Student pub still wanted: referendum
Those are the results of just two of the many questions the Otago University Students' Association (OUSA) asked its members over the past month.
The results, which were published this week, could form the basis of student activism over the next year.
OUSA president Liam White said he was very pleased with the level of engagement, with about 1900 people responding.
"We got more students engaging with our referendum than we did with our executive election. So I can't be too disappointed with that.
"I think having close to 2000 students voting is awesome."
The referendum asked an array of questions, including "Should OUSA establish student-friendly bars and pubs in North Dunedin" which got a 70% favourable response.
Meanwhile, only 53.5% of respondents believed OUSA should adopt a policy for its operations that aligned with the "Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions" movement (BDS) against the government of Israel.
The latter question was asked after the OUSA received two formal complaints about its decision to bar Domino's Pizza from "Tent City" during O Week.
Mr White said he was not surprised at the support for the student bar.
"I don't think that one will go away anytime soon.
"We've been talking about this for years, and I think I sat through for about two hours when it came out and read all the student comments and a lot of them were pretty harsh.
"But I think it's a fair frustration for the student body that we've been trying to advocate for this for years, come close, then had to step away again, and it just kind of feels like they've gone round in circles on it."
Asked about the BDS question, Mr White said the result was "clear as mud" and meant it probably needed to be sent back to the executive.
He was more surprised there appeared to be just as much division over whether OUSA should receive alcohol sponsorship.
"It's clear that there's not a particularly united front there."
There was however "overwhelming support" (68%) to adopt a policy of educating students on affirmative consent.
"It seems like the appropriate time for that."
Meanwhile, Mr White's attempt to extend the president's reign to two years proved less popular — 62% voted against it.
"There were a lot of Trump jokes [in the responses]. I'm not taking it personally."
matthew.littlewood@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
9 hours ago
- 1News
Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has again been kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise for a comment she made yesterday in the House. Yesterday, Swarbrick was kicked out of Parliament during an urgent debate on recognising Palestine as a state. The debate was called after Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Government was weighing up its position on the issue. In recent times, the UK, Canada, France and Australia have announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state. During the debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said MPs could "grow a spine" and support her bill which would impose sanctions on Israel. ADVERTISEMENT Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, left, and Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee. (Source: 1News/Getty) In response, Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee said: "That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise." When she refused, Brownlee said she would have to leave for the rest of the week and removed her from the House. However, Brownlee later signalled he would again give Swarbrick the opportunity to apologise in the House today, where she then could avoid being barred. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the legal fight to get a New Zealand woman and her child out of US immigration detention, sliding house prices, and Taylor Swift's big reveal. (Source: 1News) Returning to the House today, Swarbrick refused to withdraw and apologise, and at first, didn't leave when asked. Brownlee then called a vote to name her, which the majority of MPs supported. Swarbrick then removed herself from the House. ADVERTISEMENT Peters: 'Wasn't offensive enough to be booted' New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. (Source: 1News) Earlier, when heading into the House, NZ First leader Winston Peters spoke out against Swarbrick's removal. "I didn't agree with one thing she said, but it wasn't offensive enough to be booted out," he said. "If you can have John Key say 'get some guts', or accept the C-word — which was outrageous — then how can you be offensive in that context? "Parliament is a robust theatre for debate. People have serious emotional concerns about what they believe in, and to take away the essence... about the emotional concern you are talking about, is to neuter the place, and that's bad for New Zealand's democracy." Netanyahu 'lost the plot' – Luxon ADVERTISEMENT Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. (Source: 1News) On his way into the House, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued fresh criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his role in the war in Gaza. 'I think what's happening in Gaza is utterly appalling. I think Netanyahu has gone way too far, I think he has lost the plot." Luxon said overnight attacks on Gaza City were "utterly unacceptable". 'He is not listening to the international community, and that is unacceptable.' Labour leader Chris Hipkins was today asked whether he would agree with Luxon's comment on Netanyahu. "Probably, yes, actually, that's probably quite an astute observation." Hipkins said he took a moment to pause before answering, looking surprised, because of the "strength of the language". ADVERTISEMENT 'Uncharted territory' – Swarbrick Swarbrick speaking to reporters today. (Source: 1News) After leaving the House, Swarbrick said Brownlee had "been explicit about the fact he was the member who took personal offence" to her comment yesterday. "We are in uncharted territory. As far as I am aware, there is no situation where a Speaker has asked for somebody to withdraw and apologise, that person has refused to apologise, then been ordered to leave the House, i.e. being punished, the person has complied, and then the Speaker has sought to reopen the issue the very next day. "It would appear that now we are in a position where things are being completely made up." When asked about Luxon's comments on Netanyahu, Swarbrick said: "The Government has yet to put any meaningful substance behind their words." She said the very least the Government could do was "apply the exact same approach they did to Russia" – again referencing her bill to apply sanctions to Israel.
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Recognition of Palestine - NZ weighs decision amid global pressure
Neither argument is strictly relevant to New Zealand's decision, which will be made by UN leaders' week in six weeks. The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to please Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or to infuriate Israel, although it will do all of those things. It is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza. It is to preserve the viability of a two-state solution, a state of Israel co-existing with a state of Palestine in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Every country that has joined the latest international effort to recognise Palestinian statehood has cited that as the rationale. And the reason for that is that Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu is redoubling efforts to undermine and reject a two-state solution, including plans to take control of Gaza City, and a symbolic vote in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) last month calling for Israel to annex the West Bank. 'The Netanyahu government's rejection of a two-state solution is wrong – it's wrong morally and it's wrong strategically,' said British Foreign Secretary David Lammy. 'The two-state solution is in mortal danger. It is about to give way to perpetual confrontation. That is something France simply cannot resign itself to,' said France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noel Barrot. 'Prospects for a two-state solution have been steadily and gravely eroded,' said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. 'The Netanyahu Government is extinguishing the prospect of a two-state solution by rapidly expanding illegal settlements, threatening annexation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and explicitly opposing any Palestinian state,' said Albanese. As in New Zealand, the two-state solution has long been endorsed by most countries, and the United Nations, as the only fair long-term answer to two peoples with claims to the same land. Palestinians wait to receive hot meals with their pots and pans in Deir Al Balah, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images The alternative, one state of Israel, is one in which the Palestinian quest for a homeland would never be satisfied, one in which Palestinian rights would be subjugated and one in which conflict would be permanent. At times, Israel has supported a two-state solution. But Netanyahu, now in this third stint as Prime Minister, has actively undermined it by supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in breach of international law. When New Zealand was preparing to co-sponsor UN Security Council resolution 2334 in 2016 – again in order to preserve a two-state solution - he described it as 'a declaration of war'. Netanyahu had already bullied Egypt out of co-sponsoring the resolution, but it passed, and Israel withdrew its ambassador from Wellington for five months. The United States, whose Secretary of State John Kerry had done a huge amount of work in the Middle East, abstained, allowing it to pass without dissent. The present has some echoes to back then. Today's rallying of the international community, once again to preserve the two-state solution, also serves to reinforce the position that this protracted conflict needs a political solution, not a military one. Since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing crisis, New Zealand's position has remained non-committal about when it will recognise Palestine and to 'focus on the needs of the moment'. It is the classic bob-each-way position of a small state, trying to keep onside with Israel by not recognising Palestine, and keeping Palestinians onside by saying it's just a matter of when, not if. But given that Israel has thumbed its nose at the international community and its disproportionate, horrific actions in Gaza, the question New Zealand must ask is whether it is still valid to try to please everyone. With movement on the issue from a large number of like-minded friends, Australia, Britain, France, and Canada give a small country the cover it might not normally have over such a major shift. No shift is likely without conditions. They could be similar to those accepted by France and Canada, such as commitments by the Palestinian Authority to reform its governance, commit to elections in 2026, exclude any role for Hamas, and demilitarise any Palestinian state. If a condition by New Zealand were to wait for recognition until an actual state was in place, that would be tantamount to the status quo. Foreign Minister Winston Peters took an oral item to cabinet on Monday about recognition of a Palestinian state, as opposed to a cabinet paper. That is not to say that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade won't have plenty of advice on recognition, and that is being prepared. But it is also a reminder that no matter what the official advice is, it will be a political decision. Peters himself, a former student of Hebrew, has been a hawk on Israel. He was critical of New Zealand sponsoring resolution 2334 in 2016. That meant his strong criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza last year and this year has carried more weight. Planes drop aid packages by parachute over western Gaza City, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images It is acknowledged by most countries that the United States and President Trump, Israel's strongest ally, hold the key to ending the conflict and what happens afterwards. And because Peters is sympathetic to the Trump Administration and its America First ethos, he is open to accusations of delaying recognition in order to please the United States. That is why Peters, despite professing to loathe the common refrain that New Zealand has an independent foreign policy on the basis that it implies that others don't, on Monday insisted that 'New Zealand has an independent foreign policy'. An important factor in how New Zealand is approaching the issue of recognition is the unique makeup of the Government. It is the prerogative of the cabinet to make such a decision. However, given that the cabinet avoids votes (National with 14 out of 20 would win every time) and operates on party consensus, it effectively gives a veto to each of the three parties in Government, National, Act and NZ First. That could lead to an outrageous outcome if, for example, every party in Parliament except Act favoured recognition of Palestinian statehood or if every party except Act and NZ First supported recognition. The parties other than Act, led by Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, and NZ First, led by Peters, represent 85% of the Parliament. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the recognition of Palestine is a complex issue and will take time to work through. Actually, it is not that hard. What will be hard is presenting the views of a disparate Government to a country that has largely lost sympathy with Israel because of its appalling treatment of Palestinians. One of the reasons Peters might find it difficult to support recognition of Palestinian statehood is that he has spent the past year saying why New Zealand shouldn't. But when the circumstances change, as they have done, it is not unreasonable for the response to change.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon condemns Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, says he's ‘lost the plot'
'I think Netanyahu has gone way too far. I think he has lost the plot. What we are seeing overnight, the attack on Gaza City, is utterly, utterly unacceptable,' he said. Luxon said the Israeli Prime Minister is 'not listening to the international community'. He said he had been 'consistent' in his language and said the current military actions was 'driving more human catastrophe across Gaza'. New Zealand had limited trade to Israel and connection there, but 'we have stood up for values'. Luxon reiterated that any attempt by Israel at annexation would likely breach international law. When he was pressed on the gravity of saying another leader had lost the plot, Luxon said: 'I am telling you what my personal view is.' 'As a human being, looking at the situation, that is how I feel about it.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was extremely critical of Netanyahu. Photo / Mark Mitchell Act leader David Seymour said it was up to the ICJ to decide about claims of genocide. 'They have said it may be likely, but they haven't said that it is. Unless Chris Hipkins knows something more than the ICJ, I am not sure,' he said. He questioned what you actually do about that. Seymour emphasised the Government was wanting to make a 'sane, sober' decision on the question of Palestinian statehood 'in full knowledge of the facts'. Labour's Hipkins said 'we have an obligation to prevent genocide, and I don't think you can do that if you don't name an unfolding genocide'. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week said Netanyahu was 'in denial'. 'I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He, again, reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well – which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people," he told the ABC. According to the Times of Israel, Netanyahu on Sunday rejected allegations of a genocide, saying if Israel had wanted to commit genocide, 'it would have taken exactly one afternoon'. Over the weekend, following a meeting between Luxon and Albanese, the Prime Ministers said there was a 'catastrophic humanitarian situation' happening in Gaza. 'Any attempt by Israel to escalate hostilities, including by taking control of Gaza City, would be wrong, risk violating international law and exacerbate the human catastrophe already unfolding inside the Gaza Strip. We urge the Israeli Government to reconsider before it is too late.' On Monday, the Government announced it would formally weigh up New Zealand's position on the recognition of Palestine over the next month. A statement issued by several countries' Foreign Ministers over the weekend, including New Zealand's Winston Peters, rejected Israel's decision to launch a fresh military operation in Gaza. 'It will aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages and further risk the mass displacement of civilians. The plans that the Government of Israel has announced risk violating international humanitarian law. Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law.' It said the countries were 'united in our commitment to the implementation of a negotiated two-state solution as the only way to guarantee that both Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, security, and dignity'. 'A political resolution based on a negotiated two-state solution requires the total demilitarisation of Hamas and its complete exclusion from any form of governance in the Gaza Strip, where the Palestinian Authority must have a central role.' Netanyahu told reporters on Monday that any decision by foreign leaders to recognise Palestine was 'rewarding terror', according to reports. 'It defies imagination or understanding how intelligent people around the world, including seasoned diplomats, government leaders, and respected journalists, fall for this absurdity.' He also said Israel's goal was not to occupy Gaza, but instead to 'free it from Hamas terrorists'. Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
