself as a modern, liberated woman. Once I did, I was shamed, ridiculed and laughed at for the exhibited comfort in my sexuality, whilst the boys cheered as their lists grew longer. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s where this internal fight began. 60

I find great empowerment in moments of passion and intimacy, and have genuine enjoyment in exploring them. Nevertheless, within my boasting of firm support for liberated female sexuality, I somehow possess an underlying fear of raising my own body count. How does this ironically hesitant and conventional dialogue exist when I believe so strongly for the destruction of such standards? Do I consistently go back to the same men exclusively for the fact it will not lengthen my list, like the number attaches itself to my validity and future prosperity? Am I a hypocrite through internally attacking myself when I practice what I preach? I find myself tirelessly battling my conscious on this discourse as a reflection of my surroundings. In some circles, my experiences are invalidated as being too miniscule, inexperienced and ‘vanilla’. In others, my behaviour is unorthodox, distasteful and taboo, a clear contrast to the perspective of sex being considered sacramental and exclusively marital. Because of this contest, I have found myself inadvertently altering my approach to sexual conversations as a reflection of my surroundings, whilst constantly questioning myself. So, am I really a Samantha, or actually a Charlotte?

influences. To this degree, maybe it’s the guilt and the suppression of my identity for the sake of family appearances consuming me. A few would even say that sex has limitations, with an emphasis on emotional attachment and including a subjectivity of being considered excessive. My mother would delightfully say that the devil has succeeded in his temptation, and my conscious is taking its rightful toll. So, what is it? Am I an embarrassingly worse ally of female sexual liberation than I once thought? What’s worse, did I really create that list in high school for the sake of collecting memories, or to genuinely shame myself and keep track of not hitting fictionally distasteful numbers? Ultimately, the fact I even consider my position on the spectrum of sex being entirely fluid or exclusively for procreation illustrates a narrative of unequal sexual standards that continues to prevail. What was my first step to combat this, you ask? Good question! I deleted that list on my phone.

Some would say that I am subconsciously shaming myself by reinforcing patriarchal standards, likely stemming from an upbringing surrounded by heavy religious 61 61

NOW IS A GREAT TIME TO BE IN EDUCATION BUT UNFORSEEN LEARNING CHALLENGES REMAIN POWERFUL THREATS Words by Dillon Wright

Covid-19 has spread chaos and destruction across the globe, yet the full scale of its human and economic toll has yet to be fully appreciated. With the forecasting of a sustained economic downturn, an onslaught of business insolvencies, and with over half of Australian mortgages contingent on current government welfare cheques, it is hard to see a great deal of job opportunities available for upcoming university graduates. Perhaps now is the best time then to be in education. Currently here in Adelaide, learning is safer than in other states, however, with teaching deliveries returning to face-face formats for now, there are crucial lessons students can take from their semester 1 online studies, particularly as online modes may have to return. While an investment into our education is a smart choice during these times, it is fundamental we do so in ways that preserve our mental health. Below are the painful lessons I learned from semester 1. You may or may not relate, but the unnecessary punishment endured is worthwhile noting, if at least entertaining. Isolation became the new routine and stay at home directives ensured a threat to the all-important work-life balance.

What lessons can be learned from those that work at home anyway? Many will tell you that distinct workspaces and allotting specific times of the day to work and play is vital. I tried to do this. Almost obsessively I began work at 9, aimed to finish by 5 and gave myself a lunch break in the middle. For me emulating a 9-5, 5 day a week work schedule satisfied my desire for regimen and to test my aptitude and endurance for full-time work, whilst surely conquering procrastination once and for all. Crucially, university has hurt me in the past where assignment deadlines would rest in the back of my mind even when trying to relax. 40 hours of committed work during the week was surely the antidote, where my work would be done before the weekend and I could justify rest. However, this approach was seriously flawed and had damaging implications for my happiness and stress levels. An abundance of time meant I focused too heavily on smaller tasks and eventually this left me drained when it came to attacking major assessment pieces, particularly by their end. A wealth of time, afforded by lockdowns, and this workhorse philosophy meant I was dedicated to achieving an 8 hour work day, using time as a metric for satisfactory academic output.

NOW IS A GREAT TO BE IN EDUCA BUT UNFORSEEN LEARNING CHAL REMAIN POWER THREATS Focusing more on time spent as opposed to time management, led ultimately to more work as my productivity and mental acuity declined, forcing me to work consecutive weekends without rest and ultimately burnout. While this may better reflect a combination of neurotic tendencies and problematic compulsions on my part, I argue the lessons here are useful for all. The old adage ‘time is money’, rings true for the businessman who craves your surplus labour, as Karl Marx famously professed, but for the stay at home student, ‘time is energy’ may be a more appropriate maxim. Managing university studies has always been challenging, particularly when juggling part time work and other commitments. However, to use time wisely now may be as important as ever, in ways that protect mental health and that allow you to sacrifice your work for time off. For many, online learning was difficult because it was hard to separate work and personal lives in the same home. Getting work done is certainly difficult when watching Netflix or playing video games is all too possible, perpetuating a cycle of procrastination. Acutely aware of this, I adopted my over-the-top methods which ultimately caused harm anyway. For some, accessing

essential materials for study may have been challenging, and I think we can all agree online communication with staff is maybe not as ideal as face-to face interactions. For many, remote learning was altogether lonely. Either way, as the world grapples with this pandemic, life is being reshaped all around us, its impacts clearly permeating in different ways. The process of learning in itself has been challenged and while teachers have been forced to adapt, there needs to be a greater wholesale recognition for the struggles of the students themselves, beyond what’s already been done. While we in Adelaide are returning to familiar teaching modes, others around the country and the world are not. We may be re-joining them soon anyway. In times when mental health has seen a significant worldwide hit, healthy learning practices need to be stressed that maximise adaptive psychological functioning, if the lessons I’ve learned are anything but a glimpse at broader student struggles. Healthy learning approaches should be reinforced, and these will hopefully see us energised and ready for work on the other side, with the recovering economies that we can only hope will meet us there.

STUPOL POETRY

BY FELIX ELDRIDGE To stack clubs, to win elections at all costs, to disqualify candidates under false pretences, they call ‘victory’ and where they destroy campus life in the name of their faction, they call it ‘order’. To silence opposition, to rule in secret, to abandon morality, they call ‘good governance’, and where they make a mockery of democracy, they call it ‘progress’. To politicise the trivial, to venerate spiteful obstructionism, to turn rivalry into hatred, they call ‘business as usual’, and where they toxify culture, they call it ‘the future’.

MY MORNING WITH MR. REAPER BY REUBEN FERNEE

Today I woke, I knew, that he approached Not waking the other, I go to draw “What’s that water for?” he asked. I ignored Mr. Reaper hates him, so, I withdraw Tea brewed-table set-candles lit? Not yet. Clean it how I left it. No stain will stay. To vanish I must leave without a debt Mr. Reaper choices are not so grey Appear, dust and dirt, the brightest figure The hazy brain spoke “I cannot be due” Instinct took over, he was the trigger Mr. Reaper praised “Your soul is so blue” Closed in the embrace, euphoric as meth Mr. Reaper bestowed the kiss of death

RANTS OF A SUMMER DRESS

BY KAVITA PARSHURAM BHANDARI I am a summer dress Flowing with the breeze Bathing in the sun With myself, I am at ease I am a summer dress In pastel shades and flower beds I am light and confident I know how to knock ‘em dead I’m good for a romance A quick shag in the park I’m promiscuous and slutty But I am a good girl’s mark I am what I am. I will never be another I won’t change for you Not even for your hotter brother I am a summer dress I once made you happy But your tastes have changed You now want a basic tee

Pop quiz! Who was the 22nd Prime Minister of Australia? A. Gough Whitlam B. Malcolm Fraser C. Bob Hawke D. William McMahon Which of these albums was not released this year? A. Future Nostalgia by Dua Lipa B. Rough and Rowdy Ways by Bob Dylan C. Women in Music Pt. II by HAIM D. LP1 by Liam Payne How many student representatives currently sit on Adelaide University Council? A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 Which of these products are not made by SA confectionary company Robern Menz? A. Spearmint Crown Mints B. Rocky Road Bites C. Choccy Snakes D. Milk Chocolate FruChocs According to the SRC constitution how many general councillor positions are there on the SRC? A. 6 B. 8 C. 10 D. 12 Send us an email (onditmag@gmail.com) with your answers. The first person to get all the correct answers will win a prize!

????????? 66

Student Employment Grow, Support Impact, to find Connect work while you study.

auu.org.au/studentemployment