Category: University of Waikato

The “worthy and admirable winner” of New Zealand’s richest short story competition has been announced, taking home $10,000. Anna Woods from Auckland was named winner of the 2023 Sargeson Prize with her short story ‘Pig Hunting’ on Saturday evening as part of the 20^th Annual Frank Sargeson Memorial Lecture at the University of Waikato. She also receives a two-week summer writing residency at the Sargeson Centre in Auckland.

Chief Judge Vincent O’Sullivan says, “Anna’s piece could not be more convincingly set in a compellingly detailed New Zealand. Its language is exact. Line by line, it is a triumph of restrained but focused style, honed for what it has to do. ‘Pig Hunting’ is there with ‘Millie’, one of Katherine Mansfield’s few ‘backblocks’ stories. It shares the same sense of growing pressure and remoteness and carries a comparable ambiguity until a final psychological clarity that challenges so much of what went before.”

“I have entered the Sargeson Prize every year since the prize started, so to win is a huge honour and milestone.”

The competition was also open to secondary school students, whose writing Vincent describes as unexpectedly mature.

“The students showed a sophistication in dealing with relationships, with family cross currents and with the constant challenge to personal values against conventions and current pressures that were light years in advance of either Sargeson’s generation or my own,” says Vincent.

“I was also struck by the deftness of the writing, the awareness of craft and its demands, the commitment to language that is good fiction’s driving force. It takes some writers a lifetime to know that. Here were teenagers who acknowledged that already.”

‘The Catastrophe of Swimming’, written by Tunmise Adebowale of St Hilda’s Collegiate School in Dunedin, was the winning entry in the Secondary Schools Division. Vincent remarked that he loved the subtlety and lightness of the tale, saying that it was a delight to read.

“‘The Catastrophe of Swimming’ deeply intrigued me. Not because it was about colonisation and its legacy, which to some extent it was, but because, in a sense, it assumed that as a given, with no need to hammer it home, allowing the story that it carried to be narrated delicately, humorously, a fairly casual event, even.”

As the Secondary Schools Division winner, Tunmise receives $2000 and a one-week summer writing residency at the University of Waikato, which includes mentoring, accommodation and meals. Tunmise says that winning the secondary school prize is an exciting opportunity to continue to hone her writing.

“If it weren’t for the encouragement from my friends and teachers, I wouldn’t have entered the prize this year.”

“Winning the prize and the writing residency with the University of Waikato means so much. I’m looking forward to challenging myself and improving my skills further.”

University of Waikato Senior Lecturer in Creative Writing and accomplished author Catherine Chidgey says the annual Sargeson Prize is a wonderful opportunity to highlight the talent and diversity of writers around the country.

“We received close to 1100 entries this year across the two categories, and it’s a delight to see new writers taking on the challenge alongside established names,” says Catherine.

The winning stories will be published by ReadingRoom, the literary branch of Newsroom. Entries for the 2024 competition open on 1 April 2024.

Global security involves managing a complex combination of law, ethics and politics. No situation exemplifies this more than what is happening now in Israel and Gaza.

When United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres coupled an unequivocal condemnation of the October 7 Hamas terror attacks with the observation that they “did not happen in a vacuum”, Israel was quick to react.

The country’s representative to the UN claimed Guterres’ words amounted to “tolerating terrorism” and demanded he resign.

Guterres was alluding to the Palestinian desire for political self-determination after more than 50 years of Israeli occupation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

But the fact such a statement can be so controversial is a sign of just how fraught the situation is now – and how limited New Zealand’s options are when it comes to influencing events.

Western leadership failing

After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the horrendous attacks by pledging a total war to eradicate Hamas in Gaza, and to do so “without political considerations”, the United States and European Union expressed unconditional support for Israel’s right to defend itself.

Meanwhile, the UN Security Council has again been hamstrung. Unable to reach a clear position on the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine last year, the council is now struggling to agree on a resolution to end the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Last week, the US vetoed a draft resolution calling for a “humanitarian pause” to the fighting on the grounds it did not mention Israel’s right to self-defence, and that US diplomacy needed more time.

But as the humanitarian toll of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza became plain, the damage to Western leadership has been substantial. China and Russia, backed by many states in the developing world, were able to take the diplomatic initiative, demanding an immediate ceasefire.

Simultaneously, Iran’s repressive clerical regime and its militant ally, Hezbollah, took the chance to project themselves as defenders of the Palestinians. The risk of conflict in the Middle East widening has only increased.

Risks of escalation

For New Zealand and other liberal democracies that depend on an international rules-based order, the situation is very troubling.

The government has provided NZ$5 million in humanitarian aid to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. It has also indicated its support for a “humanitarian pause” in Gaza.

Carolyn Schwalger, New Zealand’s permanent representative at the UN called “for the immediate and unconditional release of all [Israeli] hostages”. She pledged support for “Israel’s right to defend itself, in full compliance with international law, including in respect of actions taken in Gaza”, and said “New Zealand remains committed to a two-state solution.”

These are welcome steps. But in the weeks and months ahead, New Zealand will need to be clear that unlimited military force, without a long-term vision for peace, cannot satisfy either Israel’s desire for security or the Palestinian quest for statehood.

We fear that recent positive developments – the release of some Israeli hostages and the trickle of humanitarian aid into Gaza from Egypt – will soon be overwhelmed as the death toll of innocent victims rapidly escalates.

The Netanyahu government’s utter determination to liquidate Hamas, even if it costs the lives of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza, is at odds with Israel’s long-term need for regional peace.

Seeking peace

Fundamentally, the right of self-defence is not limitless. Israel’s iron grip on the provision of food, electricity and water to some 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza goes against the basic tenets of international law.

Collective punishment of civilians for the crimes of Hamas is not acceptable. Nor are indiscriminate, disproportionate or inhumane military actions. If they continue, the war will spread.

It may have no immediate or direct bearing on the current crisis, but New Zealand’s goal must be to work with regional powers, engage with Palestinian leadership that supports a peaceful path to statehood, and work towards stability in the region.

The  long cycles of unwanted occupation, blockade, provocation, vendetta, violence and counter-violence, must eventually be broken. For now, though, New Zealand must reassert its support for the laws of war as well as a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and actively work with others towards those ends.

Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato and Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

October 16 was an important day for Waikato Students’ Union (WSU) president Lushomo Thebe.

It was when, after five years of study, the 23-year-old walked across the stage at The Pā to graduate with her Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Business degrees.

“It was a really exciting day, one that has been 13 years in the making,” says Lushomo, who arrived in New Zealand with her family from Zambia as a 10-year-old with just one suitcase.

Today, she is one of the most recognised and respected faces on campus. Alongside her role leading the WSU over the past two years, Lushomo has served on the University Council, and is involved in a variety of other leadership and governance roles at the University.

There have been big decisions to make, some with long-term impact for students and the wider University community.

“There have been some long nights, weekends away from home for national conferences, and my family and friends have been a huge support.”

When Lushomo first started at Waikato University in 2018, she didn’t foresee being so involved in leadership and governance roles.

“If you had told me when I was starting off that I’d have done half of the things I’ve done, or had half of the experiences I’ve had, I wouldn’t have believed you,” says Lushomo, who is grateful for the support of University leaders, including Vice-Chancellor, Professor Neil Quigley, and Chancellor Sir Anand Satyanand.

On graduation day, Lushomo was supported by a large crowd of family and friends, including her parents, Clenny and Christine, and twin sisters, Silika and Chipego, who are first-year students at Waikato.

“My hope is that them seeing me walk across the stage is something that they can aspire to; I want to show them that if I can do it, they can do it too.”

“I’m really excited for the future,” says Lushomo, who will also be doing her professional legal studies course to be admitted as a solicitor and barrister in 2024.

Lushomo was initially attracted to Waikato University because she says its business school “was the best in the country”.

She soon developed a passion for law too, nurtured by lecturers such as Professor Al Gillespie and Professor Claire Breen.

Summer internships at Belly Gully and Chapman Tripp gave her valuable law industry experience and connections.

“My encouragement to people that are starting [university] is to just always be open for where that will take you.”

In 2022, Lushomo was named as one of the YWCA Y25, a global movement working for women’s empowerment, leadership and rights. She is a founding member of the Zambians in Aotearoa Association (ZIAA) and was an advisor to the FIFA Women’s World Cup.

“I am a big advocate and champion for migrant rights and for wāhine, and for women in leadership in particular.”

She currently mentors women in the Zambian community and is on the board of the YWCA at local and national levels. She is also in demand as a speaker, advisor and panelist on female, ethnic and rangatahi empowerment.

Lushomo says a highlight of her final year at University is seeing the completion of The Pā. As WSU president, she sat on committees and working groups for the project and is excited to see how the new building – which includes a Student Hub and new wharenui – will benefit current and future students.

“I remember when they were first breaking ground, it was my first year. So, I’ve journeyed alongside The Pā as it was being built during the past five years, and I’m graduating as it has been completed.”

Despite the long hours of work, Lushomo says her time at the University of Waikato has been very special.

“As cliché as it sounds, I think you have to be the change you wish to see. I saw things that needed to be done, or changed, and thought – hey, how about I give it a go?

“I don’t think I’m very different to anyone else – I think every other young person in our communities has the potential – they need the confidence to give it a go.

The University of Waikato has marked a historic moment with its first cohort of students to graduate at The Pā. This is the first time in the University’s 59-year history that it has hosted all Hamilton graduations on campus, having previously hosted ceremonies at Claudelands Events Centre and its own Te Kohinga Mārama Marae, as well as earlier at Hamilton’s Founders’ Memorial Theatre and at a number of marae across the region.

Vice-Chancellor Professor Neil Quigley says that hosting graduation at The Pā is a chance for the whole University community to come together and celebrate the success of its graduates, alongside whānau, friends and supporters, in an inspiring venue that is truly Waikato.

“Right back to the days of Founders Theatre, there has always been an aspiration that one day the University could host its own graduation ceremonies on campus and provide a full and memorable experience for students, from their first to their last day at university.

“As displayed today, the concept for graduation is unique to Waikato and reflective of how The Pā was designed, with students and the community at its heart. It included key elements and long-held traditions of the Claudelands and Te Kohinga Mārama Marae ceremonies, as well as incorporating new ideas and feedback from students and staff.”

The ceremonies began with a pōwhiri at 9am, with guests welcomed onto Ko Te Tangata, the University’s marae that is housed within The Pā. The ceremonies then took place in Te Āhurutanga, the Student Hub, which was transformed to deliver four intimate graduation ceremonies over the course of the day.

“It was an honour to welcome graduates, their whānau and the wider community to The Pā today to be part of this unique experience,” says Professor Quigley.

The Pā is the new centre of the Hamilton campus for students, staff and the wider community. It incorporates a new main entrance to the campus, a student hub (including food outlets and social learning spaces) and a new University marae. Its development reflects the University’s commitment to an integrated and accessible campus and a campus experience that includes social interaction, hospitality and culture.

It was perhaps inevitable that the shock Hamas attack on Israel would become a minor election sideshow in New Zealand. Less than a week from the polls, a crisis in the Middle East offered opposition parties a brief chance to criticise the foreign minister’s initial reaction.

But if it was a fleeting and fairly trivial moment in the heat of a campaign, the crisis itself is far from it – and it will test the foreign policy positions of whichever parties manage to form a government after Saturday.

It can be tempting to see the latest eruption of violence in Gaza and Israel as somehow “normal”, given the history of the region. But this is far from normal.

What appear to be intentional war crimes and crimes against humanity, involving the use of terror against citizens and guests of Israel, will provoke what will probably be an unprecedented response.

Israel’s declaration of war and formation of an emergency war cabinet – backed by threats to “wipe this thing called Hamas off the face of the Earth” – were the start. The bombardment and “complete siege” of Gaza, and preparation for a possible ground invasion, have catastrophic potential.

Hundreds of thousands may be forced towards Egypt or into the Mediterranean, with the fate of the hostages held by Hamas looking dire. Israel has now said there will be no humanitarian aid until the hostages are free.

There is a risk the war will spread over Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, with Hezbollah (backed by Iran) now involved. US President Joe Biden’s warning to Iran to “be careful”, and the deployment of a US carrier fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean, only ups the ante.

Rules of war

Given the suspension of some commercial flights to and from Israel, New Zealand’s most meaningful first response has been practical: arranging a special flight from Tel Aviv for citizens and their families currently in Israel or the Palestinian territories who wish to leave.

Beyond these immediate concerns, however, the world is divided. Outrage in the West is matched by support in Arab countries for Palestinian “resistance”. Despite US efforts to get a global consensus condemning the attack, the United Nations Security Council could not agree on a unified statement.

With no global consensus, New Zealand can do little more than assert and defend the established rules-based international order. This includes stating clearly that international humanitarian law and the rules of war are universal and must be applied impartially.

That’s akin to New Zealand’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: the rules of war apply to all, both state and non-state forces (irrespective of whether those parties agree to them). War crimes are to be investigated, with accountability and consequences applied through the relevant international bodies.

This applies to crimes of terror, murder, hostage-taking and indiscriminate rocket attacks carried out by Hamas. But the government needs also to emphasise that war crimes do not justify further retaliatory war crimes.

Specifically, unless civilians take a direct part in the conflict, the distinction between them and combatants must be observed. Military action should be proportionate, with all feasible precautions taken to minimise incidental loss of civilian life.

International law prohibits collective punishments, and access for humanitarian relief should be permitted. To hold an entire population captive – as a siege of Gaza involves – for the crimes of a military organisation is not acceptable.

The two-state solution

It is also important that New Zealand carefully considers definitions of terrorism and legitimate force. Terrorists do not enjoy the political and legal legitimacy afforded by international law.

Unlike other members of the Five Eyes security network, New Zealand designates only the military wing of Hamas, not its political wing, as a prohibited “terrorist entity” under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Whether this distinction is anything more than a fiction needs to be reviewed. If this were to change, it would mean the financing, participation in or recruitment to any branch of Hamas would be illegal. This might have implications for any future peace process, should Hamas be involved.

At some point, most people surely hope, the cycle of violence will end. The likeliest route to that will be the so-called “two-state solution”, requiring security guarantees for Israel, negotiated land swaps and careful management of Jerusalem’s holy sites.

New Zealand has long supported this initiative, despite its apparent diplomatic near-death status. An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo this week urged Israel to resume talks to establish a viable Palestinian state, and China has also reiterated support such a solution.

New Zealand cannot stay silent when extreme, indiscriminate violence is committed by any group or nation. But joining any movement of like-minded nations to continue pushing for the two-state solution is still its best long-term strategy.

Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

With almost a third of votes cast already in postal and pre-poll voting for the Voice to Parliament referendum, the “yes” campaign is ramping up its advertising and media efforts. Both campaigns are in the home straight ahead of Saturday’s crucial ballot.

Recent polls indicate that in the closing weeks of the campaign, support for the “no” campaign has slowed somewhat, but “yes” still sits at around 42% nationally.

This week, Professor Simon Jackman’s average of public polling placed “yes” at 42.7% nationally, with a 1.7-point margin of error. The best recent polls for “yes” continue to be those fielded by Roy Morgan and Essential, with support in the mid-40s. Newspoll (now administered by Pyxis) and Redbridge, meanwhile, have “yes” support in the high-30s.

What’s happening in online advertising?

Consistent with what we have seen during the course of the campaign, the Yes23 campaign has outpaced other paid referendum campaign groups in its online advertising spending on Meta platforms (Facebook and Instagram), the most-used platforms for online advertising during this campaign.

Four of the top five online advertisers are supporting the “yes” campaign, with A$364,000 in total advertising spending this past week. Yes23’s ad spend is distributed fairly evenly (relative to population) across the mainland states, reflecting its goal to attract national support.

The top “no” campaign advertisers on Meta spent just $46,000 this past week. This includes Fair Australia, supported by Advance Australia; Warren Mundine’s separate “Not My Voice” campaign, and Nationals MP Keith Pitt.

In comparison to Yes23’s blanket coverage, Fair Australia is chiefly targeting South Australia and to a lesser degree Tasmania. Assuming it will win sympathetic states like Western Australia and Queensland, the “no” campaign only needs to win one more state (either South Australia or Tasmania) to ensure the referendum fails.

Interestingly, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is no longer spending on social media advertising. Perhaps this is because she already has a sizeable presence on Meta (with a quarter million followers) and is generating millions of likes for her “no” campaign videos on the free platform, TikTok.

What’s happening in the news and social media?

During the past week, which aligns with the commencement of pre-polling, our analysis of free media coverage – print, radio, TV and social media – shows that Voice coverage has unsurprisingly increased in volume since our last data report two weeks ago.

The Voice referendum made up 7.3% of total coverage during the week, up from 6.7% reported in our previous analysis.

Recent stories getting the most attention on X (formerly Twitter) were:

• an open letter from more than 100 health organisations advocating in favour of “yes”
• widespread discussion of the uncivil nature of the referendum debate
• the start of early voting
• and Garigarra Riley-Mundine, the daughter of leading “no” campaigner Warren Mundine, publicly supporting the Voice.

How we further analysed media content

But what can we see about the distinctiveness of the campaign coverage since the referendum was announced on August 30?

One way to answer that is to look at the supply side of the debates. Supply represents what (and how much) information is in the public domain – as opposed to the demand side, which reflects how Australians engage with or react to the coverage.

To better understand this, we analysed about half a million Twitter posts and mainstream news stories from Meltwater, a global media monitoring company, combined with 50,000 Facebook and Instagram (public) posts that have appeared since the announcement of the referendum date.

We then used an algorithm to categorise this content into one of five distinctly relevant narratives. Put simply, think of a machine that can organise a collection of many different LEGO blocks (or in our case, media items) into a predetermined number of bins (in our case, topics), based on the LEGO blocks’ similarities (in our case, the key words that make up these narratives).

The algorithm gives us a quick – and rough – estimate of what’s being said in the public sphere across our screens, airwaves and newspapers during the campaign.

As seen below, about a quarter of the data we analysed – the largest distinct category – comes from general media commentary, constituting a complex mix of positive and negative coverage reflecting Australia’s increasingly polarised media landscape.

We estimate language supporting the two main “yes” campaigns comprised over 40% of the public debate, providing mostly affirmative messages about the referendum.

The algorithm categorised the “no” camp’s distinctly negative language at well under 20% of the overall debate. This included coverage from Sky News, which has been much more negative about the Voice.

General voter information coming from a range of sources, including the Australian Electoral Commission and the Australian government, made up another about 18% of the total media and social media content during the campaign.

All this data tells us a little about what’s been said during the campaign and the evolving nature of the debate as various narratives gain and lose popularity.

So, if the “yes” side has been contributing the lion’s share of Voice content over the past six weeks, why are the polls not closer?

That’s a complicated question because not all media and messaging are equal. Nor do we know how well campaigning actually changes voter behaviour.

We are also just looking at the supply side of free media only, not paid advertising or private messaging spaces. And we know the “no” side has had millions of people engaging with and sharing its content, which is not tracked here.

Rough estimates like these efforts, though, suggest there’s much more to be learned – both about our nation and, crucially, about ourselves.

Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University; Justin Phillips, Senior Lecturer, University of Waikato; Max Grömping, Senior Lecturer, Griffith University; Rebecca Strating, Director, La Trobe Asia and Associate Professor, La Trobe University, La Trobe University, and Simon Jackman, Professor, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tax cuts, crime, the cost of living, potholes and co-governance … these and various other issues are now familiar to most voters. But there has been one major election area missing the serious debate it needs: foreign policy.

Whichever parties form the next government, and whoever becomes prime minister, they will also be charged with negotiating New Zealand’s place in a dynamic and changing world.

Military and security alliances, trade, climate change and foreign aid are all presenting significant challenges. So here are some of the questions any incoming administration should be able to answer to the satisfaction of voters.

Defence and security

Having recently deepened military relationships with Australia and Japan, New Zealand needs to be clear about whether it will join “pillar two” of the AUKUS security pact between the US, UK and Australia.

Directly related to the AUKUS question are the hard military implications: who or what would New Zealand fight for? Were the US and China to square off over Taiwan, with Australia (New Zealand’s only formal ally) drawn into such a conflict, would New Zealand send military help?

Less speculatively, will New Zealand continue to send naval assets to support exercises aimed at defending freedom of the seas, given the very recent history of Chinese military confrontation in the disputed South China Sea?

The Pacific is also in a state of geopolitical flux. New Zealand has upgraded its military relationship with Fiji, and the US has secured “unimpeded access” to strategic ports and airports in Papua New Guinea. But how does New Zealand respond to the “comprehensive partnership” just announced between China and Timor-Leste covering military exchanges, training and exercises?

Ukraine and defence budgets

The war in the Ukraine will also demand attention. While New Zealand is not directly involved, it provides military training, financial, legal and humanitarian assistance.  Does this continue or ramp up, or does the level of aid depend on what New Zealand’s allies do?

Further to that, what is New Zealand’s official position on what peace would look like for Ukraine? Would New Zealand support a peace deal that involved territory trade-offs or did not include the prosecution of war crimes?

Related to that is the uncertainty over US commitment to supporting Ukraine, given some Republican resistance. New Zealand’s next government will face potentially very unpredictable outcomes from the US presidential election in November 2024. What happens if Donald Trump returns to power?

Many of New Zealand’s key allies (including NATO countries) are spending or aiming to spend 2% of GDP (or more) on their militaries. New Zealand currently only spends about 1.5% of GDP. Ideally, voters would know whether that will increase, by how much, and by when.

More specifically, would any extra spending see the New Zealand Defence Force adopt militarised artificial intelligence technologies?

Trade and sanctions

An open, predictable and rules-based global economy can no longer be taken for granted. Regional trade integration has been disrupted, with a shift towards unilateral trade policies and agreements.

What is New Zealand’s response, and will local exporters be encouraged and helped to diversify their markets?

Beyond the simple mantras of negotiating new trade agreements with India or the US, how will that diversification and continued growth be achieved?

Will New Zealand support China’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership – or would it back Taiwan’s?

Will New Zealand continue to support the use of sanctions outside the United Nations’ system (such as those imposed on Russia), and will it consider extending sanctions to countries for grievous human rights abuses (such as those imposed on Iran)?

Climate and foreign aid

Climate change presents extreme challenges domestically and internationally. New Zealand’s overall performance is rated “highly insufficient” by the independent Climate Action Tracker. So what will the next government do at a global level?

Where does New Zealand stand on mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund, the world’s largest multilateral fund dedicated to helping developing countries address the climate crisis, and will it increase pledged funding for it?

And will New Zealand continue to believe in and support the Global Methane Pledge, a joint US-European Union initiative to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels by 2030?

The UN sets a target for all developed nations to give 0.7% of their gross national income as aid to developing countries, but New Zealand only manages to give 0.23% – well below the OECD average. Will the next government seek to increase or even decrease this? And would it support the creation of a regional development bank or cooperative aid projects with China?

Finally, New Zealand will need to confirm if it will keep taking 1,500 refugees annually.

These are not easy questions. But the New Zealand public should know the answers before they vote – and before the next government positions the country in an increasingly turbulent global order.

Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.