Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2015, by the Victoria University of Wellington Library
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line, except in the case of those words that break over a page.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Collection scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
The staff of the Law Faculty has censured the Chief Justice, Sir Richard Wild, for his statement on the All Black Tour.
The motion of censure read as follows:
"That the Faculty respectfully record its regret that the Chief Justice should have made a partisan statement on a matter of public controversy, namely the propriety of the proposed All Black rugby tour of Southern Africa."
The decision, made at a Law Faculty meeting on 23 April, was not made public until 30 April. The Dean of the Law Faculty, Professor I.L.M. Richardson, conveyed the resolution to the Chief Justice in a letter together with the following remarks:
"Professor Mathieson's dissent and Professor Barton's and Mr Gelber's abstentions from the first resolution were recorded. Professors Barton and Mathieson considered it was not within the competence of the Faculty to pass such a resolution and Professor Mathieson dissented on the further ground that he believed fudges have a right to make statements on matters of public controversy other than party political issues. Professors Barton and Inglis and Mr Davis wish it to be known that their dissents from the part of the second resolution concerning distribution to the news media were recorded.
"The following full time members of the Faculty were not present at the meeting when the resolutions were dealt with: Professors Richardson and Ellinger and Messrs Keith, Angelo, Duncan and Tanner.
"I should make it clear that part-time staff members of the Faculty did not receive notice of the motion and did not attend the meeting at which it was discussed."
Professor Richardson was reported in the "An individual's freedom of speech has always been a cherished principle in university life. "But when a group within the university is involved, the principle, it seems, is open to question. "This was highlighted this week when the Faculty of Law at Victoria University of Wellington sent a letter to the Chief Justice, Sir Richard Wild."Dominion as having said that he was "out of sympathy" with the resolution. The same Dominion report included the following comments:
On Saturday night a number of students were involved in throwing food and glasses at one another. A person who was named as being involved in the Ball incidents has insisted that the people throwing glasses from the mezzanine to the dance floor were not students. A second person at the Ball said: "It was not an isolated incident," and wondered why any fuss should be made about it.
A meeting was held on Monday to determine what action should be taken following Saturday's shambles. At that meeting, the President and the Managing Secretary decided to investigate the allegations about the behaviour of certain people at the Ball. They have asked witnesses to come forward with any relevant information so that disciplinary action can be taken.
When asked what this action would entail, Margaret Bryson said that, if necessary, the offenders would be excluded from the Union Building for a term or more and fines might be imposed.
Such action had better be taken. It would also be as well if the action which is taken is, in fact, disciplinary as that term is commonly understood. Last week the Executive "disciplined" a yahoo who knocked the roof out of one of the men's toilets by telling him that such behaviour "would not be tolerated".
Mr Gruar, a former ( 1968) Editor of Canta, defeated Don Hill and Jim Hopkins in an election on 27 April.
Mr Gruar said in his application for the Editorship that "the key idea of Focus is to focus student opinion and reveal this to the outside. Focus must become a medium in which students become so attractive and, at the same time, available, that the public has to read about university students."
There is no evidence for the current feeling in the University that a horde of academic failures from other universities are poised to take advantage of Victoria University's lenient exclusion policy.
This view was expressed in a Minority Report appended to the Report of the University Ad Hoc Committee on Excluded Students by student representative, Bob Campbell.
This opinion was in sharp contrast to that expressed in a second Minority Report by the Committee's Convenor, Professor J.A. Gordon.
Professor Gordon argued that unless the University operates its exclusion rules rigorously, it might as well abandon them.
"If it abandons them," he added, "or operates under the current slack re-admission policy, we shall get an increasing number of students in flight from universities which do operate their exclusion rules firmly".
Of the 16 students interviewed by the committee, 5 were re-admitted to the University. "In a number of cases," said Bob Campbell, "students had chosen courses which were patently unsuited to them and which were the main cause of their failure."
More extensive course guidance, he suggested, both at the beginning of the university career and throughout it, is called for. Professor Gordon expressed his view that the original exclusions were "just and proper".
Of the 200 or so read missions by the Academic Committee after appeal. Professor Gordon said that they had leaned (at the lower end) "towards such bending of the rules and over-generosity that it was a foregone conclusion that the over-generosity would be extended by the Ad Hoc Committee".
All the students interviewed, he added, had records of consistent and repeated failure. Their pass subjects (if any) were more often than not passes on second or even third attempts. "With one just possible exception none of the students re-admitted shows any academic merit or has any likelihood of completing the degree sought", Professor Gordon said.
The Executive Committee acting on the recent decision of the S.R.C announce that as from Monday
Q: What action would the Minister take to prevent publication of the Ronald Biggs story in the Sunday Times? —Mr R.F. Murdoch (Democratic Labor, Canberra).
The Minister of Justice (Mr Riddiford) replied that publication of the Ronald Biggs story did not appear to constitute a breach of the law and he did not propose to take any action to prevent the publication in the Sunday Times of serialised articles on the life of Ronald Biggs. Further, the Minister said, he had read that morning the Company Accountant's report on increased revenues which have been predicted for the Sunday Times following (i) the increase in advertising rates which will accompany publication of Biggs' story and (ii) the dramatically increased sales which are expected to result from publication of the story and which have led to provision for the printing of 20,000 extra copies of each 'Biggs issue'. The Minister said that in the light of this report it was unclear to him how publication of Ronald Biggs' story could possibly be construed to be against the public interest.
They don't pay for it, that's all. From several points of view, there is no reason why they should. Many members of the staff made a substantial contribution to the Association when they were students here. Some of them are making a contribution still. (I refer, of course, to those academics who are assisting in the process of providing us with an education). And again, the staff—both academic and administrative—are among Salient's most perceptive readers. It is a pleasure to know that some of the material we publish is read intelligently; even if some readers, as one member of staff was heard to say, wonder where we "get those silly ideas from."
So you might wonder why that little slick aphorism is on the masthead of each issue. The answer lay a few sentences back for those of you (principally staff members, I expect) who have bothered to read these comments: just how many of our teachers can honestly be said to be making a continuing contribution to our education?
I don't think that the staff—academic or administrative—should have to pay for Salient. I hope, however, that each time they read that nagging little remark they think about what they're contributing to students.
May I, as Chairman of the Lecturers' Association, have space to correct the misrepresentations contained in the Salient article (22 April) headlined "lecturers' representation".
1. Lecturers, as members of staff, already share in the work of a wide range of University committees, including the Faculties, Professorial Board and Council. Every lecturer is a member of a Faculty, (and a Faculty is a sub-committee of the Board) and thereby has large opportunities of contributing to the running of the University. Last year (well before the SRC meeting of
2. The Joint Committee already has four staff members, appointed by the Board. At the February meeting of the Board (again before the 12 March SRC meeting), lecturers' representatives sought successfully for two additional staff members to join the Committee for its discussions on the question of staff appointments, but at the same time declined for the present to seek extra appointments on a permanent basis, mainly on the grounds that it was not yet evident that the normal business of the Joint Committee required such additional staff members.
3. The Salient article asserts that the Lecturers' Association committee made the following statement to a student representative and to a member of the Ad Hoc Committee (surely not Mr Logan and Mr Wright in combination?): "No further representation by lecturers on university committees is called for; the lecturers' have complete confidence in the ability of their professors to represent them representation by lecturers on university committees is unnecessary."
No Such Statement was Made by the Association committee—nor any like it. It is a pity the writer of the article did not seek more reliable sources for his supposed information.
4. At the special meeting of the Lecturers' Association called by the Ad Hoc Committee (who, when the meeting was convened, appeared to consist of only one person) the lecturers present defeated, overwhelmingly, the first of Mr Wright's motions quoted in the article and his second motion of no confidence in the committee failed to gain even a firm seconder and therefore lapsed.
Finally I wish to affirm that the committee of the Lecturers' Association is wholly concerned to promote opportunities for the effective contribution of lecturers, as staff members, to all aspects of the affairs of the University. It believes that its present policies are a proper consequence of this concern.
(Editor's note:
welcoming increased representation . . ."Salient regrets not specifically numbering sub-professorial staff on the Joint Committee.
Where does the 'average Kiwi' stand on this year's controversial rugby tour of South Africa? With the help of a friend, I did a little to find out.
Last week, in Cuba Mall and later in Willis and Manners Streets, we stopped 50 passers-by at random and asked their opinions. Here are the results:
Cuba Mall
For: 37
Against:9
Don't Know: 4
Manners Street
For: 32
Against: 13
Don't Know: 5
Willis Street
For: 35
Against: 11
Don't Know: 4
I feel these samples represent public opinion more accurately than any taken, say, inside a university. Why can't some responsible body go into the matter and take a large opinion poll? The result would show certain factions exactly where they stand.
I am being steadily convinced that the All Black Tour to South Africa should eventuate. The negative attitude portrayed by the majority of persons in suggesting that the Tour be stopped is a reflection of homogeneity in thought current throughout New Zealand.
Victoria University is no exception to this pattern I am sad to say. It purports to be an institution where issues are debated logically to produce hopefully coherent arguments for and against the issue. I am afraid the assumption was debased at the recent 'Racism' debate between Mr Rata and Mr Mitchell relating to the proposed All Black Tour. Not only did the audience obviate their minds and reason to the proposition that the AH Blacks 'should' go to South Africa, but in doing so they contradicted the very essence of their presence at a university.
With due respect to Mr Mitchell and his ideological beliefs, the toleration of which supposedly forms a basis in any democracy, he presented a view abhorred by many New Zealanders, namely that apartheid is an acceptable clause in the Rhodesian system of government. Rebellion to Mr Mitchell's beliefs was evidenced throughout his speech. This is irresponsible conduct.
It assumed firstly the superiority of the minds of those present within the audience (or rather the superiority on the shepherds within our society). Secondly, the rebellion was antagonised by issues peripheral to the topic to such an extent that at the conclusion of the debate no fundamentals for or against the Tour could be found. Lastly, I noted a negative attitude toward finding any conclusions on the debated topic.
Why do I support the Tour? Negatively; because as yet I have to find a concrete reason why I should not support the Tour. The "injustices within the apartheid system" are not necessarily "injustices of the system". Positively; because I feel we, as an integrated team of compatible races, can show the whites and blacks of South Africa that unity can be acceptable to both a black person and a white person.
I am sorry to observe that students at Victoria University are as impolite to guest speakers with whom they do not agree as students in other parts of the world. As a visitor from California who is well acquainted with aggressive student action and, in some instances, very much in tune with the student demands, I still believe in extending common courtesy to others.
While my husband was lecturing elsewhere on campus last evening on "Student Unrest" I attended a debate dealing with the sending of your All Black rugby team to South Africa. I visited South Africa several months ago and I am not at all in favor of apartheid; nevertheless, I would like to have heard what kind of a defense of the system a person from New Zealand could possibly present. I was prevented from hearing the debator's remarks because several students in the audience (one by name of Wheeler) were more interested in shouting "Fascist" than listening in order to better rebut in an intelligent manner the opposition.
How about it New Zealand students? Don't follow the senseless path of American students by letting a few rabble rousers control the group.
I have just finished reading Alan Brunton's report on Arts Conference 70 and would like, as President of Pen (NZ Centre), to correct a point in relation to the remit advocating the elimination of the State Literary Fund in favour of an advisory panel of the Arts Council.
Mr Brunton says, inter alia, "As it happens, the only defence for retention of the Fund is made by its present Secretary (a civil servant) and by delegates from Pen (which has, supposedly, the independent say in the Fund's deliberations)."
In January of this year I put before Pen Executive a lengthy note headed "Arts Conference" in which I quoted Arts Council grants from Government and Lottery sources, and to which I attached pages from the latest Q.E. II Arts Council Annual Report giving general expenditure figures for drama, music and visual arts. My aim was to draw attention to the unfavourable treatment of writers under the State Literary Fund with whose grants we were of course familiar. Paragraph 4 of my note read: "If the Arts Council does not consider us because the Literary Fund does, would writers not be treated more comparably with the other arts if the Literary Fund were incorporated within the Council and we were represented by our own Panel therein? Drama has a panel of 10, Music 17 and Visual Arts 15." I mentioned that Pen's function has never been to ask for more grants for writers. It is unfortunate that New Zealand has no organisation whose sole job is to be a voice for writers, and because this is so, another of my Presidential platforms has been to recommend that members join the Australian Society of Authors which hopes to form a New Zealand branch. This Society acts with tremendous energy and aggression for more fellowships, higher rates of pay, better contracts, copywright fees for xeroxing, and of course, for the Public Lending Right. New Zealand desperately needs such a body.
Further, in my note I asserted that writers are of greater value to the culture and life of a society than executants of any of the other arts, firstly because in our literate land we all read whereas comparatively few attend ballet, opera and so on; and secondly because some of the arts are interpretive while writing is indigenous.
I'm sure you will see that I would be anxious to support the remit in question. I did in fact do so. If John Lee, our only official delegate, did not do so, I'm sure it was because his deafness prevented his knowing what was being considered. Two other Pen members were present. One if not both voted for the remit. Alan Brunton's assumption that Pen has the independent say in the State Literary Fund's deliberations is incorrect, by the way. The names of the recipients of the Scholarship in Letters and the Award for Achievement are as much news to us as they are to you. Pen does have two awards of its own for which we receive assistance from the State Literary Fund. These are the Hubert Church Award for prose and the Jessie Mackay Award for poetry, for which we arrange our own outside judges.
Many young people have plenty to say worth listening to (some University students, some not) and are articulate, very often over poweringly. I would like to see some of this wisdom/anger/energy used creatively, preferably in writing. There's every chance that an important novel might result.
In the letters column of Salient (22 April) there appeared a letter commenting on the Bellamy uniforms which is attributed to "K.J. Holyoake".
As the only K.J. Holyoake, I wish to point out that I did not write the letter. The only conclusion to be reached is that it was the work of a practical joker and I would be grateful if you would arrange for the publication of my denial of authorship.
May I take opportunity of your wide circulation to bring to the attention of all students the exploitation of Economics 1B students that is going on without anything being done about it!
Case: At the beginning of the year, 1B was overcrowded. So, some students were drafted to 1A (a basically wide yet less detailed course in Economics—a terminal unit) whilst others (poor suckers, poor me) volunteered to shift over. We were told that there would not be any differences in courses any more.
Promises! Promises! We now find that 1A is running through Samuelson while 1B is slogging through Lipsey. We find that 1B has postponed its date of passing up the 1st Essay by one week but not 1A. They have their test postponed to the 30th; we must be contented with the original 28th. When we attempt questioning lecturers about 'our rights', they dismiss us like they would high school kids. Why shouldn't they? After all, that's just how they have been treating us! And will continue to do so if we Econs 1B students don't do anything about it!
I say Econs 1B students in 1A, unite and let's get things straightened out! Let me be clear: let it not be said that we in 1A are lazy buggers hard up for time, Let it be said, however, that we know our rights and Care about our rights.
Is New Zealand condoning racism by lending the All Blacks to South Africa?
This was the subject of a recent debate held in the university under the auspices of the Socialist Club.
Mr M. Rata, MP for Northern Maori, spoke for the affirmative, while the negative was taken by Mr J. Mitchell, a member of the Friends of Rhodesia Society.
Mr Rata said that "while the problem must be solved by the "South Africans, whatever stand we take either enhances or disillusions them."
He did not think that the glory given to All Blacks was worth it, at the cost of 11 million people.
Mr Mitchell used as his argument a parallel example between New Zealand and Russia. "Are we condoning, or even encouraging. Communism by trading with Soviet Russia, or participating against them in the Olympic Games?" he asked.
Owen Gager, speaking from the floor, suggested that the All Blacks be trained in the arts of sabotage and guerilla warfare. He saw the Tour as a perfect opportunity to infiltrate behind enemy lines.
The result of a vote taken at the end was 151 to 7 in favour of the affirmative.
Nearly 500 Victoria students took part in an anti-tour demonstration on 30 April.
The demonstration coincided with the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union, held in the Town Hall.
The students marched down to the Town Hall chanting "Stop the Tour" to the beat of a drum.
At the Town Hall they were joined by members of the public and the Federation of Labour who swelled the crowd to over 1000.
At the Town Hall they were addressed by a number of speakers including Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan. M.P, Mr Hunt. M.P., and Trevor Richards. President of Hart.
Mr Hunt said that the issues transcended the simple question of playing rugby and that the argument was really about humanity.
Telegrams of support from several branches of Care and from the Auckland Students' Association were read out by Margaret Bryson.
Also present at the Town Hall were 30 students who supported the tour.
They armed sometime after the main demonstration loudly singing a rugby song "On the Ball".
On the way back to the University the marchers held another protest outside the Dominion offices against the editorial policy of the paper.
The late Enid Blyton was a writer whose works demonstrated a breadth of vision which was not always appreciated by her many readers.
Now an Enid Blyton Club has been formed by students at Melbourne University to further study of the works of this famous authoress. Particular emphasis is to be placed on works featuring the character 'Noddy'. The Club's founder says that authoritative interpretations of Miss Blyton's works will be forthcoming as a result of 'participatory analysis'.
As part of the programme of participatory analysis, Club members have held several picnics in the hills around Melbourne. All attending the picnics wear brightly coloured clothes, drink lemonade and suck giant lollipops. Travel to and from picnics is undertaken in little yellow cars with Large blue horns. Gnome hunts have been organised but have proved unsuccessful to date. Lack of success here may be due to the fact that gnomes have been declared noxious animals by the Victorian Legislative Assembly.
One of the Enid Blyton Club's preliminary reports says that evidence has been revealed of racial bigotry in the carefully-wrought character 'Noddy'. The Club's report cites a remark made to a policeman by Noddy: "Are you a toy policeman? Only toy policemen are allowed to live in Toyland."
Lectures will cease at 6pm on both Wednesday 6 May and Thursday 7 May 1970.
Classes are suspended from 11am to 2pm on the day of the annual capping procession—Thursday, 7 May.
Charles Draper is the new Chairman of the Focus Administration Board.
At the NZUSA Executive meeting on 26 April, Mr Draper, last year's NZUSA Education Vice-President, defeated Simon Arnold in an election for the Chairmanship. Heughan Rennie, a member of the Board, had earlier withdrawn his candidacy for the Chairmanship in favour of Mr Draper.
David Caygill. Publications Officer at Canterbury University, was elected to the vacancy in the ordinary membership of the Board. Unsuccessful candidates in this election were Mr Arnold and Bill Logan.
The Executive also resolved that the Focus Distribution Manager should be, ex officio, a member of the Board and the constitution is to be amended accordingly. (Lindsay Wright, NZUSA Education Research Officer, is Distribution Manager at present).
Two co-options to the Board-of Pauline Swam as Secretary and David Harcourt as ordinary member-were also ratified by the Executive at the meeting.
An Executive motion, That this association withdraw from newspaper exchange schemes with other universities, was reported to the SRC of 28 April.
This scheme is alleged by Executive to cost $1000 a year to run. The Executive felt that greater advantages can be gamed from other use of this money.
This decision means that students will no longer find free copies of Craccum, Chaff, Critic, Canta or Caclin in the foyer. But three or four copies of each paper will still be bought and put on file.
An Executive decision that the Association should not buy copies of "Living with sex" has been reversed by the SRC.
2000 copies of the booklet—which was originally published by the Canterbury University Students' Association and is now sponsored by NZUSA—are to be bought for $100.
"Living with sex" will be distributed free to students unless it is passed by the Indecent Publications Tribunal. In this case, it will be sold.
"Financial decisions in the last two weeks are definitely going to take us into the red this year," said Denis Phelps at an Executive meeting on Monday 27th April.
He said this in the course of discussions concerning the possibility of a grant towards helping establish a Maori Research Centre at Waikato.
All universities are being asked to contribute to this fund.
The centre was incorporated in the original development of Waikato but the government postponed it. The Grants Committee has twice had their recommendation to establish it turned down and refuses to put the case a third time.
Due to more pressing financial responsibilities the Executive decided not to grant any money to the fund.
Financial matters were the main concern of the Executive. The Education sub-committee had approached Executive for $50 for their sex education programme. Executive considered education a top priority and granted this money.
They also granted S25 to the Stop the Tour Campaign. Opinion was divided on this grant. Some members felt that university groups or committees should not sit back and look to Executive for money.
The social committee was refused money to hold its cocktail party in conjunction with the Miss Victoria contest.
But money was made available for the drinking horn. Executive felt that drinking horn was a traditional occurrence and would be expected by the students.
the NZBC launches new look m concerts
Friday 22 May
at 6.30 p.m.
premieres of new music including electronic
Photo Music II by Wellington's
Ian McDonald
NZBC Symphony Orchestra
early evening at
Wellington Town Hall
Prom-style informality
New music introduced by
American Conductor
John Barnett
Former child prodigy
celebrity pianist
Ruth Slenczynska
plays the popular
Liszt Piano Concerto No. 1
Also music by Rossini, Walter
Piston, New Zealander John
Rimmer and modern American
Michael Colgrass.
Youth Concert '70 Wellington Town Hall
Friday 22 May
Remamber 6.30 p.m. starting
time Book at D.I.C.
Prices only 50c and 75c
Snacks served at the interval.
A University Club is to be established in Wellington in the near future according to a report tabled at the April meeting of the University Council.
The report, tabled by one of last year's student representatives on the council and a senior lecturer in Administration, Mr David Shand, said that the Club will be officially launched at a function in early June.
Established by lay members of the University Council on the initiative of former NZUSA President, Peter Rosier, the Committee on the Establishment of a University Club is now seeking University help for initial finance.
The Committee envisages a membership of between 800 and 1200 and reported to council that it would need at least $10,000 to be met from sources other than subscriptions in order to become established.
Mainly for university graduates, the Club is looking for clubroom facilities in the business area of the city. The establishment committee has adopted a full constitution, is seeking incorporation, and will be attempting to gain a license for the sale of liquor.
The drinking facilities of the Staff Club are now open to Ph.D. students.
This was decided at an extraordinary General Meeting of the Victoria Staff Club held on 22 April.
At the meeting the Club's constitution was amended to give Ph.D. students associate membership. This means that Ph.D. students will now have access to the Club's facilities and have an obligation to pay the club's subscription, but will not be entitled to attend meetings or be elected to the committee of the Club.
It was also decided that students who are the wives or husbands of staff members shall have visiting rights to the Staff Common Room: All Council members, including student representatives on the Council, are to continue to be honorary members of the Staff Club.
Table service will continue to be available in the first-floor dining room.
This was decided at the 20 April meeting of the SRC where a motion to have table service abolished was heavily defeated.
Socialist Club members George Fyson and Howard Moses, who moved the motion, said that the abolition of table service would help to stop class distinction on the campus.
Margaret Bryson pointed out that the Catering Sub-Committee of the Student Union Management Committee had already passed a recommendation to Mr Levenbach, asking that table service be made completely optional.
Increasing theft and vandalism have been noted in the Student Union.
On Monday 27 April Executive passed a motion that "Executive views with grave concern all incidents of vandalism and theft in the Union."
Apparently there has been an increase not only in the theft of such items as ash trays and cutlery, but also in theft of sweets from the counter of the canteen in the ground floor cafeteria.
At the SRC of 28 April Miss Bryson pointed out that the inevitable result of such actions would be increased prices for food.
Graduands' dinners will again be subsidised this year by the Association.
At an SGM on 22 April a motion calling for no subsidy for the graduands' dinners was lost.
Bill Logan in moving the motion, said he believed that graduates were earning enough money from their jobs and bursaries to be able to pay for the dinners themselves He said that over S600 would be saved if the dinners were not subsidised.
Margaret Bryson, the President, said she believed there should be a subsidy. She said that the Capping Balls were expected to make a $1,200 profit. "This means we are making about a $200 profit out of the graduate functions," she said.
Gary Weinberg and John Kirkby may play League in Sydney next year.
A reliable source has intimated that a wellknown Sydney Rugby League club has invited the two players to sign up.
Their salary is reported to be "running into five figures".
Both Gary and John are members of the Victoria Senior A team and past members of the Wellington representative team.
The offer has not been definitely turned down and it is rumoured that they will be moving to Sydney at the end of the academic year in order to prepare for next year's league season.
The Students Association wants the Legal System unit to be cross-creditable to an Arts degree.
A motion urging the Professorial Board to make this change was passed at the 23 April SRC.
Mr Frykberg, speaking to the motion said that some people found the going too hard in the law department and wanted to change to a B.A.
They were often deterred from doing so because they could not cross-credit all the units they had already done.
The University's International Club is to take on a new format this year.
As well as the usual elected officers, the club committee will also include one elected representative of each Overseas Student's Association.
These representatives will automatically become members of the International Club and will not have to pay a subscription.
Club President Paul Karalus said this step had been taken because the overseas students were forming their own national associations and this had resulted in a falling off of support for the International Club.
This year the club hopes to hold a number of combined functions with each Overseas Student's Association being host.
An International Concert, a wine and cheese evening and an International Ball are also planned for this year.
The NZUSA Executive were joined by representatives of the Wellington Teachers College Executive in a discussion with members of the Blake-Palmer Committee on Drug Abuse and Drug Dependency in New Zealand.
While the meeting was held in camera reliable sources indicated that the Executive were interested in discussing (amongst other things) the question of the legalisation of marijuana.
A draft History of NZUSA is to be presented to the June meeting of the National Executive.
In preparation since
The author, Lindsay Wright, NZUSA's Education Research Officer said that the final document will deal with the Association's growth as a pressure group in national and university affairs.
"The growth of Tournaments, Arts Festivals, Volunteer Service Abroad, and even the local student press has been closely associated with NZUSA" said Mr Wright. "The background to these and other activities should provide valuable information to future student leaders".
Discontent has been expressed by Auckland President, Mike Law and Lincoln President, John Hayes, on the viability of the Asian Students Association.
In a lively discussion at the Executive meeting International Vice-President Trevor Richards, argued for a transfer of the Association's Headquarters from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong.
Such a move, he argued, might increase the possibility of extending the membership beyond being "a sort of Students for Seato-type organisation".
Set up in
Trevor Richards has been selected as NZUSA delegate to the Conference.
A Mr Victoria Contest is to be held this year in conjunction with the Miss Victoria Contest.
This was decided following overwhelming opposition to an SRC motion calling for the abolition of the Miss Victoria Contest.
The SRC also decided that the winner of the Mr Victoria contest would be the person with the loveliest legs.
Caclin Editor Steve Blackemore has published an apology to Lincoln President Hayes and ex-President Payne.
Last week a supplement of Caclin, the Lincoln student newspaper contained an apology from Steve Blakemore, the Editor, and a reply to his open letter by Mr Payne and Mr Hayes.
On Monday 23rd March the new Executive headed by John Hayes was to take over from the
Salient's report of what happened at this meeting is corrected in detail. Apparently Mr Payne did not say, 'it is a pity we cannot hand over the new Executive as we have done in the past' or 'that any further action or remits would have to be handled through "Caclin".'
Discussion of remits through Caclin would be pointless as Caclin did not come out until after the Easter Council. It was however suggested that theft of sheets from the College laundry, the format of the Annual Report, and Lincoln students in Christchurch hostels should be discussed in Caclin.
The meeting collapsed for want of a quorum and did not reach a decision on National and International remits.
'Mr Payne said after the meeting that he did not think that it would be possible to regain the quorum and that the meeting was probably over.' The AGM was not officially closed.
On Tuesday morning Mr Payne ruled that he was still the Acting President as the AGM had not been closed.
A continued AGM was called for 12.30pm on Tuesday, and the meeting was advertised in the lecture rooms and announced at lunchtime. About 200 students attended.
Mr Hayes could have dissociated from National and International commissions without a direction from a student meeting as Mr Payne had done the year before. However he wished to have his ideas supported by a student meeting.
The motion was 'That the LCSA dissociate from the International and National Commission of NZUSA at Faster Council.'
No attempt was made to block opposition as students spoke for and against the motion, Canterbury Executive members and the NZUSA Vice-President were refused speaking rights though, as it was thought they had unofficially been asked 'to antagonise the meeting'.
Mr Hayes and Mr Payne spoke strongly for the motion, 'but they did so as student leaders and they did so in good faith.'
No one objected to the continued AGM and the motion was carried 116 to 30.
The Chairman closed the meeting at 1.00pm. At Easter Council Mr Hayes attended the International Commission 'to find out what moves in restructure were being made,' and 'to put forward Lincoln policy as necessary so that NZUSA delegates had an opportunity to compromise along Lincoln lines.'
However no Lincoln delegate said anything at National Commission and Lincoln did not vote at either National or International Commission.
Steve Blakemore still holds, however, that the continued AGM was unconstitutional.
Early unionists came to New Zealand from Britain, "to drink themselves to death".
King of Quiz. Mr Jim Winchester made this claim at a meeting of the VUW Historical Society, at which the history of radical dissent in New Zealand was discussed.
Mr Winchester told the meeting that the wooden railings around Parliament were removed became dissenters had used them to club police.
He was also of the opinion that the New Zealander is the tamest worker in the world. "Our radical dissent is based on what goes on overseas," he said.
Mr A.H. Scotney, a former radical student and editor of Salient, recounted the history of university dissent in Wellington.
He recalled that for
Mr Scotney said that in Spike was suppressed by the Professorial Board. "They cleared it from every bookshelf in town" he said. It contained an anti-war article written by the now Professor I.D. Campbell entitled "Farewell to Arms". It included a suggestion that World War One was a war for companies and businessmen.
Mr Conrad Bollinger, a trade union historian, said that the state had been capable of some appalling acts of fascism. He said that the government should not be able to put ships to sea with untrained crews. They had done so in four major disputes, he said.
Mr W.J. Scott, Chairman of the Council of Civil Liberties, said there should be an inquiry into the conduct of the police during Vice-President Agnew's visit. The power the police had to stop demonstrations was a bad thing, he said.
Future Students' Association demonstrations will not have the official sanction of the police.
It was decided at an SRC meeting on 20 April that the Association would not apply for permits for demonstrations, nor would the Police be advised of impending demonstrations.
Executive have granted $5,500 to Sports Council for 1970.
This was decided on Monday 27th April. At the last Executive meeting a tentative budget of S4,000 was proposed.
Last year Sports Council was granted $5.000. $1.000 is still owed to the Sports Council from last year and this will be paid.
At least fifty percent of Sports Council funds goes into affiliation fees. If it had been granted $4,000 by the Students Association this year the total income would have been $1,765 less than was spent last year.
With the grant of $5,500 this year Sports Council's income will be $7,000.
Lecturers' Representation was discussed at a special meeting of the Lecturers' Association on Monday 20 April.
Speaking to the motion, That this Association reaffirm its traditional policy of seeking representation for lecturers on all University committees and, in particular, on the Joint Committee. Mr N. Wright said the motion was intended as a rebuke to the executive of the Lecturers' Association.
Dr T. Beaglehole said that a meeting of the Lecturers' Association last year decided against seeking representation for lecturers on the Deans Committee. Dr Beaglehole said the aim should not be to Infiltrete the Deans Committee but to smash it.
The motion was defeated.
Speaking to the motion. That this Association has no confidence in the present executive, Mr N. Wright said that the executive of the Lecturers' Association was not responsible to any AGM or SGM, and so it was farcical that other university bodies should call upon the executive of the Lecturers' Association lo give expression to the views of lecturers.
The motion lapsed for want of a seconder.
As a result of the Caterers sub-committee meeting a number of changes have been made in the dining rooms.
These include the buying of a new coffee-making machine and a new pie warmer to provide better facilities.
A report by Margaret Bryson on the submissions to Mr Levenbach and his answers has also been prepared.
She points out that one of the most serious problems facing the cafe at the moment was loss of such things as cups, spoons and milk bottles. This term alone 670 milk bottles had gone missing from the cafe.
It is also mentioned that the question of prices would come up later in the year.
Margaret Bryson said that. "We must recognise the caterer's difficulties and prepare ourselves fot some increases later on."
In reply to the A.G.M. motion to have Mr Levenbach's contract made open to tender, the report says; "As the result of our discussions with the caterer tend to (sic) improvements indicated, there is no reason why the present contract . . . should not be completed to the mutual satisfaction of both parties."
An Overseas Students Conference is to be held in Christchurch this year under the sponsorship of NZUSA.
"It is designed to determine the nature and extent of problems facing Overseas Students and to evolve solutions which can be applied within the context of the University." said Rhaman Khan, the organiser.
"Overseas students have many problems tike other students." he said, "but they also have some that are unique."
This is to be an open meeting and representatives from the University Grants Committee. The External AM Division of the External Affairs Department and the Labour Department will be attending.
About 150 representatives are expected to attend. Five delegates from Victoria are among the 22 delegates from Students' Associations outside the Christchurch area.
Speakers will present papers on specialist topics that concern overseas students and their problems in New Zealand.
Previous Conferences on Overseas Students have been held in 1966 and 1968 and this year's Conference will attempt to involve overseas students in formulating NZUSA policy.
Canta's 24 April front page news story on the Mount John Satellite Tracking Station at least provoked a reply from Mr Holyoake. Salient's similar front page article (entitled Tracker's Military Use Verified) on 30 July last year did not bring any response from the Government. The assertion of both news stories was the same: that the Tracking Station has a military function. This allegation has not yet been denied—as it was so strenuously in the case of the proposed Omega installation. In the following article, Les Atkins outlines how documents issued by the United States Information Service have made it perfectly clear that the Mount John Tracking Station is a military installation. The article purports to do no more than that. The desirability or otherwise of a close involvement in the American defence' system is something that the reader can well we believe, form his own opinions about.
The Mount John Satellite Tracking Station became operational on 19 October last year. The principal piece of equipment in the Station is a Baker-Nunn camera—that is, a Super Schmidt astronomical tracking telescope with a time recording system connected to a highly accurate time standard. The camera is capable of detecting a six metre sphere at the distance of the moon.
According to the USIS and the New Zealand Government, the camera's function is simply to track, for scientific purposes, the movement of orbital objects in space. Owen Wilkes, writing in Canta about Mount John, based his allegation that the Station has a military function upon a United States Air Force unclassified document entitled Aerospace Defence: Background Information. Salient's source of information was a USAF systems brochure which stated that the "Military Baker-Nunn stations" were an integral part of the USAF Spacetrack system which is, in turn, part of the Aerospace Defence Command. Canta's Background Information described the Baker-Nunn in the following terms:
"The Military Baker-Nunn is a tracking astronomical telescope camera. It is the most sensitive and precise satellite tracking instrument in the Space Defence System." The Space Detection and Tracking System (Spadats) of which Mount John is a unit is part of the Combat Operations Centre (COC). Background Information has this to say about COC: "The nerve centre of the air defense system is the COC . . . This centre is linked by communications systems to all subordinate commands and key governmental agencies. An attack warning would be flashed simultaneously to Aerospace defence units, the Strategic Air Command, civil defense agencies of the US and Canada, the Pentagon and the Canadian National Defence H.Q."
The USAF booklet then goes on to describe the location of COC 1400 feet under Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs. A description is also given of the way in which the computer-processed data [from Sensors such as that at Mount John] is deployed on giant display consoles before operators who control deployment of all America's nuclear weaponry. Amongst the weapon systems at their disposal is the Aerospace Defence Command's Anti-satellite Defence System—"a land based missile system which is capable of interception and destruction of armed satellites."
Owen Wilkes in the Canta article says Mount John "will help plot the course of any possible enemy-orbiting nuclear weapon so that anti-satellite missiles can shoot it down. Similar action would be taken against enemy surveillance, communication, navigation and weather satellites, all of which are militarily useful." Mr Holyoake's reply to Canta's allegations, (Evening Post 28 April), was an interesting one. At no point did the Prime Minister deny that the Mount John Station is a military installation. Mr Holyoake said that Canta seemed well versed in running scare stories: "Two years ago we had Canta starting scare stories about Omega . . . Now they seem to be starting on the Baker-Nunn Satellite Tracking Station."
"There is plenty of public information about the Baker Nunn Station at Mount John," continued Mr Holyoake, "and it has been seen by many members of the public." This statement almost gives an accurate picture of the situation—"almost" because Mr Holyoake failed to state that the information which was made available was only made so after the agreement allowing the USAF to construct the Station was completed in virtual secrecy and, indeed, after the Station had been in fact constructed. Mr Holyoake then added "The only specific charge Canta makes seems to be that the Station is designed to enable the United States to shoot down orbiting nuclear weapons. To place such weapons in orbit would be a violation of the Space Treaty and there is no suggestion that any are in orbit."
Mr. Holyoake's remarks do not, of course, constitute in any way a denial of Mr Wilkes' assertions in Canta or the assertions made in Salient last year. They are, in fact, at variance with the information provided by Aerospace Defence: Background Information, the USAF document quoted earlier, which states quite clearly that the Baker-Nunn camera stations form part of the Aerospace Command. As has already been pointed out in this article, the Aerospace Command has control of an Anti-satellite Defence System "which is capable of interception and destruction of armed satellites." Mr Holyoake's reply on this point would therefore seem to have avoided the point
The pamphlet which provided the basis for Salient's
The next point of interest concerns the official reasons for the pursuance of the satellite tracking programme. Captain Boucher, senior officer at Mount John, gave the following reasons to Canta:
The Station's mission, according to the systems brochure, however is defined as follows:
for special projects and for the scientific community." [Emphasis mine]
Part (c) would imply, then, that there are special projects which are not of a scientific nature.
In the USAF brochure it is further stated that an important part of the processing of information received from the Baker-Nunn Stations is precision reduction of the film received. Originally only one laboratory could handle such precise data—the photo reduction laboratory of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. (SAO). SAO is exclusively a scientific organisation which itself operates a world-wide network of twelve Baker-Nunn cameras.
According to the USAF brochure, the USAF established its own laboratory, ruling out the use of that operated by SAO on three grounds: "This source [SAO] is not capable of satisfying our urgent requirement for the following reasons:
SAO can handle only unclassified data.The Sole Mission of that Facility is to Support Pure Science; Hence, it is not and Cannot be Responsive to Air Force Operational Needs."
Reasons two and three (above) speak for themselves. The first, however, carries further implications. According to Canta there is a tracking method, of greater accuracy than the normal one, which is used for some observations. This mode of tracking apparently provides nearly instantaneous transfer of data from film to the Colorado computer. Moreover, strict security measures are taken to prevent onlookers from viewing some of the Station equipment. Various conflicting reasons have been offered for this by the USAF—for example "there's a lot of delicate equipment which will break if kicked". Such speed and secrecy as regards information supplied by the Baker-Nunn camera would indicate three possible military uses:
Information gathered by the Mount John Station will, it is said, be made available to Canterbury University on whose land the Station has been built. It can be pointed out, however, that similar provisions were built into the agreement which lead to the establishment of the Woodbourne base—from which no information has been forthcoming.
A final note on Mount John worthy of some consideration. It has already been indicated that COC Headquarters, a likely target of espionage or first phase attack, are buried beneath a mountain and are capable of continuing operations for thirty days after being sealed off from the outside world. Mount John, it would seem, is also capable of existing independent of New Zealand support. A diesel generator and special water supply ensure this. In addition, rumour originating from those who assisted with Mount John construction, has it that the floor of the communications room had built into it demolition or immolation devices so that, according to Canta, it could be destroyed if its security were about to be compromised. Owen Wilkes noted a manual entitled Emergency Destruction Plan on a desk in the operations room.
In the last issue of Salient, Janice Marriott described Berkeley's February riots in protest about the Chicago Conspiracy Trial. She concludes that the violence on 15 February was "a wet dream for the ruling classes. There was no concrete political purpose to the demonstration, no distinction as to who should have been attacked. Both leaders and participants were bankrupt of ideals. The rampage was a victory for Reagan and a defeat for the people.".
Dr John C. Gowan, Professor of Education at San Fernando Valley State College, University of California and visiting professor at Canterbury University, was in Wellington last month to lecture in a University Extension seminar on educational guidance. We asked Dr Gowan to give us his thoughts on the matters raised in Janice Marriott's article.
It may be hard for New Zealand students to realise the simultaneous impact on American culture and in particular, on student culture of Vietnam, black student activity, drugs and the SDS. The concatenation of all these things, I think, has made our situation much more complex than your situation has been here.
One of the problems found throughout the world, and particularly in the United States, is the fact that it has been discovered by the New Left that the universities are a good haven for guerilla warfare, and I think this is precisely what we're getting. What we're going to have to figure out is how can one deal with this kind of activity because, frankly, I don't see how universities can survive in America very long under conditions like the present because they will not continue to be supported properly by public funds. The immediate reaction in a situation like this would be that the Government or legislature will withdraw funds from the university.
The problem therefore is that however well-meaning some of the objectives of the student protest at Berkeley may be, the result is going to be the loss of a great university and many of us who are friends of the University of California—and I myself have my doctorate from it—are very saddened by the prospect. This can be accomplished in a few years and it may take a century or it may actually be impossible to build a university like this back up again.
I would like to point out to you that one of the very unfortunate things that has happened at Berkeley is the fact that a small group of people—the SDS and the very far left—has been able to bring moderate students to its side due to the mistakes which have been made by administration and the establishment authorities. Now in the Berkeley case this has been compounded by the nearness of Berkeley to the state capital, Sacramento, and to Governor Reagan and to the fact that the Governor has personally intervened in Berkeley on several occasions.
In the past it has been found in American universities that the very small extreme radical group of people who are quite violent can't really make very serious trouble unless they can, through the mismanagement or the over-reaction of the authorities, bring the moderate students in with them. Wherever this has happened—as in Columbia and Harvard—there has always been a history of mistakes being made by the Vice-Chancellor or one of his representatives. I know my own university was in serious trouble in this regard because of mistakes which were made by the top people. In contrast, a nearby sister college escaped completely unharmed because of the almost brilliant understanding shown by the Dean of Students to legitimate student demands. In this way, he was able to separate the moderates from the extremists and to satisfy the realistic demands of the moderates. Wherever there has been peace in American university life it has been due to the fact that a separation has been effected between moderates and extremist. I think the answer is that if university authorities went a deal they have to deal with moderates and what happens so often is that they won't deal with anyone and then, of course, the moderates are supplanted by the extremists and the extremists draw the moderates in.
I'd like to give you an example—this from my own campus—of one of the more interesting things about American violence. The whole campus will be quiet and there's no trouble until about midday when the vast number of students are out for
New Zealand students might be interested in knowing approximately what percentage of students are involved in this thing. It has been estimated that about a 12% of students are really in the violent weathermen category. There is then about 214% of the student body—and I'm talking now about universities where there are, say, 20,000 students—who are well to the left. However, most of these students are not in favour of violence per se. They would be fellow travelers of some kind but unless they're provoked they're not in favour of bringing things down. Then about 10% more would be people who are sympathetic and who can be led in a particular not situation, but who are not primarily either strongly ideologically committed or politically committed. They consist of hippie types and militant black types and other people who are rather against the establishment but have no really strong commitment to anything else. Then you find probably 40% more of the students are what we call moderates. These people object to the draft, probably would like to see some changes in the marijuana laws and certainly want to see some more aspects of other changes. However, they will probably grow up and go the way their parents did because most students tend to, you know.
The final group of people, the rest of the student body, is inert and cannot probably be brought into the situation except when there is extreme provocation—when the police brutalise students or something like that—but ordinarily these people are the inert group. So we're talking about a group of people which is rather small and I think we have to realise that it is only when the public becomes impassioned or something that the small group is able to dominate and to lead.
The universities are a reflection of American culture. There's a lot of violence in American culture and I think that the violence in the universities is partly a reflection of that violence. Another point that I, as an older person, certainly see is that prosperity has to have its own type of adversity. Most of the young people in America have never known anything but complete prosperity, whereas those of us who are older came up through adversity in the Depression and so on and I think in a certain peculiar way we were advantaged by it. If a young person has never known anything but prosperity he has to find some kind of testing and he finds it in these ways which are outside and this is one of the reasons for the great generation gaps. When you talk to a young person and say "Well, if you're going to pull down a system, what are you going to put up?" he doesn't know and for us that's meaningless and for him it means something.
Another point is that the electronic media, particularly television, have made for tremendous difficulties of two-way communication. Now the process of orderly disputation and reconciliation, compromise and so on is essentially a process carried on by face-to-face discussion. It is not a process where one side gets on to television and airs his views. Take the situation between the Arabs and the Jews at the present time, for example, they never will come and talk with each other Each side wants to present its face to the public through the media and when you have a situation like that you never will get consensus, you'll never get agreement, you'll never get compromise or reconciliation as long as people are allowed to do that. Television—in its dramatic impact and the fact that it's much more interesting to see a fight than it is to see anything else—subtly encourages this lack of consensus. An example of this occurred during one of the riots on our campus. A television reporter was on campus with his television crew and some of the black militants had indulged in some violence. We found a black student who was not violent and we said to the reporter "Wouldn't you like to interview this student and see what he thinks about it because he represents a considerable majority of the black students?" He said "No—this is not news." So you see this is one of the problems.
I really think that one of the things that the whole world is going to have to contend with in a few years is the impact of electronic media on the thinking cognitive processes. In this sense, McLuhan was right. I think we are in a new ball game. The problem of dealing with controversy via electronic media is a really unsolved problem. In the so-called Nixon/Kennedy debates we thought we were going to get something. Actually what we got was mere posturing. We got images and this has resulted in our American democracy in the election of men like Reagan, Nixon, George Murphy and other people who primarily can present an image—some of them even being actors. This problem is a very serious one and one which is perhaps not fully realised even in the American culture.
The decision of the Dryden Society, a Cambridge University drama group, to tour South Africa last year aroused strong opposition at Cambridge. Harriet Walter wrote this article for The Observer on her return from South Africa.
"I Have come to South Africa to act. I am not interested in politics." Most of us in the Dryden Society supported this view when we arrived in South Africa last July for a three month drama tour, we opposed a culture boycott. Ten weeks later one of us was greeted with vociferous applause when he scrawled in red lipstick on the dressing-room mirror this appeal to the South African authorities: "Please, please deport us."
I had read about apartheid and it's consequences for the African before we left, but the recital of laws and statistics, of facts and figures, had not conveyed to me the essence of race relations in South Africa. Until seeing for myself with my own eyes, I found it difficult to appreciate the everyday humiliation inflicted on the Africans. Nor did I realise how bitterly apartheid is resented by young Africans. Our visit to Fort Hare opened my eyes to both facts.
The college is described by students and locals as the Fort. The visitor is greeted by wailing of sirens which signal the start and end of lecture periods. Driving through the main gate, he is confronted by a large signboard which reads:
No Unauthorised Person May Enter the College Grounds. By Order.
Its history, in brief, is as follows. In
We arrived almost entirely ignorant of all this. We started setting up in the hall and a few students wandered in from their lectures. It emerged that we were the first white students to have been allowed on the campus for over a year and they were therefore very suspicious of us: "Why have the authorities allowed you here?" They had naturally enough concluded that we must be Government stooges to be allowed on the campus, as other student bodies such as the National Union of South African Students and the University Christian Movement are banned.
It was only when we convinced them of our complete dissociation from white South Africa that their hostility broke down. Then they bombarded us with questions about England, British universities, our impressions of their country and our reasons for our visit, but our questions about South Africa, about Fort Hare, about their lives, were usually answered with a shrug of the shoulders and an enigmatic smile. Eventually, one of them took me aside.
"You must understand we are not free to discuss here. The Government pays the fees of most of the students and, if you wish to remain at university, you often have to become an informer."
We left to have supper with the Principal, Professor S.M. de Wet and his staff. The professors were not an impressive lot. The Professor of English Drama asked what play we were putting on and I replied Peter Weiss's Marat/Sade play.
"Oh yes, I've read it. What a very good play. I've always had a great admiration for its author, Brecht." We couldn't altogether suppress our amusement. "I've been telling my students for weeks now honoured they are as Xhosa people to be able to watch a performance of Cambridge University students." We began to understand why the students had been quietly hostile when we first met them.
As the time approached for our performance, the hall began to fill up with whites in evening dress. There were no students inside the building, but some 200 of them had gathered outside the hall. Our intended performance to the students and staff of Fort Hare was obviously in danger of becoming a performance to Europeans only. We went outside and asked the students why they were not coming in.
"We have come to play to you the students" we insisted.
"Then why are there all those Europeans in the hall?" they replied.
Soon the Rector and his staff were standing at the entrance listening to our conversation. He asked: 'Why are you talking to these people?' Beside him stood four Special Branch men taking down our conversation with the students.
Eventually a decision had to be taken.
"Will you come into the hall to watch our performance?"
"No, not under the present conditions," they replied.
"Would you like us to cancel the performance then?"
"Yes", loudly and unanimously.
We went back into the hall and our tour manager announced: "In conscience we feel unable to play here tonight against the wishes of the entire student body."
Pandemonium followed as the Europeans booed the announcement. A woman in the front row threw her bag at the tour manager as she and others stormed out of the hall. Outside, the students cheered our announcement and slow hand-clapped the audience as they left.
We returned to talk to the students, some of whom now wanted to see our play. The dialogue was shortlived, as Professor de Wet soon ordered us to leave immediately.
I approached him and his wife to try to discover their reaction to what had happened. Mrs de Wet lost her self-control and told me: "One thing I can tell you, their leaders will pay for this. We know who they are, don't we, darling? They will be called in tomorrow and will be dealt with."
The Professor was clearly embarrassed by this frankness and merely said: "Now you understand why we don't allow students from other universities on the campus. They must learn to be more respectful."
Later we met the students at the seminary across the road. I was introduced to a young man training to enter the Church. He told me his ambition was to leave the country and train to be a freedom fighter: "You must realise that violence is the only answer to our problems. This may sound strange to you coming from a theological student, but you need only to witness the continuing violence done to our people by the white man to understand."
When the history of New Zealand politics in the Salient feature will be lucky to rate a footnote. Yet these organisations are unique examples of attempts to start broadly-based right-wing movements and as such merit attention and analysis.
There is, perhaps, a more important reason why our attention should be drawn to the policies of the extreme right-wing. These policies are of especial interest because they provide us with valuable insights into the kind of unlovely thinking which provides a basis for the policies of more 'moderate' right wing political parties such as the National Party and, less importantly, the Social Credit Political League. (One feels that it is increasingly difficult to resist including the New Zealand Labour Party amongst the parties of the right-wing but that's a point that should be argued another time, perhaps).
The three groups dealt with at some length in the next few pages are the Nazi Party, the National Front and the Country Party. Shorter articles have been included on the Democratic Society, a breakaway Social Credit faction, the Co-Resistance Movement, the League of United Empire Loyalists and Australian fascist Eric Butler. The only serious omissions are a discussion of the
Some of the difficulty involved in penetrating the Rhodesia groups may be evident to readers when we explain that head of the Wellington effort is well-known campus right-winger Jim Mitchell. Mr Mitchell was kind enough to supply us with some material for use in this issue. It all too clearly bore the mark of having been edited for left-wing consumption. We do have in our possession, however, a copy of the "Candour League of Rhodesia" publication Rhodesia and World Report (Vol. 3, No. 1—The convulsions of a dying civilisation. The article was written by Eric D. Butler, described in the magazine as the "National Director. Australian League of Rights". Mr Butler talks of a "national upsurge of support for the honest words uttered by Mr Powell" and "the basic character of the Anglo-Saxon, which has clearly demonstrated itself in the Rhodesian stand". Something of Mr Butler's political creed is suggested in the brief article on him which appears towards the end of this feature. The Aid Rhodesia/Friends of Rhodesia groups indict themselves through their choice of such bedfellows.
In the case of the three major groups dealt with here, we have tried, as far as possible, to let them speak for themselves. The interview with Nazi Leader Colin Ansell is the first to be published. We obtained it only after a patient stalking through Otahuhu, Panmure and, finally, Otara. If any readers would like to obtain further information on the Party we would recommend that they write to Mr Ansell. We found him most co-operative and would like to express our thanks to him for his assistance.
Salient readers may be interested in one response to our interview with Mr Ansell: Australian National Socialist Journal (the magazine of the Australian Nazi Party) appeared to confirm our correspondent's claim. We were inclined to be a little suspicious of the way in which his letter followed hard on our return to Wellington—he must at least be a close associate of Mr Ansell. However, we have acted on legal advice in removing the person's name from the interview.
The National Secretary of the National Front, Mr B.B. Thompson, of No 2 R.D., Ashburton, was also very co-operative. Among the material we have reprinted is a series of extracts (including the Front's "policy objectives") from Counter Attack, the New Zealand Front's newsletter, and excerpts from Spearhead and Candour—magazines published by the National Front in Britain. The Front is particularly interesting in that it has incorporated the League of United Empire Loyalists an ultra-right wing nationalistic group which achieved considerable renown in the fifties.
Finally, we have reprinted the TV and radio addresses made by Cliff Emeny, leader of the Country Party, as the opening of the
We feel certain that many readers will find the material in this feature highly entertaining. We would ask them to reflect, however, on the fact that New Zealand has just returned a right-wing government to office for a fourth term. Two last points: we are pleased to offer a prize of five groats to the Salient reader who provides the best reply to the questions posed by the lucid and brilliant Mr J.F.L. Hartley in the first paragraph excerpted from his booklet New Zealand's Asian Destiny (see page 15). Secondly, we appreciate that Law Faculty readers may find this Salient feature as dull as they found our feature on rock music (this time because the material is too familiar). They may wish to amuse themselves by asking, with Clare Macdonald (in Spearhead, Whatever Happened?
Colin Ansell is 25 years old. He works as a barman in Panmure, lives with his mother and father in Otara and is leader of the New 'Zealand Nazi Party.
We've fought in the streets of course. We've fought all over the world to gain what we're after. As far as promoting industry and the welfare of the people, we want to put this first we want to stop industrial unrest—there seems to be too much of it. As I said in the Party Programme, we don't want the unions to become just a political pressure group. We want them to become more assistant to the Government. In other words, make labour work together as they're doing in West Germany at the moment where union officials are actually on the payroll of the management. They actually participate in the management of the factories. This is how we reckon unions should be run in this country, and that's what that point aims at, promoting better relations in industry.
What is it that your Party stands for that so markedly distinguishes it from anybody else?
In this country of course we're not the same as what you read about overseas. We're not a racist organisation.
Why not? If the Nazi Parties in Britain and Australia . . .
In Australia, they've got an all-white Australia policy but in America they're pushing this desegregation, they're forcing people to go with blacks, you'll get the white backlash. The Nazi Party there of course is cashing in on it. They're cashing in on this anti-black. And of course you've got the Black Panthers running round and shooting up people. You find, in most cases, the negroes are mostly communist. They're preaching the works of Mao; they're running round with their little red books. And of course you'll find most of these negro organisations have at least two or three jews on the Board of Directors.
In most of the negro organisations?
Yes.
And this communist influence is pretty strong amongst the negroes?
It is, yes. In New Zealand here we don't have the same Communist Party though it's really a minority. Of course they've got their branches like Care and Hart.
They're branches of the Communist Party?
Yes, they are communist organisations. Of course the PYM claim they're not communist, but . . .
And Care and Hart and the PYM are communist organisations . . . What other bodies do you think are either communist or communist-influenced?
There was one other body many years ago called 'Ban the Bomb' crowd.
The "Ban the Bomb' crowd?
They were communist. Since China's got the bomb, they've suddenly died away. No one's heard anything more from them. It's happened throughout the world. You don't see any more big 'ban the bomb' marches, since China got the bomb. When Russia had the bomb, the States had the bomb, of course, there were lots of marches. You've probably seen them in Auckland, all over the world, but suddenly the Chinese got their first bomb and these groups died away.
What about communist-influenced groups in New Zealand? Do you think there are very many of these?
Not too many. There's the unions of course, they're pretty well communist-influenced. Either communist or the Russian Socialist Unity Party.
It seems then that one of the principal emphases of your party is on this anti-communist line . . .
You could say we're anti-communist. Of course we're anti-Jew, because Jews are communists
You're anti-communist and you're anti-Jew because Jews are communists?
A lot of leading communists are Jews. To give an example: Lenin was a Jew. His name's Goldman, alias Lenin. Trotsky—the character who I think was murdered in Mexico—his name's Bernstein. Another example, Emma Goldman in the United States, head of the Communist Party over there, she's a Jew.
You're also opposed to capitalism, aren't you?
Yes.
And where do you think this manifests itself in New Zealand?
From the Jews.
The Jews again?
They are the capitalists. They're playing both sides of the paddock. You hear of some of them in Russia—the Jews there being persecuted. Of course there is the familiar case of one bunch of Jews persecuting another bunch. In other words, you've got the atheist Jews against the orthodox Jews. That is, capitalism and communism. You've got your atheist Jews who are usually the communists, and your capitalist Jews who are usually in most cases, running a country.
'I'd like to refer now to your Party Programme. Point 9 reads: "It must be the first duty of each citizen to work with his mind or his body for the good of the nation. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good." Could you explain this principle a little further?
Well, everybody really is a shareholder in the prosperity of any country. We pay our taxes, we expect at least to have a stable government and a stable financial system. I can give a good example: Germany of the
The original policy of the Nazi Party in Germany?
Yes, the original
Point 21, now: "We stand for honest press but we shall make it a criminal offense for any medium of the public information or entertainment to consciously mislead the public by lies, misrepresentations, omissions, deletions or by any other method whatsoever."
A good example of this problem was a piece in the Auckland Star, it had no news significance, someone had decided they'd rehash the idea of the concentration camps. Right in the middle of the news features, it had no news interest, just happened to be rehashing of old ideas. Reopening of old wounds really, that's all it was. Some article that had come out of Poland. It was written by a Jew. I replied to it, outlined the whole theory; the letter was never published.
What did you have to say in your letter?
I outlined the whole theory of the 6 million, quoted from a newspaper report in The New York Times—which is a Jewish newspaper—by a Jewish correspondent who stated in his article that in
And they didn't publish this letter?
No, But if you worked it out, it would have meant that every Jew would have been having sexual intercourse with every Jewess of child-bearing age 24 hours a day, during those 10 years. It's not humanly possible, even for Jews. You'd have over 11 million Jews under the age of 10.
To what extent is your Programme a redraft of the 1923 Nazi Party Programme?
There isn't much of the
Every party everywhere?
Yes, the Australian Party, the American, Colin Jordan's former Party; he had a very good programme there. Basically his programme would be the same, except we've adapted it to New Zealand, as far as industry goes. But it's more close to home, so to speak. He aimed his Party programme for both Australia and New Zealand. In those days, of course, he was interested in the Commonwealth National Socialist Union, rather than the world.
Do you have a great deal of correspondence with people like the Australian Nazi Party?
A bit of correspondence. Unfortunately, I don't get on too well with the Australian Nazi leader.
Why's that?
I consider him to be an upstart.
What's his name?
Wenberg. He seems to have the wild idea that he wants to make New Zealand part of Australia. I'm a nationalist. I won't wear it. I don't think any New Zealander, any good New Zealander, would wear the idea of us becoming part of Australia. I don't want to see Australia's problems out here. They've got an all-white policy. Imagine how the Maori people would feel as second-class citizens? That's what the Australians want. It's in their own programme—that New Zealand should become part of Australia.
How about Parties in Germany itself or in the United States, or in Britain?
In the States, of course, there's the World Union, and the National Socialist White People's Party at Arlington, Virginia. They are the main body, but we're not affiliated to the World Union. We're independent.
Why?
The World Union's policy, the Cotswold Agreement, is too binding. It is a white extremist policy. It's too binding for New Zealand. I don't want to bind New Zealand down to any other country.
It's this racist element that you reject?
Yes. I also reject their policy for the simple reason that in the Cotswold Agreement it states that there shall be one world leader and every country shall be represented by him. In other words, there'll be one world dictator. I don't
The Cotswold Agreement—when was that drawn up?
It was drawn up in Britain in
By whom?
By representatives of Great Britain, United States (represented by Rockwell), France Belgium, Germany, a few small splinter groups from various eastern countries, refugee group . . . Australia was there—Arthur Smith in those days.
Arthur Smith. What happened to him?
Last I heard of him he'd disappeared to Flanders Island in Bass Strait.
What's at Flanders Island?
It's just the place where he happens to be hiding at the present time.
Why?
Arthur Smith was an . . . idiot. Actually his right-hand man is living in New Zealand at the present time.
Who's that?
Mr
I should imagine you found that sort of contact a great help.
Oh yes, he's a great help. He was the one that edited the programme down to the original thirty points.
Why, was it bigger than that before?
I had a lot of ideas. He took them down and put them into some sort of order.
And does he work fairly closely with you?
Yes.
What does he do in Auckland?
He's a Union representative.
Which union?
I'm not saying. Just in case someone gets wise to it. I believe he does expound his political views but he's pretty high up in the unions.
Quite a few other Party members are. In various unions; clerical workers, engineers, hotel workers . . . We've got a few people in minor positions in the freezing works, but it's pretty well a closed union. It's communist. They've made no bones about that. You'll find that where there's a gathering of freezing workers, there's always someone selling People's Voice.
Does it just happen that the sort of people who are attracted by your programme or who get interested in it are in these particular organisations or are you looking for people in the unions?
No, we're not. These people in most cases have been elected since they've become Party members.
But they haven't been elected on your Party's programme?
No. They've been elected because they've provec, themselves to be leaders, and to be forceful speakers; people who are prepared to get down and do something. In most cases a lot of these unions have been weak unions where they've had no representation to the management. The management has actually been running roughshod all over them, and these people have come forward, they've organised their members into a group. A good example was the Engineers' Union in a certain factory, not locally. Quite a big factory.
In Otara?
No. In Auckland, Actually in the Penrose district. They had no union representative. One of our members organised the union people into a strong group. This chap is one of our biggest financial supporters too—he's been a Party member for well over 50 years, he was one of the early members of the German Party, he's a German, he's living in New Zealand here and working down at this place as an engineer. An way, now the people at this factory are getting what they want: a proper rate of pay and proper working conditions. You'll find all political parties have some sort of influence in the unions. The Labour Party would be by far the biggest.
Do you have any influence in the Hotel Workers' Union?
Not at the moment. I used to at one time.
Would it prejudice the sort of effectiveness your Party members could have in, say, unions if it was known that they were members of the Party?
No. Look at people like Bill Anderson, Secretary of the Drivers' Union—he's know to be a member of the Socialist Unity Party, but he's a good organiser and therefore, as long as that person is capable of doing his job that's all the members worry about.
So it wouldn't worry the union people to know that people are members of your Party?
No. All of them are members of some party, at some time.
Are you worried about recriminations from people?
No. I'm not worried. People get on my back, but I don't think that really worries me at all. I'm always having somebody grumbling about something. Actually, the majority of people I run into seem to think I'm a communist.
How often do you have meetings here?
Once a month.
And how many people attend meetings?
Well it depends on whether they can get away. Some of them are working in the evenings, some are not.
But you'd get, what, 20 or 30 people, or more?
About 20. We expect more at the next meeting, of course, because there's a film evening tied in with it.
And the films are . . .?
Actually it's a film called Crimes of Adolf Hitler. It's made by a Jewish film company, Metro Goldwyn Mayer. And they've just produced this one The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I don't think it's been shown in Wellington yet; it's just finished in Auckland.
"The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich" is of course a book by William Shirer.
Who's also a Jew. He appears in the film. He's gone to great lengths to actually try and make it look as stupid as possible.
The Third Reich?
Yes. He's shown things I've never seen before. I believe there were real concentration camps, but the gas chambers, no.
You don't believe that the gas chambers existed?
No, I don't, Crematoriums, yes. There was one crematorium at Auschwitz.
What did you need crematoriums for?
There were people dying.
Why were they dying?
There was starvation in Germany. It wasn't just in the concentration camps. It was throughout the whole German population. There were people dying. Natural causes. You got people dying of natural causes. Old people.
But people in Germany were not gassed?
As far as I know, no.
When you say, as far as you know . . .
As far as I know from what records I've had access to, and from reports overseas, in some cases from people who've actually seen these concentration camps.
I'd like to ask some questions now about your own background. For a start, how old are you?
25. I was born locally, of course, in Otahuhu.
You went to school here?
Yes. I wanted to be a soldier. I worked for the Government.
Which Department?
Defence Department.
What section were you in?
Army. I was in the services for a while. Then I came out and took a job for a while with a drug company, looking after their books and that.
And you had accounting experience?
Yes.
At school?
In the Army.
You went straight into the Army?
No. No I worked for a while.
Where was this?
In the hospitals. I was a porter there.
At what age did you go into the hospital?
I'd be about 17 then.
And so you into the hospitals, and then you went on into the Army . . .
No, left the hospital and went into a factory as their quality control engineer.
How old were you then?
I'd be about 19—18 or 19.
And the Army, was this CMT?
No, no, regular force.
But you didn't like the Army?
I didn't like it very much, no. I wasn't the type of person who could settle down and knuckle under anybody else. I was too independent.
For how long were you in the Army?
A year and a half. And I came out and settled down in a company where I had a free hand virtually to myself. I was my own department. I was responsible for the pricing of all their goods, that was my job. Looking after all imports coming in, checking figures from overseas, adding to the freight and wharfage charges, which can be pretty high in this country. Adding them all up and then setting the cost price, for each individual item, using mostly calculators.
And after you finished that job?
I went into the army for a while, as a civilian employee.
How long were you there?
A few months.
And then you went into the bar job?
Then I went into the hotel trade. That was after 10 o'clock closing came in, there were more prospects then.
And at the moment you're a . . .
In a hotel. As a steward.
Do you have any interests other than your work in the National Socialist Party?
I'm interested in youth. And I'm forming a small youth group—independent of the Party; more or less a group of young chaps interested in military training, hiking, climbing, things like that.
Where will this be?
In Otahuhu. I've got a few other interests. I'm a member of different groups, of course.
Such as?
The Samoan Progressive Movement, I'm a member of that. That's the only one at the present time. I'm also forming a New Zealand Deutchesbund—a German Club.
But there are German Clubs now aren't there?
Not in this country. There are no German clubs whatsoever. I've already spoken to the German Consul. He's very enthusiastic with the idea of a German Club.
Will he give you any help?
Yes. I think so, yes.
To return now to the Party Programme: what you mean by Point 26—"We shall take vigor methods to restore to women the dignity status they deserve as creators of our citizens?
Well, motherhood should be a trade. Girls
You think all girls should be encouraged to this?
Yes. Very strongly. There's been a lack of it.
The next point in the Party Programme says "shall deal ruthlessly and efficiently with habit criminals instead of the present policy of treat them as lost sheep," and you've noted in programme that the Nazi Party intends "rescue most of the criminal teenagers by dea with their need for action and excitem realistically by forming them into para-milit organisations of the Police Youth Auxiliar patrol our streets and to turn louts over regular authorities." You seem to tend more punishment of criminals than rehabilitation your Programme.
But I don't mean punishment such as the
Is the most humiliating punishment the
Yes, it is. I think that nothing could make
You referred before to the birch. You're
No. It gains nothing. In fact, you actually
This was a result of the synagogue incide Could you go over that? You, threw a br through a window, or something . . .
Brick through a window.
This was a synagogue in Auckland?
Yes. In those days it was in Princes/
And you threw a brick through a window?
Brick through a window.
Why?
In those days I wasn't a National Socialist. I
Were there many people like you?
Quite a few.
When was this?
Ah, '67.
And you threw the brick through the wind and you were apprehended by the police. The what happened?
I was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, a Jewish magistrate. Mr Izard.
You haven't had any trouble since then?
No real trouble. I've had the police around a
What are they interested in now?
Just making sure I'm not out
They think you're going to do that do they?
Probably, after the recent spate of bombings.
why it
I see, So this is a total of supporters and an actual membership?
Yes.
Are you living at home at the moment? That's your mother and family?
Yes. I don't want their address printed.
Not in Salient?
No. You can print the Post Office box number if you like. You sec my parents are not the same believers. That's what she was going crook at.
I think the opinion of the majority of New Zealanders who knew anything about it would be that Naziism is a bad thing.
Oh yes.
Do you find that this makes it difficult for you to get on with other people?
No, no.
This doesn't make problems at all?
Very few problems. I get the odd idiot occasionally—who hasn't got any more brains than a louse, but you get these odd sort of fools.
People don't know very much about you, for example, do they?
No.
Why not?
I'm a mystery, even to some of my members. Very few of them have actually met me. I don't make a habit of travelling very far.
Why is that?
At the moment my work commitment gives me very little time for travel. Unlike other people who work 5 days week 6, in most cases I work on say a Monday to Saturday basis when I only get Sunday off, then one day further in the week off.
But how, for example, would one find out the box number of the New Zealand Nazi Party?
It's advertised in the NZ Herald and we advertise in the Dominion occasionally. There's only one paper which has been prepared to publish anything about us other than advertising, that was the Southland Times. They did a full-page picture article on the Party.
And were they fair in the article?
Reasonably fair, yes. It wasn't anything to do with me. It was to do with my Southland branch.
And who organises that?
Mr Silvester in Southland. He's the Deputy Leader of the Party. And he organises the South Island. He lives in Waikaka—it's a little town near Gore. He's got branches in Dunedin, Invercargill, in his own area, Timaru, Ashburton, Christchurch, on the West Coast, and Picton.
And the North Island? How's that going?
We've got branches in Wellington. Hastings. Hamilton and Auckland.
And your Wellington branch. Who runs that?
At the moment a Mr Campbell. He'll be leaving for overseas shortly.
And who will take over from him do you think?
That's up to the committee. They'll get applications from the various members down there for the position.
Where does Mr Campbell work, if I want to get hold of him?
I don't know where he works actually, I only know his home address.
What's that?
2 Lynn Road, Wellington.
Do you know where that is?
No, I don't. I've never been to Wellington. Except for passing through in the booby wagon, via Witaka and Mt Crawford: that's the only time I've seen Wellington.
You said before that after your prison period, or during it, you were examined by a psychiatrist?
During. A chap called Harry Cohen. A Jew. He tried to convince me that everything I was doing was wrong.
What did he have to say?
Oh, the usual story. He was a Jew, an orthodox Jew, happened to be an ex-prison officer, he happened to suddenly decide he was going to study psychology and took on that job. He wasn't actually qualified, and he tried to convince me but after a few sessions I think he gave me up as a bad job. I just continued to read what I wanted to read and do what I wanted to do. I proved my point. I ended up as the editor of the prison newspaper. I had all the facilities I wanted, typewriter, record player, tape recorder, all those in my cell.
Did you put any of the Party philosophy in the prison newspaper?
Very little, but I made it very anti-establishment. Don't have any copies around now, I've got some tucked away upstairs. It was called The Drum. It was a cyclostyled magazine type of thing.
This was at Mt Crawford?
No. Paparua. That's where I finally ended up. I spent about 8 months of my sentence there. I was there during that escape, when those three took off in the truck. They were in the same gang I was in. I was in the know as to what was happening . . .
And what did you think of prison life?
It was all right. Quite bearable, It depends where you happen to be ...
When you say it was quite bearable, I mean did you enjoy it?
I quite enjoyed it. Because I had everything my own way. If I wanted something I got it. I was running all the films down there. I was in practically every group that was going Music group, discussion group . . . to keep me occupied. Prison's only what you make it. If you're occupied with something to do, time goes quickly. In most eases I spent the weekend in my cell, just reading. If I wasn't involved in some group activity some group activity somewhere. I gave them a decent film show because I was a qualified projectionist.
Now, for the future, what do you think will happen to the Nazi Party in New Zealand?
I hope to be there when it rises to power and I think we will. I think we will appeal to people eventually.
And how will you do this? By talking to people, by telling them what you believe in?
Yes. I think that with the policy we've got at the present time we could rise to power. But it'll have to be expanded a great deal of course. Individual items have to be worked out to explain to people what we want. But we are attracting a different type of person than they did in the thirties. We're not getting ruffians now. We're getting more educated people. For example, we get quite a few public servants. In Wellington we've got quite a number. Some of them are in action in the Ministry of Finance, some of them are in External Affairs Department, they're a great help to us.
When you say some of them, you mean more than one or two?
Yes.
Are there other areas in Wellington where you've got Party members?
In the Ministry of Defence and some in the actual Army itself, we encourage members to join the Army of course. It's one way of training the members into discipline.
Is discipline a very important consideration?
Yes. There's a lack of it in this country, a great lack of it actually . . .
And the value of discipline is what?
Well that people have self-control. They learn self-control, how to control themselves.
But why should one control oneself?
It's hard to explain. I consider discipline as essential to growing up. You find most of these characters who knock discipline away usually end up roaming the streets as bums, they're not able to keep a job. You see them all the time, usually in most cases they've been rejected from military service because they're unfit. You can also see them as I see them, across the bar-dirty, unwashed alcoholics. By the way, we didn't add the police to the members earlier.
There are Party members in the police force?
Oh yes.
When you say "Oh Yes," you mean there are a number of members in the police force?
Quite a few.
Where? In Wellington? In Auckland?
Wellington and Auckland, with a few other smaller centres throughout the country.
It's difficult to know what you mean when you say "quite a few". You mean 3 or 4 in Auckland? 4 or 5 in Wellington?
I'd say 10 of our members would be policemen in the Auckland district.
And in Wellington?
I wouldn't be quite sure on the Wellington numbers. I know one person who's written to me, who said he's a member of the police. He's a detective.
Have you ever thought of the possibility that these people are applying for membership or writing to you and getting interested in your organisation in order to keep track of you, rather than to . . .
Oh yes. They're welcome. We've got nothing to hide. The police come to my office, they're entitled to check the books, we help them in every way. We even allow the police to check our financial system. Everything's kept in the books. Ledgers are kept.
Do you have very many members with, say, more than secondary education! people with a university education?
Yes quite a few.
Where's this? In Auckland?
Not so much in Auckland, but more in wellington. We've got one chap that's in his forties, he's completing now a Master's degree at Victoria University.
In what subject?
Political Science.
You can't tell me his name can you?
No, I can't remember—he's a pretty old chap, he works for the Government also. He's already got one degree, a degree starting with an
The future of the Nazi Party then is for you a very promising one and it's going to be achieves by pamphlets . . .
And democratic means, we have to get away from the fear of the people that we're going to just have a march on Wellington, or something like that.
What about other groups in New Zealand? Have you had any contact with the National Front?
Yes.
What are they like?
I don't know much about them out here. Overseas they're big, in London, yes.
Well, there's this chap Thompson, the National Secretary of the National Front, isn't there?
Yes. I believe he's quite a powerful speaker. I've never actually heard him speak.
Would their aims be in any way in line with yours?
His aims, from what I know of them, are similar to mine in some aspects, but he goes for this all-white policy.
What about the Country Party? Do you have am sympathy with what they believe?
I don't know much about their group. You don't seem to hear so much about them in Auckland.
The Hour for Service has come—national front Means National Survival
Can we Remain Inactive and Idly watch the Destruction of the Priceless British Heritage Willed to us by Our Forefathers?
What Kind of Future are our Children to Inherit from us? Are they to Inherit the Freedom and Security of a British Future or will they be Mere Units in a Coffee-Coloured Communistic one World State??
Think well on these questions New Zealanders, and ponder also the fact that responsibility either way rests not with the "powers that be", or "the other fellow", but with each and every one of us.
In Great Britain, patriots of the League of Empire Loyalists, the British National Party, Racial Preservation Society, and Greater Britain Movement have emerged to form the British National Front in order to bring about National Resurgence. Now in New Zealand the League of Empire Loyalists has merged with other interested patriots to form the New Zealand National Front, a political body dedicated to the preservation of our British way of life and to combatting subversion.
Join the National Front and help ensure our national survival.
New Zealand is a country geographically situated in the Pacific. Her people are of mainly British stock and inherit the legacy of British culture developed by their forefathers. The history of the majority of New Zealand's people is inextricably bound up with that of their British ancestors and kinsfolk, and they live in freedom under British Justice. New Zealand though proud of her sovereign independence is a small country and cannot exist in isolation. She must therefore co-operate closely with other British nations in order to survive.
However such is the sorry state of political bewilderment and intellectual confusion into which we have fallen that many people forget these facts, and lend an ear to the all too numerous fifth columnists in our midst who would have us abandon the British Destiny which alone guarantees us an independent future. Some of these latter would have New Zealand become the U.S.A's fifty-first state thus selling our national sovereignty to Wall Street direct. The bulk of them however are engaged in spreading the poisonous doctrine of an Asian Destiny (which would in fact mean that New Zealand would become an Asian satellite of Wall Street). Despite the contrary proofs of geography, history, race, and culture, they assert that New Zealand is an Asian country and that we must follow an Asian Destiny. They often advance the "Shrinking world" theory, and state that because of the speed of modern communications we are being brought ever closer in time to Asia and therefore must be bound to an Asian future. They do not however add that increased speed of communications, brings us likewise closer in time to Great Britain, and our sister British nations overseas for to state this fact would be to defeat their purpose of Asianising New Zealand. They are frequently to be found pleading for a "liberalising" of our immigration laws to admit greater numbers of Asians as immigrants. Such a move if adopted into law would be the thin edge of an ever increasing wedge of Asian immigration until European culture in our land would be swamped by sheer weight of numbers. In fact their higher birth rate would make the admission of even a few thousand more Asians a danger to our culture within a generation or so.
The field of trade provides the poisonous prophets of Asian Destiny with their greatest opportunity, especially now that the anti-British Parliament is attempting to sell New Zealand (and Britain) down the river by joining the European Economic Community. Whilst some trade with Asia is perfectly acceptable and compatible with the maintenance of national sovereignty reliance upon Asian markets would be to New Zealand a deadly Trojan Horse. Once our trade with Asia exceeded what is normal between friendly countries, once our economy became dependent on the Asian market, then would we be vulnerable to economic blackmail, and Asians in hundreds of thousands would swarm into New Zealand as immigrants, our present culture vanishing under an Asiatic tide. We should not court such a fate by overdeveloping Asian markets, but should make our voices heard on the British scene, helping to awaken the British people.
Whilst it is true that some of the prophets of an Asian Destiny are well meaning dupes, there are others who instigate and sustain such propaganda whose aim it is to soften up our people so that they will, in time, come to accept that creed with its consequent destruction of our national sovereignty and racial integrity.
Let there be no mistake—if New Zealanders are to survive as a free people, keep faith with our forefathers who pioneered this land, with those who died in two world wars that we might be free from tyranny, and with generations yet unborn who have the right to inherit from us a land proud and free, in which they can live their lives to the fullest extent possible, our Destiny must be a British Destiny in co-operation with our kinsfolk overseas.
It is a sad fact that craven post-war British governments yielding to their trans-Atlantic masters, the usurers of New York, have done nothing to encourage the British peoples overseas to maintain the British connection, and in fact have sold out British interests all over the globe. The present despicable Harold Wilson and his henchmen are no exception, being perhaps the most disastrous of all the sorry succession of post-war Governments the British people have had the misfortune to be saddled with.
However we must not confuse the sorry specimens of political decadence now resident in the British Parliament with the great mass of our kinsfolk in Britain. There still resides in the British people, albeit hidden under the visible surface of contemporary softness and spiritual decay, those fine qualities of courage, steadfastness, and endurance which have enabled Britons to thrive as a proud breed of men throughout the centuries.
Let us then cast aside apathy, and go forward together united within the ranks of the New Zealand National Front, dedicated to resurgence of the true British spirit in our land and determined to ensure that New Zealand grows and develops within the context of her British Destiny.
The time is long overdue for the New Zealand Government to cease its support of the iniquitous policy of economic sanctions applied against our gallant Rhodesian kinsfolk, and to enter into normal trading relations with the civilised government of Mr Ian Smith. That New Zealand is willing to trade with every tinpot dictator in Black Africa, trades readily with Communist tyrants, yet refuses to trade with our British kith and kin in Rhodesia is a National Disgrace of the first magnitude.
The New Zealand National Front supports the Rhodesian Front, and civilisation not savagery.
"There still resides in the British people, albeit hidden under the visible surface of contemporary softness and spiritual decay, those fine qualities of courage, steadfastness, and endurance which have enabled Britons to thrive as a proud breed of men throughout the centuries."
This extract, from an article entitled "New Zealand's British Destiny" in Counter Attack ("published in support of the New Zealand National Front"), perhaps conveys the essence of National Front ideology. The National Front was formed almost two years ago as an amalgam of a number of small nationalistic organisations such as the League of Empire Loyalists. According to the New Zealand National Secretary B.B. Thompson, the Front is "as yet small in numbers". The New Zealand development follows the growth of the parent British body which has the stated aim of rebuilding a new British World System, based upon Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia and Eire.
As might be expected in the light of this aim, the Front has often been described as racist. ("There is an old Anglo-Saxon word that is fittingly synonymous with moderation. It is the word Gutless Ness"—Candour). If regarding negroes as the heathen force of darkness and Anglo-Saxons as angels of light (Rhodesia and South Africa being the last non-gutless bastions of honour and civilisation), constitutes racialism then the suggestion that the Front is a racist organisation would be correct. The Front's publications would have us believe that
The New Zealand Front takes its tone from its British counterpart. The two principal evils of international communism and international finance preoccupy National Front thought. Wall Street, it is maintained, is the birthplace of an international conspiracy which has as its aim the submergence of the British Empire. Further, Wall Street is in league with international communism and liberal internationalism. Communists, fellow travellers, liberals and idealists ("the ideal is the enemy of the real"—Spearhead) are often unwitting pawns in this one-world power game and are possessed of the sort of weakness that is likely to poison the tea in British pots.
As an example of the machinations of world finance, international National Front "prophet and patriarch" A.K. Chesterton (to quote a reprint in his magazine Candour—"a speaker of great talent, a man of great culture and remarkable author and journalist"—"A.K." is also the beneficiary of the A.K. Chesterton seventieth birthday fund) maintains that de Gaulle and Pompidou were, and are, puppets of the "Rothschild freres" who are, of course, pro-Soviet.
Other conspirators are the BBC (a subversive organisation dedicated to undermining the sort of patriotism that would inspire a mother to say "If by his death my son could serve England I would not lift a finger to bring him back."—Candour) and Colin Davis who, on following Sir Malcolm Sargent as Master of the Proms, celebrated his promotion by "decreeing that the Proms would no longer terminate with the singing of Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory." The BBC is also suspect for "advocating the recent changes in the law against homosexuality."
National Front publications are imbued with a certain Old Testament flavour: "The death of Brian Jones, the infamous rock and roll star," wrote Avril Walters, Candour columnist, "is not unjust . . ." Miss Walters also had "the feeling that if Harold Wilson is consigned to hell at some, one hopes, not too distant date the Devil will have a dickens of a job holding on to his position." The Front's publications seem at times to follow a British Israelist line. Nowhere, it is true, can one find the assertion that the British people are one of the twelve lost tribes of Israel. Nor is it baldly stated that God's chosen reside exclusively between Lands End and John O'Groats (with small outposts on the Dark Continent) but much is made of the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon people. Lengthy reference is made to the manifest and innate superiority of Britons. These assertions are constantly justified by reference to the inferior nature of other races and ominous conspiracies such as World Jewry.
It would be easy to dismiss the National Front as an unimportant and unattractive minority group more suited to a world of brass rubbings, cricket and cucumber sandwiches than to modern politics. However, there is every indication, judging by the technical standard and sheer volume of its publications, that the Front, in the United Kingdom at least, is surprisingly strong and becoming stronger. The New Zealand Front appears more uncertain and self-conscious than its strident British counterpart but there is evidence to suggest that it is more than a pale imitation. Much is made, in the Front's publicity here, of the danger of closer involvement in Asian affairs. This will result in "our present culture vanishing under an Asiatic tide".
Our subject for this issue is washing powders. Before you buy your next packet, look carefully for the make. Tide, Fairy Snow. Daz, Dreft and Ariel are all the products of Procter and Gamble Ltd., a company of American parentage. Persil, Omo, Surf, Lux and Sunlight are produced by the British firm of Lever Bros.
These are the main brands that you are liable to encounter in any store. They account for a total turnover of vast dimensions. Remember in future which are which. Try to impress upon your friends to buy British, and ensure that you do so yourself.
The League of Empire Loyalists was one of the groups which united to form the National Front. The following extracts were taken from a booklet entitled New Zealand's Asian Destiny, distributed by the New Zealand League. The booklet was written by Mr J.F.L. Hartley. Mr Hartley is described by the ubiquitous A.K. Chesterton in his introduction to the booklet as "a leader with a good head, a loyal heart, and a lucid and brilliant pen."
Coming of Captain Cook
He came in the spring, when the honey-scent of manuka was on the hills, and the kowhai was a golden glory in the valleys. In the magic of sunset perhaps he heard the distant toll of the bell-bird, liquid, rich, talismanic. Was Destiny his companion as he stood beneath Union jack to watch the approaching shore? Ah, wild, lovely land of mountain and forest, of lakes and rivers—what was your destiny on that historic day in 1769? what predetermined events had decided your ultimate lot, and what power had fore-ordained them? what invincible necessity fired British seamen—fearless vancouriers of the pioneers—thus to brave the great unknown?
On a day in spring, I stood beneath a statue, supernal in a flowered square, and I pondered on the changes in these islands since he, whose image was fixed in stone, felled giant trees in Dusky Sound. Nearly 200 years—was that long ago? The stumps were there for all to see, long after I was born. Asian destiny—? In fancy I listened to a restless voice, sharpened as with faint alarm: "I am Cook. I was the first to come. My task—read my orders—was to seek, to find, this land. You must not yield. The British are scattered about the earth, yet there is but one British nation, one destiny. Do not yield ..."
The time is not yet when Asians dare invade our shores. We must fear, and resist, our own fifth-columnists of Asian ambitions, the "Asian destiny" prophets, the salesmen of Eastern cultures, the race-mixers, urgers of the Danegeld, advocates of disarmament, one-worlders, wreckers of Empire and British tradition—these we need fear, for they spread the virus that weakens the will to resist subversion, and they brainwash our minds for the acceptance of an Asian future.
The Democratic Society was founded in
The Society campaigned for members through press advertisements, meetings, leaflets and public statements. On Metropolitan espoused a virulently right-wing political line. This protest took on a rather unpleasant note, and at one time nearly degenerated into a fight. Shortly after this Horne broke with the Society and left Wellington, his newspaper and a nightclub venture having both failed leaving substantial losses.
The Democratic Society faded from the protest scene a little at about this time. On its own figures, its supporters numbered about 100, and its active membership was from 50 to 60. At its
The Society then turned its attention to press statements, pamphlets, and meetings. Truth and South Pacific News Service (which supplies feature to New Zealand provincial dailies) gave the Society sympathetic coverage. Said Truth's Kevin Sinclair: "Fairlie Curry is a tough man with a tough assignment. He has declared war on Communist infiltration in New Zealand. And it is a war he expects to win." Said South Pacific's John Newport "A short, stocky, balding army veteran is at war again—this time against the Vietniks and the spreading threat of communism in this country."
The publicity was good—but it was no match for performance. A further counter-demonstration announced for President Johnson's visit drew wide press coverage—but was canceled when Curry realised that embarrassingly little support was forthcoming. He later admitted that the publicity given was out of proportion to the Society's size.
A pamphlet Communism and the Churches was produced and distributed. Then, in
After this the Society faded completely. It was not radical enough to enjoy the support of the ultra-right (Curry and other Society members were at pains to dissociate themselves from Butler's background when it later became known), and too dependent on a philosophy of opposition to left-wing ideas. Many who might have been expected to support its Vietnam policy found expression of their views through the National Party, and Curry continued his loose association with that Party throughout the period of his involvement in the Democratic Society. And, of course, he stood as National Party candidate for Island Bay in
The Country Party was formed in November 1968 to "moderate the excesses of party politics in New Zealand's two-party system."
The Party's leader, Cliff Emeny, has long been involved in fringe group politics. He's 50 years of age, lives in Stratford with his wife and six children and has operated a life insurance agency since
The Party's principles are fairly clearly expressed in the TV and radio election addresses by Mr Emeny printed on this page. Robin Bromby in a Dominion article suggested that the Party's philosophy is based on the "Arch-Conservatism of the Dominion—
Mr Emeny is not, therefore, happy to have anyone point out that his Party is, as Mr Bromby would have it, thirty or forty years out of date. He might, if pressed, confess that the laissez faire politics of the nineteenth century hold certain attractions for him. The Press, in an editorial, suggested that in fact the Country Party's policies constituted nineteenth century liberalism. In the
A close reading of the Country Party's, platform as Mr Emeny outlined it in his
The differences in emphasis are there to be sure—the Nazi Party and the National Front are, prima facie, racist groups. The Country Party, on the other hand, achieved its main strength (infinitesmal in comparative terms but significant in relation to the poverty of its ideas) through its specific attachment to rural interests—something no ultra-conservative group has done for a number of years. This particular emphasis in the Party's policies (and, of course, in its name) caused some concern to supporters of the National Party who feared that the Country Party would split the vote in rural areas and permit a Labour victory. As a correspondent to The Press (
Leader writers in New Zealand's exclusively right-wing daily press were generally able to maintain a gently derisive tone towards the Country Party. "Could New Zealand afford to return to the days of cottage industry where life began and ended at the farm gate?" asked an Evening Post editorial. The Post chose to construe the Country Party as one exclusively concerned with maintaining "sectional interests"—namely, those of the farming community—and resisted congratulating Mr Emeny and his bucolic colleagues for their promotion of "free enterprise" (something which, in the light of the News Media Ownership Act at least, one would expect the Post to hold dear).
Under its present leadership, one could not expect the Country Party to make very much progress. There is perhaps a case for suggesting that a Country Party that bore less of the mark of an ultra-Right grouping might, as secondary industries provide an increasingly significant part of New Zealand's economic strength, find a place in the political sun here. However, it is precisely those characteristics which earn the Country Party its rightful place in this discussion in Salient of the far Right that will ensure that the present Country Party will never achieve Parliamentary representation. These characteristics are the premises which—once the nuances of emphasis (who or what are we afraid of?) and quibbles over methods (to smash the enemy or to merely force him to retire?) are removed—the Country Party shares with the Nazi Party and the National Front.
Mr Emeny's restrained political speeches suggest some of the premises Country Party policies share with the radical Right. A fear of conspiracists and power groups which so often pervades right-wing thinking is evident, for example, in Mr Emeny's reference to "business and professional people" on whom "Government and private monopoly" are "closing in . . . everywhere." Mr Emeny slips easily into the use of the noun "Government" without the definite article—a usage promoted by members of the National Cabinet to attach an aura of respectability and permanence to the collection of politicians which is at present steering this ship of fools. For Mr Emeny, "Government" is very much the omnipotent and omnipresent institution which the incumbents of political office would have us believe it is.
If the Government or bureaucracy or monopolies or whatever other monster it is that controls our destinies in fact has the power Mr Emeny believes it possesses, by the same token 'the people' are impotent. Mr Emeny's meaning in the constantly iterated phrase "forgotten people" is not entirely that intended in Mr Nixon's (and John Hayes') use of the term "silent majority". Mr Emeny is almost certainly aware of the appeal of such a phrase but, more importantly, he seems clearly to believe that the "forgotten people who don't want to be wards of the state and the playthings of politicians" really do exist. Mr Emeny therefore establishes a tautology which neatly sustains itself through a series of references to their (Government, monopolies, bureaucrats) strength on the one hand and our (the forgotten people) weakness on the other.
The feeling of impotence suggested by this theme in Country Party policy can, of course, be found in the policies of the Nazi Party and the National Front. For each of these groups, the response to the injection of Asian Hordes, the machinations of World Jewry, the Red Peril and the Great Big Melting Pot which is being stirred by the Negro Race is to lash out. The frustration of the Radical Right often expresses itself in policies of violent reaction: execute dope-peddlers, criminals, homosexuals; deport aliens; incarcerate women in the home where they belong and so on. Ultra-conservative groups such as the Country Party, however, express their fears and frustrations in a more muted way. Their plea is for a return to a better way of life—to a political system where the individual is paramount, to the pre-Welfare State.
The Country Party has, however, expressed itself on one issue—corporal punishment—in terms which were even more radical than those of Nazi Party leader Colin Ansell. Mr T.M.F. Taylor, the Party's President (Mr Emeny is the Leader of the Party—the precise differentiation in role is not clear from the material we have to hand on the Party) wrote to Truth (Truth's—simple and straightforward. Law and order is (sic) sustained by one of two types of control—either by personal ethical compulsion not to break the law, or by force . . ." It would be interesting to prod the Country Party's leaders into statements of policy on such subjects as treatment of out-groups like the mentally ill, the blind, the disabled and so on, censorship, religious principles, and international relations. This might produce further evidence of a radicalism in the Country Party's 'philosophy' which might more closely group it with the Nazi Party and the National Front.
The immediate political future of the Country Party is not clear. Its formal structure (for what that structure is worth) will almost certainly collapse within a very few years. The sentiments which at present provide its core, however, will emerge again as the basis of yet another Democratic Party, or another Liberal Party, or possibly even an Economic Euthanic Party. The Country Party's present leadership, however, does not lack optimism. Vice-President A.J. Ambury of Hamilton, who contested the Waikato electorate (and polled 378 votes) said after the
Ladies and gentlemen, you have listened to the election speeches of all the other parties, and you now know where we all stand. Stripped of political prattle, their programmes all add up to more Government spending, which in turn means more and more taxes, more and more inflation, more and more rising costs, and more and more bureaucratic interference in our lives. These programmes also add up to another typical scramble for votes, where everyone is offered something, at the expense of everyone else.
The New Zealand Country Party has been formed to offer those forgotten men and women of New Zealand who want to escape from this deceptive and destructive political circus the freedom to do so at the election. By voting Country Party, people can once again make a choice for government based on genuine free enterprise principles, based on wisdom and integrity, instead of being trapped into choosing between politicians and parties scrambling for votes and thereafter suffering government based on masses of bureaucratic regulations and restrictions.
Other parties accuse the Country Party of favouring narrow sectional interests. How wrong they are. These forgotten men and women, trapped in our political auction system, come from all occupations and places in New Zealand. Large numbers of our population long to escape from the unwelcome attention of ambitious meddling politicians and from the ever-growing army of Government officials, to which is increasingly being added the dangers to freedom from expanding private monopolies under the politician's misguided national development planning schemes.
Who are these forgotten people, suffering so badly under our present Government-run system?—thousands of highly productive farming families who will be driven off their land in the next few years through ever-increasing costs of production; costs generated by inflationary effects of our wasteful, bureaucratically-controlled economy. Added to their burden of costs are trading difficulties, caused mainly by years of severely restricted importing policies of the New Zealand Government. A prosperous agriculture is the true foundation of our whole economy. Only by bringing down the cost of production through more free enterprise in New Zealand, can they survive financially. Only by expanding freedom for competitive trading can their growing production be disposed of profitably abroad.
These principles, ladies and gentlemen, offer far more security than the nice promises of tough, ambitious politicians overseas. Many of our business and professional people are being severely restricted in what they can do for themselves and for their country. Plundered by severe taxation, cramped by masses of bureaucratic regulations, they are not permitted to give their best service to their customers. Government and private monopoly are closing in on them everywhere, squeezing out the freedom of small efficient businessmen to compete for consumer support. They ail urgently need more freedom of enterprise, freedom from financial control and freedom from trading restrictions. They also all need relief from high taxes, to make better use of their earnings than any government can ever do. The Country Party choice on their ballot paper is to help them demand these productive conditions in our affairs. Don't be afraid to use this extended freedom of choice at the election.
Many are the forgotten people in our labour force; those people who want to be free of the dictatorial power of compulsory trade unionism; men and women quite capable of peacefully arranging their own affairs, and standing on their own feet, in co-operation with their fellow-citizens in all fields. No one defends their freedom to be self-reliant individuals; to go quietly, productively, and peacefully about their work and their family life. Now, National plans to give unions the power to dismiss their own members, which can only end in union leaders denying people the right to work at their chosen occupations.
To help these people regain their personal freedom, the New Zealand Country Party has been formed. Throughout New Zealand, there are thousands of forgotten people who don't want to be wards of the State and the playthings of politicians in providing their health and retirement services. They prefer to spend their own money and be self-reliant, responsible people knowing they can always get better value than any state system can provide. All other parties are too busy taking people's money and telling them what to do with their lives. The Country Party choice has been placed on your ballot paper so these forgotten people can regain their freedom to be responsible for their own social and educational affairs again.
The Country Party wants reform of our labour system: first, to free our labour force from destructive and dictatorial power by a national referendum on total abolition of all forms of compulsory unionism. This gross infringement on basic human rights has no place in a free society. We view with deep concern National's proposals to allow unions to discipline their members. Widespread intimidation and victimisation is inevitable under such conditions. It will give union bosses the power to deny people the right to work at their chosen occupation. Wage-earners, beware of losing your freedom completely. National and Labour are handing your destiny over to union bosses. These will domineer your lives and jeopardise the security of your families for their own personal interest. Help us demand a referendum on abolishing compulsory unionism, and vote secretly for your own freedom while you still have the chance to do so.
These are merely some of our forgotten people who badly need a genuine free enterprise choice on their ballot paper, and the Country Party is here to do it for them all. The name of the man doesn't matter, it's the principles that we stand for which are most important. Have the courage to vote for true principles again. Don't let the polished political salesmen trap you in their game of party politics. Make your vote count for these principles again, and help to improve the standards of government for all New Zealanders.
Thank you for your interest in our efforts to defend the freedom of all New Zealanders, Goodnight.
This broadcast follows my television explanation this evening of the principles and purpose of the New Zealand Country Party. Now I will describe some of our policies, for it is in their policies that you will find that all other parties are operating the same socialist, bureaucratic-run system. In their policies, the difference between National and Labour is the same difference as between Woolworths and McKenzies. Our task is to provide the New Zealand voter with a genuine free enterprise alternative because we earnestly believe that modern free enterprise can produce far more peace, freedom and prosperity for all New Zealanders. That many of our people have lost faith in our bureaucratic system, is well proved by the tens of thousands who are voting against it with their feet—by leaving New Zealand every year.
The major objectives of our policies are to stop inflation, to reduce the cost of production, to reduce the cost of living, (by reducing the wastage of Government expenditure and leaving more of people's earnings in their own hands), and to release the energy and ability of our population by freeing their activities from the restrictions of our domineering, bureaucratic machine.
First, we want to free our monetary system by adopting a free exchange rate and to permit ail exporters to make their own arrangements with the overseas currency they earn instead of having it confiscated and controlled by Government officials. This freedom is fundamental to a successful trading nation, as we all hope to be, all the time.
Next, we want Government stripped of the power to direct the savings into its own agencies or into favoured monopoly projects. These groups must be made to raise their finance competitively, just the same as everyone else has to in New Zealand.
The Country Party wants employment expanded and costs reduced by taxation reduction and taxation reform; by the total abolition of death and gift duties to stop the drain of working capital from our farms and business enterprises. We want a 10% reduction in all taxes, except health and superannuation charges, to leave more earnings in private hands and to enable better economic growth to come from the much higher economic growth productivity these people can obtain than comes from any State spending. We want the tax system completely reformed to removed the destruction of incentive and the wastage of resources involved in its operation today. First, by a change from the graduated scale to a flat percentage rate on all earnings and gradually have taxation concentrated on spending—not on earnings, savings and the means of production. We feel it is folly to tax people on what they put into society; their labour, their savings and their investments. Taxation should be confined to what they take out—that is, their personal spending.
At the same time, we must free our economy from the frustration and wastage of bureaucracy and protective monopoly. Our proposals are, first, to turn all possible Government agencies into self-supporting corporations, completely independent of Government. These must run on the same profit-and-loss basis as any other business, raise their own funds competitively and meet their own commitments. We visualise greatly improved productivity and a substantial reduction of Government expenditure from these changes. Two, it should reduce the need for much taxation, and help reduce the cost of production over many fields.
The Country Party pleads for people to enjoy the freedom to contract out of State health and superannuation schemes and to use their own money to arrange matters for themselves; thus to foster self-reliance and personal responsibility once again in New Zealand. We urge that parents be permitted freedom of responsibility for their children's education, without having to pay twice for such basic rights. Because Government has collected taxes from these parents that it is not spending on their children. Government has a moral obligation to return a per-pupil rebate to these people for their allocation to the school of their own choice: not state aid to private schools—merely honest, just and commonsense government.
Finally, ladies and gentleman, let us reform the political system itself. First, let us put the Party's name on the ballot paper, to simplify voting under today's conditions. Then, let us have a written constitution and an effective upper house in Parliament to safeguard our freedom, property and democracy itself. Let's remove the dictatorship of party politics over members of Parliament by abolishing the no confidence vote and allow free voting on all bills in Parliament. Let us preserve the sovereignty of electors between elections by strengthening the petitions system so that people can effectively challenge dubious legislation and overbearing regulations. Let us have proportional representation in Parliament based on votes, not on power politics.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Country Party knows full well that after thirty-five years of domineering bureaucracy many of our ideas seem impossible and seem revolutionary today. This happens because we in New Zealand have gone so far down the socialist road. At the end of this road is the tragedy of Czechoslovakia. All our proposals, ladies and gentlemen, are based on the well-proven principles of a free, prosperous and peaceful society. Mr Holyoake rightly claims New Zealand is at the crossroads. He has plunged us into expanding Government control under their national development plan. So that you may escape the dire consequences of this misguided decision, we offer you a genuine free enterprise choice in Country Party policy. Don't be afraid of freedom. Escape from the rat-race of party politics. Vote for sound principles this election and safeguard your future.
Thank you for listening to our ideas and goodnight to you all.
On the far right fringe of the New Zealand political scene, there are many themes linking different groups—Rhodesia, the tours of Eric Butler and literature from the John Birch Society, for example. One of the most unusual links, however, is the Social Credit theory of C.H. Douglas.
To quote Eric Butler: "C.H. Douglas was an excellent example of the best products of Western Christian Civilisation as developed in the British context. . . In America today we see in all its stark reality just how an irresponsible political voting system can be used to legalise the destruction of a nation. Douglas saw the difficulty of obtaining a challenge against the Money Power and its revolutionary policies through a voting system which the politicians used to bribe the electors to vote themselves benefits at the expense of their neighbours. Responsible voting is a first priority if there is to be responsible government. The drive to get increasing numbers of American Negroes on the electoral rolls has been part of the strategy of destroying America from within...
"Those who grasped what Douglas offered have a special responsibility to keep alive and flourishing through these troubled days, that knowledge and understanding which alone can bring to life a new Civilisation out of the ashes of the one now being consumed by the fires of revolution."
This invocation of Social Credit's only prophet is surprising to New Zealand ears only because in this country the Social Credit movement has escaped from the right wing heritage of the British, Australian, and, to a lesser extent, Canadian movements. The British Social Credit Secretariat is pledged to defeat the Communist Conspiracy, and the Australian Social Creditors have backed this. In
The rallying cry of this manifesto was "No Co-Existence". In New Zealand it struck few sympathetic chords; indeed, since the Labour flirtation with Social Credit in the
However a small body, the New Zealand Social Credit Association, does espouse the Butler line. This group includes persons purged from the Social Credit Political League some years ago for their political views, and at times the political Party has been at pains to dissociate itself from them. The Association claims to be the successor to the old Social Credit Association which went out of existence in
Some literature has been published by these breakaways, and a couple have stood for Parliament on their own account as independents, never getting more than a couple of hundred votes. In the context of the right wing world of British nations, however, it is this reactionary form of Douglas Credit which is the true representative of the international movement.
No account of New Zealand's ultra-right would be complete without a mention of Dunedin's curious "Co-Resistance" movement. This group, which under various names has been in existence for over twelve years, has consistently espoused the policy of the American John Birch Society.
In
A monthly magazine, for some unknown reason called Weatherbys, was published by the Campaign and Austin Mitchell noted that, although regular subscribers numbered about fifty, one thousand copies of each issue were printed, most of them being distributed free. The tone of the periodical can be indicated by a quote from the
By The Politician by John Birch Society founder Robert Welch (which book asserts that Eisenhower was a Communist), and The Blue Book of the John Birch Society (which proves that most other people are Communist too). Co-Resistance sent some of this literature to an Otago University staff member, who in their view was a Communist, and more than fifty students took up the invitation to attend the Group's next meeting. As only four people from Co-Resistance attended, the meeting was something of a farce, and the movement at that stage apparently lost interest in its plan to combat the communist hotbed that was Otago University.
Mr Jack Simon and Co-Resistance are with us still—though the latest announced name is "The Informed Christian Patriots Association". Informed Christian Patriots can obtain further information from P.O. Box 285, Dunedin.
Who is Eric D. Butler? This man, the National Director of the Australian League of Rights, is a familiar figure at Aid Rhodesia and other right wing meetings in New Zealand. He has organised petrol tankers for Ian Smith, declared that "Rhodesia sees New Zealand as its main hope for an ally", and stumped backblock Australia to warn of the "Red Peril". His political career is remarkably consistent. Before the Second World War he wrote a book called The International Jew" which accused the Jews of being responsible for the First World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Depression, and the rise of Hitler. After the war he wrote another book, "The Great Lie" in which he claimed that Hitler's murder of 6,000,000 Jews was a Jewish invention and that the Jews had actually always co-operated with Adolph. During the war his activities were investigated by the Australian Government, the investigation report stating that his "activities were prejudicial to the war effort".
In recent years Mr Butler has mellowed a little, and appears to have sought a more responsible image. But his League of Rights has continued to disseminate claims of a Communist conspiracy. One claim is that the Fabian Society and the London School of Economics are centres of operation for the International Jewish-Communist conspiracy. Mr Butler today claims that he no longer
In New Times. Published as Voices of Hate, this pamphlet quoted Butler as expressing views which were anti-semitic, anti-fluoridation, anti-Salk Vaccine (the Christian way is chiropractice!), anti-artificial fertilisers, anti-United Nations, anti-Roosevelt, anti-Churchill, anti-Labour, anti-Common Market, pro-Social Credit and pro-Racism.
Some of the quotes Gott collected were. "Winston Churchill's policies are largely responsible for the present plight of the world"; While it is certain that there was an enormous amount of brutality in German prison camps, it is also certain that much of the evidence about the ovens and other methods of disposing of the Jews was deliberately invented to exaggerate the number of Jews murdered in order to make it easier for the political Zionists to try and justify their own murderous and totalitarian policies"; and "Roosevelt was a Jewish stooge".
It is tempting to discount Mr Butler as a flamboyant but unimportant individual. In recent years, however, his views have moderated and with the Rhodesia issue he has obtained a position of some influence in Australia and New Zealand. Strangely, he seems to be taken more lightly in South Africa, where one usually reliable source says the Vorster government regards him with a mixture of suspicion and embarrassment. In Rhodesia, however, he enjoys popularity and is frequently quoted in material published by the Rhodesian regime as an international commentator of some note.
Michael Heath previews the Adelaide/Auckland International Film Festival.
Last year in Salient I wasted much space in a personal prediction list of what our first International Film Festival (In conjunction with Adelaide) to be held in Auckland in September, would behold. I must have made it plain in the end what did happen, and consequently gave forth a double-page spree of what happened which very nearly left me sightless, among other things.
I'm getting in early then for this year because, I thankfully sigh, pressure by certain young groups have made this year's offering three months earlier (July, then) with far more variance, an extra day, and what has been entered in at this fairly early stage, an event no serious filmgoer can afford to miss. So, I recommend now to those of you who feel starved, and utterly revolted with the commercial junk which is floating around to make preparations now, if necessary for a feast of a lifetime and it bloody well is!
Sydney is June is having 28 feature films, so I suppose we won't be far off, plus multitudes of 16mm entries from all over the world.
The highlights of last year's festival were Walerian Borowczyk's Goto, L'lsle d'amour, and Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar. Mr Eric Williams, director of the Adelaide side of the business, was in contact with Bresson last year and has apparently secured prints of perhaps his most moving film Mouchette (Proces de Jeanne D'Arc (Une Femme Douce (his latest work in colour). Many people who saw his Pickpocket here two years ago will never forget it, and it somehow makes the rest of the Festival offerings pallid in comparison, but some will say that this is only a derangedly aesthetic mind playing on emotional catholysis!
Last year New Zealand saw a film by one of the greatest directors in the world today, Miklos Jancso. His The Red And The White, together with his other films, have met with undeniably eloquent praise, and it is quite difficult to describe his films without either going emotionally overboard or giving up. I had a hell of a job reviewing the said film last year, but this year, merciful drogans, we will be able to see Jancso's latest (but one, Winter Sirocco) The Confrontation. Allow me a few words then to tell you about this extraordinary film, Jancso's first in colour. It has been described as his most difficult film to date, where Western Audiences are concerned. "It is perplexing partly because Jancso's search for an aesthetic means to signify political engagement among the rising generation has prompted him to use songs and rhythmical movement in an unfamiliar context; and partly because, despite its modern look, Confrontation really evokes the events of
And here to whet one's appetite further is a bewildered Penelope Houston commenting on its first showing at Cannes last year, "The film's movement is a ceaseless and complex pattern of dancing, circling, and prowling, though at his press conference Jancso characteristically ducked any suggestion that it had a symbolic purpose. 'I know,' he said, when one woman complained that the incessant to-and-fro made her seasick. 'I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it seems to be the only way I make films.' The way he has made this one apparently baffled a lot of people, who seem thrown by its directness and eager for inscrutability. But Confrontation is exactly what it purports to be: a look at the faces of socialism by a man who, of course, remains a convinced socialist; and who, one ought perhaps to add, was at work on this film before
Apart from these mentioned, the highlight for the majority will be of course the Fellini—Satyricon, if a deal is made with United Artists who, believe it or not are distributing it . . . somewhere. I'm sorry I really do not know for certain if this will come about; it'd made a packet if they did, and of course nearly freak everyone out in the bargain from what I've read.
Briefly then, the rest of the films so far entered. From Netherlands, Monsieur Hawarden, directed by Harry Kumel, is a 19th century period piece concerning a masculinely inclined woman (much lauded and well received in Sydney last year), Bruno ou les enfants du dimanche (Bruno Sunday's child, from Belgium) director Louis Grospierre, George Kaczender's Don't let the Angels fall, Mort Ransen's Christopher's Movie Matinee, Mateusza's Days of Matthew, Heskiya's The Eight from Bulgaria, from Japan The Day the Sun Rose. Jacques Morry Katmor's A Woman's Case from Israel: I am absolutely devoid of material on all of these at the moment.
From France (the non-commercial) a highly refined film of zany madness—Jessua's La Vie L'Envers (Life Upside Down). Also the more commercial and probably highly sexy, Deray's La Piscine (basically The Swimming Pool) with Delon, Trintignant, and Schneider.
Last year's Stereo, from Canadian David Cronenberg was appreciated, partly, for its unusual sexualities and psychological attempt at defining an almost surrealistic clinical cinema, and his latest work. Crimes of the Future, promises to be even more so.
There's Palle Kjaerulff-Schmidt's Once there was a War(Portrait of a Boy) a growing-up type film that has been praised for its charmingly intimate childhood scenes, in the war years in Denmark.
Under negotiation is Orson Welles' Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight) an amazing film that I saw in Australia two years ago. Every scene is almost firmly imprinted in my brain still. Also Winner of Grand Prix at Cannes '68 and Silver Medal at Moscow is Bert Haanstra's beautiful The Voice of The Water.
Final judging does not occur until June, after the Sydney and Melbourne Festivals. Already the Sydney Festival has announced that Costa-Gavras' Z will open it, and Eric Rohmer's Ma Nuits chez Maud, Louis Malle's documentary Calcutta, and a very recent film by Diourka Medweczy, Paul, with Jean-Pierre Leaud, have been selected. Let us hope that at least one of these will get final say here, and maybe at least one Czechoslovakian film, if available, after last year's amazing Menzel and Nemec.
Now, at this stage, if you are interested I would advise you to write to: Executive-Director, Adelaide/Auckland International Film Festival, Box 1411, Auckland. A small reduction for very cheap seats was made last year, if one subscribes by paying. I think it was two dollars, and worked out at about 30 cents a seat for a week, so that is a considerable saving. All the Festival films are shown four times daily at the Regent, which is a very good etc. . . if you are one of those prone to close sitting. The dates of the Festival are Friday 17 July to Thursday 30 July inclusive.
For the second time this year I have been asked to review a film about which one would imagine comment to be superfluous. Cooler souls than I may render judgements more substantial than hollow squeaks of approbation, but John Schlesinger's Midnight Cowboy has me in its grip and no mere statement of approval will suffice. Pause therefore to consider for a moment the function of a critic and his reaction to a film such as this. Given a deadline something more liberal than was attendant here, one would doubtless be able to develop a fluid and convincing case on behalf of Midnight Cowboy. For myself such a task is largely specious, since I am primarily interested in drawing to the reader's attention films which he should have seen but didn't (e.g. A Thousand Clowns) and films which he didn't like but should have, or rubbishing his fond notions about films which he mistakenly considers to be great. None of these conditions appear to apply to Midnight Cowboy. There is no doubt that the film will reach a wide audience. It has going for it something of a reputation, enhanced by a word of mouth campaign already under way and (for the mugs) the recent bestowal of Academy Awards. Furthermore, I am convinced of the film's worth to a degree where I am not at all interested in trying to convert those whose opinions are different. Midnight Cowboy will be seen and applauded by most regular or occasional filmgoers, which is why the task in this instance strikes me as redundant. Still, there seems to be some virtue in prodding a few cloddish minds to reflection.
Comes the further crunch. My reactions to the film are purely emotional and personal, despite its many aspects that can be listed and agreed upon as being brilliant. To say that the saga of Joe Buck and Ratso Rizza moved me deeply is not to say anything that would clarify someone else's similar feeling, but Joe and Ratso are the heart of the matter, and no amount of excellent bric-a-brac can save the film if this central relationship fails. Fortunately the characters are both beautifully written and played. Joe Buck is more of an innocent than some critics would have him, slightly cretinous perhaps, but still a 'personality struggling to be born', as John Coleman so aptly puts it. John Voigt is perfect as the flashy, gum-chewing hustler, a dude in the frontier of the metropolis. Although in some ways Ratso has the limelight in terms of appeal, Joe is the more interesting character. The various flashbacks, whether memory or fantasy, hint at a psychological explanation (the scenes of the young boy with his grandmother) as well as explicitly recalling a confused incident where both Joe and his girl appear to have been gang-banged. The brash and confident youth succumbs to the squalor of New York and its inhabitants, finally seeking a vestige of refuge in the limping, tubercular Ratso, presumably a creature of the gutter yet clinging to some remnants of dignity.
Dustin Hoffman, as if reacting against the vapid part handed him in The Graduate, puts all his heart and talent into the playing of Ratso, and the result is one of the finest pieces of character acting in American films (stiff competition there). John Schlesinger observes the reluctant, developing bond between Ratso and Joe with great sensitivity. The quintessence of the relationship is found in the short, intense scene on the stairs at the party. Ratso, on the point of collapse, makes pathetic, feeble gestures in the direction of sprucing himself up. Joe props him against the wall and mops the profuse sweat off his face and head. Suddenly Ratso reaches out and holds Joe who, apparently oblivious to this desperate affection, continues his gum-chewing, patter, and mopping operations. Here, in one image, is the guts of the film, a clinging love in the wilderness. Joe himself finally gets caught up in Ratso's plight to the extent that he beats up (or worse) a queer and robs him to pay for their fare to life-giving Florida. This morally worrying sequence is easily the most horrifying in the film, since not even Ratso's need seems to justify the pain and indignity meted out to the ageing, sympathetically-played homosexual. Ratso, however, does not get to see the beaches and sun of which he has dreamed, as he dies only a few miles from his destination. The touch of the floral shirt around the wracked body is the final heartbreak.
Midnight Cowboy is clearly John Schlesinger's best film to date, far removed in setting and stature from those boring old kitchen sink films with their posturing proles and special pleading. It's cause for some satisfaction that British directors can go to the States and make such marvellous films (Bullitt, Point Blank, Petulia), and at the same time portray dramatic aspects of America hitherto unrevealed. Schlesinger's present film, for example, seems like the definitive statement about New York, but perhaps this is because the social ills seen here are part of our preconceptions about that city. Someone complained that Schlesinger could not leave the ills alone, but there is no doubt that the film's cumulative power derives in part from the fact that there is no let-up for Joe and Ratso, that they are being ground under (and none too slowly at that) by the sordidness of their surroundings. Waldo Salt's script treats their situation lightly at times, such moments of wit (quite frequent now I come to think about it) restraining and yet highlighting the film's ultimate tragedy. It's all there to be seen, uncut, explicit, intensely moving, and deserving our full and unrepentant involvement. Superb entertainments like this are rare, but their presence makes movie-going, and life, more worthwhile.
If you agree with the statement, circle T if you disagree, circle F. Return completed forms to the Men's Vice-President.
Score one point for each statement agreed with.
(Adapted from Nexus)
A celebration of Communion in St Paul's is very different from anything else happening in Wellington at the same time on a Wednesday. The contrast between what is happening outside St Paul's and what is happening inside is so marked that one must ask whether this is really intended. Even when the congregation, somewhat melodramatically, confess that the weight of their sins is so grievous that they have an overwhelming fear of the wrath of God, the language they are using is so impersonal that one begins to wonder whether they believe that they are talking about themselves.
No doubt there is a case for a distinctively religious language, in which acts of evil are always described in the most abstract terms possible, and the Anglican liturgy used in this service can be viewed as an attempt to develop such a language. But the penalty for the use of such a terminology is that it becomes, finally, escapist: committing a sin becomes so idealised a concept that one begins to wonder whether it has any relevance to the Public Service office routine that most of the congregation must have been going back to. 'Sin in the Public Service,' a phrase which should have a plain matter-of-fact meaning if the language of the Anglican liturgy was at all realistic, instead has implications of prurience and sensationalism which are usually associated with a Truth or Censored billboard. When those who think and write most about sin are on the editorial staff of Truth, it is surely time for the language of the liturgy, if it is to retain any immediate meaning, to become more concrete.
Associated with this tendency to grandiose abstraction is an extraordinary mixture of prose styles. This again heightens the contrast between events inside and outside the Cathedral: it is simply impossible—even for someone with an adequate grasp of changes in the English language since the fourteenth century—to follow closely every twist of meaning in rather difficult theological statements couched in various archaic English dialects, especially when no clue is given when we shift from one century to the next. One is almost tempted to believe there is a deliberate attempt to confuse the worshipper. Where the Epistle and the Gospel is read apparently from the twentieth-century New English Bible, the creed is at least sixteenth-century, and the various sections of the Prayer Book used elsewhere seem to range from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. If the decision has been made that the King James Version, or its seventeenth-century revision, is too difficult for the average congregation, it is strange that the Creed—which one would assume the congregation would want to understand very clearly—and most of the liturgy would remain unchanged in their language. It must be admitted that, to me at least, neither the Epistle nor the Gospel in their twentieth-century dress read as particularly Perspicuous pieces of English, and I would hazard a guess that most of the congregation did not understand the Epistle, which concentrated a rather abstruse argument around a particularly unconventional use of the word 'advocate'.
If the readings at the service were typical of the English of the New English Bible, I must reluctantly conclude that if my old family Bible was good enough for King James, it's good enough for me. But one must of course allow for St. Paul being a particularly bad writer in any translation. The main problem here however is consistency. There is no real argument for the view that sixteenth-century English is better than twentieth-century English, but, if one accepts this view, the twentieth century should be kept completely out of religion if it doesn't belong there. There is, however, no point in using twentieth century English if it turns out to be as unintelligible as seventeenth-century English to the average layman.
What was most surprising, after this sustained use of archaic abstract English, was the sermon. It was as deliberately informal as the surrounding liturgy was formal. Perhaps the priest had decided, not unwisely, that the congregation could not survive the whole service on the
When Church services are not redeemed theologically, they are usually redeemed musically and I was hoping for some good pre-nineteenth century church music as a Divine grace for enduring the sermon. I must warn intending worshippers that they will not have music while they commune. A National Orchestra lunchtime concert featuring (say) Bach would do any Christian more spiritual good than the little ceremony at St Paul's, on Wednesdays. Perhaps it would all have been better chanted in Latin. Then there would have been no patches of intelligible sound to puzzle the outsider.
to add to his listeners' understanding of it, since inasfar as his sermon was coherent, he appeared to be expounding the Zwinglian doctrine of the sacraments which the Creed clearly disavows.
If even priests cannot understand the Creed, there seems little point in continuing its recitation: though liturgies were presumably ordained to ensure that some Christian doctrine was expressed in the order of service even in an age where priests are corrupt or apostate, and it may be that the proper course would be to dispense with the sermon rather than the creed. In this particular service, the disappearance of the sermon would certainly have been no loss. But churches being what they are, as the Jehovah's Witnesses point out in their periodical visits to my back door, the Creed is apparently being renegotiated (though not. I understand, with God). The best we can hope for, therefore, is better preachers, and judging by last Wednesday's performance this is a pretty forlorn hope.
One of the main arguments against abortion is that we as choate human beings are in no position to place a value on an inchoate life as it nestles defenseless in the womb. That is why I refuse to take a de-foetus attitude towards Embryo. It is underdeveloped and could have used another seven months preparation. However, considering that reviews are easier produced with a type-writer rather than with a rusty knitting needle I would prefer to accentuate the more productive aspects of the happening (billed as "a musical to get involved in").
With something as revolutionary as Embryo there is a tendency to victimise because of what it is not. It is certainly not Extrav. Neither is it for those who are in the habit of installing themselves in the auditorium and demanding "entertain me". Rather it is a minor failure at being itself; a failure partly attributable to the surroundings in which it appeared and to the type of audience that came ill-prepared and left disillusioned. The first-night audience came to see teenage impersonations of Kiwi Keith only to see, in fact, a pulsating mass of ugliness which seeped off the stage and confronted it personally. Old hat to students, but terrifying to the silent majority.
Before I get much further, however, I must register a caveat. This whole review is based on the traditional first-night affair and considering that the format of the show has since allowed a total reversal of halves and a lengthening befitting an embryo, I may easily be chasing moonbeams as well as talking about that which must be experienced.
The photographs accompanying this are worth a thousand words in outlining the basic appearance of the actors in their environment. What they cannot convey any more successfully than I is the appeal to the minds (sic) of the audience to fill in the gaps, intentional and otherwise, observable from the auditorium. A blanched producer (Ian McDonald) himself initiated the appeal which demonstrably fell on deaf ears. 'Theatre of the mind" as he called it, although the phrase is not his, is no more likely to excite New Zealanders who have paid their admission fee any more now than it might have done fifty years ago. This is not to say that the onus can be nailed to the audience's back and left there. Blame is fairly apportionable and it is equally true to suggest that a substantial chunk of the cast were vegetables with a penchant for exhibitionism. They were mercifully only part of a whole which was brought up to scratch by the infinitely more talented Tony Backhouse (composer), Deborah Pearson (choreographer), and Simon Morris (character guitarist)—there's no getting away from talent. These three ensured that the requisite standard of ugliness and chanting hypnosis was achieved and from time to time, maintained.
Music was essentially just another weapon on bludgeon in a ratbag armoury of spot and coloured lighting, taped sound, spotty makeup, tatty wardrobe, movie film (cartoon and solid), and good old fashioned noise. Each had its own moment, usually fleeting, of effectiveness although since the music was easily the most compelling and original it is pertinent to ask why words (a valuable form of communication if used sparingly as here) were allowed to be totally unintelligible when the whole band was playing.
Perhaps when one becomes hair-splitting like this, it is time to close. Before I do though, I would point out that a gang of professionals would be unlikely to improve on what the cast has achieved. They could only be less ugly and thus less provocative. There is surely a place for future Embryos just as there is a place for Extrav, neither being inferior to the other.
Many of the cast will have gained much by this experience. If you haven't been to Embryo, go along—if only to find out how narrow minded you are.
The one about the castrated monk and the nymphomaniac nun.
Medieval love letters read aloud by their authors. Not much of a prospect for television material one might think. Yet the screening of Abelard and Heloise by the local stations recently had such hypnotic qualities that it is worth commenting on in the New Zealand context. For basically this piece was true television without gimmicks relying solely on imaginative continuity, judicious use of close-up and the intelligent acting of two people. Such ingredients should be readily available to the television drama purveyors who have promised so much and given so little. The cramped studios of this country cry out for this kind of approach (learning to walk prior to running was the secret of Downstage's survival on the local theatrical scene). A willingness to bank on unlikely material of this kind would also help immeasurably. Oh, and stuff Mother of Ten.
Credit where it's due department
Rite of Spring impressed even the super critical Rolf Harris and you can't say fairer than that. Only the all-too-obviously canned orchestra dulled the impact of this vigorous rendition by the New Zealand Ballet and at the present stage of development this must be taken as inevitable. Total use of available resources made it thoroughly memorable and an early contender for a
Following the well-merited boot in the dag administered to Country Calendar is it too much to hope that the Sports view jockstrap might be similarly violated? The tired "Well Saturday sees the start of the second annual toad-shoot at Waikanae and here's fifty feet of irrelevant film to prove it . . ." gambit must go. Similarly, the unsports like, albeit appropriate, opening riff of "It's Not Unusual" must no longer be allowed to set the tone of unmitigated dullness. The only explanation for the present exercise in tedium can be that the interests of sport are considered to be best served by inducing viewers to forsake their armchairs in favour of a quick puke round the block.
The United States is not generally seen to be a country over burdened with personalities in the sphere of documentary presentations. The in-depth analyses of news which represent the best aspects of US television are for obvious reasons only rarely screened here and the many CBS features bought by the NZBC are rotten with Cronkitism (an educated form of Holyoakism). Surprise surprise therefore when Afro-American Bob Cosby, frontman for Of Black America, breezed his way through what could have been the most pedantic essay on race relations ever to hit the tube. Rather than proving that in every middle-class Negro there is a Black Panther fighting to get out Cosby chose to soft-sell the notion that Negroes have been stunted by social conditioning. This conditioning was clearly and coolly analysed by the highly articulate Mr Cosby who managed to stay with the light touch whilst remaining in deadly earnest. A subjective treatment not lacking in empathy. Rare and no mean achievement.
Beachcomber is essentially a literary phenomenon to be taken in small doses every morning (like Peanuts) over a period of 35 years or so. Milligan and the gang can certainly raise a smile with J.B. Morton's non-sequiturs but they will always run into the kind of problems apparent to anyone who saw the attempted filming of Ulysses.
One of the unique aspects of TV is that it enables one to be entertained in one's own home by people one would not entertain in one's own home. Hamilton Mitchell comes into this category with a vengeance. In Profiles in Influence he was given carte blanche by Bernard Smythe—who's no Brian Edwards at the best of times—to wet on for the duration. Never one to miss a plug for Hamilton Mitchell, the great warrior lurched ever-onward. World affairs, defence strategy, the tragedy of youth ("work within the law and youth will change the face of the world like lowering the voting age to 20") were pontificated upon while the somnolent Smythe slumped in nodding approval. (The PYM would be well advised to lay wreaths on both of them). Personally I could stand it no longer so I turned the "off" switch and watched an old soldier fade away.
The Jefferson Airplane came right at the beginning of the Hype over psychedelic music. Groups formed, flourished and crapped out with monotonous regularity; only the Airplane (and perhaps the Grateful Dead) have progressed away from the initial narrow musical framework and retained a following comparable to the mass adulation they received in
This complex, individualistic sound could be the basic reason for their lack of impact on New Zealand record buyers. One could not describe them as being merely unpopular—it is worse than that because they are unnoticed despite a prolific output of excellent albums—
Jefferson Airplane Takes Off and Surrealistic Pillow were recorded at the height of psychedelia and it is a tribute to the group's uniqueness that they steered clear of the gimmickry associated with the trend and consequently neither album sounds particularly dated. Takes Off has Signe Anderson as female vocalist but Grace took over soon after. Surrealistic Pillow was their most commercial album with attractive tunes such as "Somebody to Love," "Plastic Fantastic Lover," "White Rabbit" and "315 of a mile in 10 seconds"—and little space devoted to extended instrumental improvisations.
After Bathing at Baxters heralded the Airplane's progression to a -much more heavy, intricate sound with excellent melodies and lyrics interspersed with extended instrumental work. Grace contributed the fantastic "Rejoyce" with its kinky words and unusual melody line." Wild Tyme", "Watch Her Ride" and "Spare Chaynge" were the very best of the recorded Jefferson Airplane.
After such a good record, Crown of Creation was a disappointment. It was very uneven with only a few glimpses of their real sound. The Airplane seem to have had production problems in their attempts to get a more smooth sound in the studio. Even for all its faults the disc is worth buying for two tracks—Dave Crosby's "Triad" and Grace's "Greasy Heart".
At this stage it seemed as if the Airplane was about to fade out after playing it super cool. However the magnificent Bless its Pointed Little Head showed for the first time just how the group sounds live—an excellent recording of dates at Fillimore East and West in "Somebody to Love", "It's No Secret", "Plastic Fantastic Lover" and "The Other Side of This Life"
Kaukonen's superb guitar is highlighted on eight minutes of "Rock Me Baby" played in an electric blues style. Highlight of the album is "Bear Melt". Grace has put the words to a Gil Evans line, she sings them with a very heavy march-like accompaniment and then the whole group swings in and improvises around the theme.
After the release of Bless its Pointed Little Head, Dryden said "I've come to think it's not really necessary to beat your brains playing for a couple of thousand kids a night, living in hotel rooms, travelling all over the place—these kids who've already seen five dozen light shows and heard a hundred heavy rock bands. Something new has got to happen. There's got to be more to it than this, someplace else to go, something happening, and I really hope ours can be the band to do it."
Brave words indeed. Everyone scoffed and discussed the number of times they had heard such rash sentiments. Fortunately the recent release of Volunteers has made most of the knockers eat their words. It is one of the best rock albums to emerge from America; at last Al Schmidt has managed to capture the Airplane's live sound in a studio. The sheer avalanche of sound that hit listeners on Bless its Pointed Little Head has now the advantage of the very best 16 track stereo recording. Also, the group's sound has been augmented with talented friends—Nicky Hopkins, Steven Stills, Jerry Garcia and Dave Crosby. Hopkin's piano work is such a dominant force on many tracks that it is hard to imagine the Airplane without him.
Side one opens with "We Can Be Together" a pounding rock number with Grace cutting right through the wall of sound to belt out the anti-social lyrics—
We're all outlaws in the eyes of America,Up against the wall motherfuckers . . .
"Good Shepherd" is a Balin arrangement of the traditional tune and played in the typical Airplane manner. With the help of Nick's honky tonk piano, they swing into "The Farm." Nothing complicated about this track, a good-time number extolling the virtues of the simple rustic life—
The side closes with the best track of all—Grace's 'Hey Fredrick". This is an extension of the complex style shown on "Bear Melt". The basic theme is again stated against a march-like backing. Jack Cassidy leads in with a solid fuzz bass line and Grace shows her phenomenal range by coming in underneath. After building up the whole thing suddenly breaks with Nicky coming in with a completely antithetical melody line. It then goes back to Grace for a few more bars before launching into 6 minutes of improvisation. Kaukonen and Cassidy have never achieved a better combination—their combination here is partly due to the musical stimulus of Hopkins. The track builds up to a momentous climax with Cassidy, Balin, Kantner and Hopkins laying down a solid, low bass line and Kaukonen's lead screaming out above.
Side two opens with the spiritually flavoured "Turn My Life Down". Still's Hammond organ blends beautifully with Kantner's mellow rhythm guitar. "Wooden Ships" is from the Crosby, Stills and Nash album (Paul Kantner wrote the track with Crosby and Stills). Grace, Marty and Paul handle the three part vocals so well that the tune comes out better here than on the original recording. "Eskimo Blue Day" is a typical Slick/Kantner composition. "Meadowlands" is one minute of (Steven Stills doing his thing with a Russian folk tune, completely in contrast to the final track, "Volunteers", where the full Airplane rock sound is unleashed and Grace urges everyone to create a revolution.
In summing up such a tremendous record, I can only register my disappointment in the recent news that Spencer Dryden has left the group. The group's personnel have been stable since