Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/collections.html
copyright 2016, 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.
In order to make new content available faster this work has been uploaded but does not have comprehensive name authority mark up for sub-works and corresponding authors. We will endeavour to add this mark up as soon as possible.
Vietnam has hit the headlines again. In a matter of weeks remarkable changes have occurred in the amount of territory controlled by the PRG and the Saigon crowd respectively. Yet the amount of territory involved is nowhere as much as depicted by the press and the real story lies not so much in what territory has changed hands but what has happened to Thieu's army and once docile population.
In two weeks Salient will be publishing a supplement on Indochina which will include maps to show just what has actually happened. Without a map to refer to I shall just say that what, in fact, has been happening when province after province has 'fallen to the Communists' is that a province which is almost totally under the control of the Provisional Revolutionary Government often contains a provincial capital that is controlled by Thieu forces. This was certainly the case in the Central Highlands and in the northern provinces. All that has happened in the current 'offensive' is that the provincial capitals and major cities which have till now been isolated Thieu outposts in a sea of PRC territory have failed to PRG forces.
The PRG had promised that if Thieu kept up his breaches of the Paris Agreement (such as keeping 200,000 political prisoners in his gaols) they would be forced to pick up the gun again. This they have done. But the PRG is not North Vietnamese tanks in different colours. The original battles in the central highlands were mainly a result of Montagnard tribesmen from the area attacking the Thieu outposts.
But Thieu has been very careful on what stories the media have put out. A French journalist wrote a report saying that the 'offensive' was being conducted by a local tribesman and a few PRG regulars and was shot by Thieu forces 'trying to escape detention.'
In fact the only offensive Thieu has been able to mount is a press offensive. He has already closed down all the opposition press and over the last few years he has also deported all the foreign journalists who dared disagree with him (even Time and Newsweek have had correspondents deported). Thieu has complete control of news leaving South Vietnam and and so it is very hard to really comment on a lot of stones we are hearing about current events.
I think the following facts deserve mentioning:
It is too soon to say just what is happening in South Vietnam but it seems that the Thieu regime is losing credibility fast. People in Saigon controlled areas are demanding the implementation of the Peace Agreements, they are demanding an end to the Thieu regime. The prestige of the PRG is growing daily as Thieu comes down harder and harder on dissident opinion and Thieu would appear to neither have a functioning army (provided he can find it) nor a helpful Congress on the other side of the Pacific.
Why does nobody work for Salient? Surely there must be more than 20 odd people in this @% Salient. Don't write letters - come in and tell us your complaint. We won't bite you. Anyway, the Old Guard is, as if you didn't know it before: Colin Feslier, John Henderson, Lisa Sacksen, Lionel Klee, Stephen Prendergast, Mark Derby, Brian King, Quentin Roper, Ross Abernethy and John Ryall. Typesetting was done by June Strachan and Peter Franks, and Salient was edited by Bruce Robinson. Advertising managers are Stephen Prendergast and Christine Maggart. Salient is published by Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association Inc and printed by Wanganui Newspapers Ltd. Drews Avenue, Wanganui.
'That individual students have heavy workloads is not to be dented' -Professor D Sloane (Economics)
'Many students, their teachers and the bursary provisions are quite unrealistic about the realities of completing the B A in three years' -Professor D McKenzie (English)
It is necessary to attempt to control the amount of work prescribed' -Professor C Dearden (Classics)
In
The
Although students considered the problem urgent, not so the Faculties of Arts Languages and Literature. After 18 months of deep thought, they have responded by setting up a Permanent Committee on Workloads, while ignoring the specific action-recommendations that a previous sub-committee had drawn up.
The recommendations included:
Accompanying these recommendations was a list of courses that were definitely exceeding the workload limits. They included nine Classics courses, eight from Mathematics, five from Geography and four from both Pyschology and Asian Studies. Courses exceeding the limits for amounts of assessable material included Anthropology with 19 courses, Education with 13, Asian Studies. Economics and Psychology with 11 courses and English with 10 courses in excess.
Despite these figures the only positive measure that the Faculties' passed (besides the setting up of the permanent committee) was one pushed through by Dr McKenzie (English) to restrict for contact hours (lectures, seminars, tutorials and laboratory periods) to four hours per week.
Judging from the use of library facilities in the pre-Easter period, student workloads are certainly not dropping. Hopefully the health of Arts Languages and Literature students will be considered if the permanent workloads committee decides to spend another 12 months going over work that has already been satisfactorily completed.
It had the promise of being a reasonably light evening's entertainment, as some 70 odd students and others gathered in the Union Hall on Sunday for the 'International Evening' organised by a local Fiji Student club. A host of multicoloured sarees and graceful, flowing 'batik' mingled with Levi jeans to an assorted number of old dance tunes. Included in the evening's programme were several songs and dance sketches, and also a somewhat biting but enlightening description of life in Fiji by a young Fijian student.
But the evening's entertainment took a diabolical turn when the organisers began screening two films to fill the interlude between dancing and refreshments. The organisers no doubt had their excuse -they had to provide a full programme for the evening and what better way than to screen a couple of films sponsored by the Fiji Visitors Bureau Board of Fiji. And the films were a credit to their sponsors. The sun-washed islands of the Fiji group were depicted in true fashion as the bejewelled, palm-fringed resort of sun-seeking tourists from all over the world. It was all there, the happy; innocent; cheerful people with flowers in their ears, of lovely sandy beaches, etc.
... The films ended with the appropriate lyrics addressed to tourists to Fiji for 'a time to stop caring'.
This sort of 'cultural aggression' that has in the last few decades wrought havoc on the peoples of the tropics, reducing them to merely picturesque objects forming part of the landscape is now rapidly assuming global dimensions. That a student club within the university should actively propagate such films is indeed a sad reflection on the state of affairs at Victoria.
Only a year ago, another student club within the university had used union facilities to propagate a series of pretentiously moralising films on the Moral Rearmament cult. Only a year later, another local club takes upon itself to play host to the cause of imperialism.
It's a hard hard world, my friends. For some reason there still appears to be an element of distrust as far as students go among the John Citizens of this noble city. A case in point is the recent refusal by barmen at the Royal Tavern to serve the thirsty students who flocked in there after the Bursaries March. I arrived there about the same time as the other students, and was very rudely told that as I was a student I would not be served. I don't like the place, the seats are reminiscent of corrugated iron and the atmosphere fully lives up to the name of the bar (Dungeon Bar). This however is beside the point. After a great deal of hassle with the barmen (and all this is hearsay, I had already departed for the Grand), hassle which included proof of age, which the people were able to furnish and an eventual summoning of the police by one student. As another student explained, students do not call the cops as a matter of course -something important has to happen be-fore this is done. That a student did this is a measure of how important those in the bar considered the situation. When the police eventually arrived the bar manager agreed to serve those students present, so in this respect everything came out Ok. But this again is not the point. Are we students not human beings? Do we not have the right to the same privileges which others not only expect but demand? Why should we be discriminated against? I would urge those of you who patronise the Royal Tavern to cease doing so. Capitalists tend to start losing their sting when they start losing their money.
I seem to be becoming quite adept at writing reports without the benefit of the notes I took at the time of the event This time I did not lose my notes - some maniac lost them for me. Anyway, this is how the latest Exec meeting went.
The first few items on the agenda were dealt with quickly, these being the usual ones of apologies, corrections to the minutes, matters arising, and correspondence. At this point Lisa Sacksen arrived from a council meeting and proceedings got under way.
MSA big wheels arrived at the Exec meeting and proceeded to ask the Exec for a subsidy of $400 for transport expenses to a Malaysian sporting event to be held in Christchurch. After some discussion the Exec decided that it wouldn't do to make a precedent like this so they asked MSA to see Sports Council as the Exec would be acting completely within precedent to give a subsidy for organisational expenses.
The Labour Party Club and the new Underwater Club were both affiliated with a condition, in the case of the Labour Party Club, that membership of this club would not necessarily imply membership of the Labour Party itself.
Barbara Leishman gave a very lengthy and detailed written Orientation report to the Exec. She was complimented on the quality of this report and on the success of the Orientation programme.
There was discussion on the Capping Dance and the possibility of reintroducing Procesh. Neither were finalised.
Mike Curtis had an offer from Whitcoulls for the association to sell typewriters for profit. The Exec decided they were not a capitalist body and refused the offer.
The Exec decided to make moves to join Unicine, the national student film body.
The also decided to bless a meeting between students and police to discuss the role and tactics of said police. Go and see someone in the Studass office if you are interested in being one of the students, and 175a Taranaki Street if you are interested in being one of the police (undercover only).
The Exec decided to requisition an SGM for the recommital of the motion on fees discussed at the AGM. They felt that a bare (and very dubious) quorum was not enough to make so important a decision. Obviously they expect more people at an SGM. Sweet dreams.
That's all, people. I'll probably find my notes now.
It's Most interesting to walk from the No.1 courtroom in the Magistrate's Court upstairs to the smaller courts, Nos. 1 and 3, where predominently though not exclusively, traffic cases are heard. It appears that the more 'socially acceptable' offences are heard in these courts, those with less social condemnation, what people consider more as technical offences without the 'evil' of a 'real crime'. This results in several interesting consequences. Firstly the atmosphere is much less tense; the magistrate can sometimes be congenial and often the defendant doesn't even have to stand in the dock. What is even more startling is the defendants them-selves, they are by and large dressed more expensively and furthermore they are so much more articulate, with an understanding of the court process so they can speak up on their own behalf and say all the right things to the magistrate. It appears that this type of offence is committed more by a different class of people and as a result of the channelling processes of the administration in the court you can see two different types of 'justice' at work, just one floor away.
* * *
Mr Monaghan SM sentenced a man to two weeks' imprisonment for being drunk in a public place, 'to get closer supervision of his problem'. Surely a magistrate in his position should be aware just what prisons are like, that they offer no form of treatment at all. All informed and intelligent authorities on prison conditions and functions recognise that prisons in the present form serve only a punitive function at best and recommend that short prison sentences not be given. Some sort of medical treatment might be more effective, I don't know, but I'm sure that two weeks in Mt Crawford would do a man like this no good at all.
* * *
Before Mr Sullivan SM, a youth was charged with theft of a police rail-pass which he had found at the Palmerston North railway station and kept. It seems a little dubious that the police had any prior knowledge that he had it and I believe they stopped and searched him because of his appearance; shaven head, tattooes, including a borstal cross, old clothes and heavy boots; and charged him with its theft, having found the pass on him.
It was a petty offence, the pass was only good to him as curio value, yet he had to go through the rigmarole of appearing in court when most people would have got off with a warning. This is a waste of the court's time and resources and the sort of action that can only further embitter this person's outlook on the police and the law, reinforcing the polarised attitudes that already exist between the police and this class of people that public opinion seems to think spawns 'criminals.'
* * *
Dun Mihaka appeared before Mr Monaghan SM in an attempt to have a hearing on an assault charge, that was to be heard on April 24 to be brought forward. The charge was originally laid in early February and a not guilty plea was entered, whereupon the case was remanded for three months.
It was Mr Mihaka's submission that his case was prejudiced by the delay, in that witnesses would be harder to locate and would perhaps be less sure of the details of the event. He pointed out the anomaly that if he had entered a guilty plea the case would have been heard immediately, which is as it should be, and claimed that this type of belaying action by the court was a 'further plot to suppress the people.'
Without being quite so emotive, I would agree with the substance of his argument. It seems that often people plead guilty to offences to get them over and done with, so they don't have things hanging over their heads for too long. Witnesses do tend to forget details with the passage of time and their testimonies would generally be considered secondary to a contrary police report so that delay of this sort must swing the balance in favour of the police case.
Henry Isaacs was born in Peitermaritzburg, South Africa. He matriculated at the Abton High School and after the Minister of Coloured Affairs had refused him permission under the Extension of University Education Act to attend an open university, he enrolled at the University of Western Cape for a B A degree.
Henry obtained his B A degree in
While at university, Henry was active in student affairs. In
In
In
Nevertheless he was found guilty and fined R50 ($50) which he refused to pay. When he was suspended by the University Council from 1
Henry was a foundation member of the South African Students' Organisation (SASO) as well as the Black Peoples' Convention (BPC) which rejects apartheid and all apartheid created institutions. Both organisations are protagonists of black consciousness which they describe as an attitude of mind, a way of life - if a man is free at heart then no chains can bind htm.'
On
NZUSA believes in building bridges to South Africa. We also believe in isolating the unjust elements in South African society to work towards the end of racism in that part of the world.
Thus the bridges we do build are carefully considered to be the most appropriate and beneficial possible.
This is why NZUSA has brought Henry Isaacs to New Zealand as the first recipient of the NZUSA Southern Africa Scholarship. We want the educational opportunities available to the 'whites only' on South Africa to be extended to the victims of racism in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia.
So each year NZUSA intends to bring a student to New Zealand for university studies. We feel that this will provide a chance to help Southern Africa in a very substantial way - education is the most valuable investment possible for the future of any country. Each recipient of the Scholarship will also be able to describe the up-to-date situation in Southern Africa and will be available to talk to a large and diverse number of groups in New Zealand - education of New Zealanders is regarded as an integral part of the Scholarship Who better to provide that education than a victim of racism?
Firstly it is a source of funds, just like any other scholarship, to enable the recipient to live and study in New Zealand. His or her accommodation and tuition fees will be paid for from the scholarship funds as well as an allowance for day to day expenses. The sum required will vary each year with changes in the cost of living.
We appeal for funds to make possible the continuation of this scholarship. This we hope to do by building up a sufficient sum to enable the scholarship to be continued on the interest gained on capital without having to appeal to the public each year.
Selection will be made from students who are recommended by organisations working with the student groups in South Africa and the student organisations themselves. Preference will be given to students who are persecuted by the South African authorities for political reasons, especially those under a banning order and unable to study in South Africa.
A selection panel will consist of representatives from NZUSA and other groups concerned with university education who have been invited to join.
The Prime Minister of Singapore is currently paying an unofficial visit to New Zealand. One of the topics which he will he discussing with government leaders will be New Zealand's continuing contribution to what Norm Kirk used to call 'peace and stability' in the region.
The nature of the People's Action Party (PAP) administration in Singapore has rarely been the subject of intense scrutiny by New Zealanders. While the regimes of Thieu and Marcos for instance have always been at the very least suspect Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore was seen as something different This has been a significant factor in the maintaining of New Zealand troops on the Malay peninsular by the by the Labour government after the remaining contingent had been brought home from Vietnam.
This bon homme attitude arises partly from Singapore being a fallow member of the Commonwealth and probably more importantly for the Labour Party, the avowed socialist policy of the PAP. Lee, along with government heads such as Schmit of Western Germany and Rabin of Israel is a member of the Socialist International. Singapore is held in very high affection and esteem by many government members, ranking not for after the 'white' friends of Australia and the UK' Kirk and Lee were personal friends, sharing long term visions of a world they wished to shape into a social democratic mould.
The once shiny product of this mould has become rather tarnished as of late. Unemployment figures in Singapore are at 10% and inflation has climbed to 35%. The crises of the developed capitalist countries has hit Singapore hard largely because of the dependency of Singapore on trade; which has fallen drastically, along with another dependency; tourism.
The multinationals in this area have been only too quick to exploit this situation The prime tool of operation has been a policy of retrenchment of workers. The Singaporean government entices new enterprises into Singapore by offering them five years of 'pioneer status'. This means that the new factories or whatever operate without paying any taxes for five years. The PAP argument goes that if such incentives were not provided then the capital investment would go elsewhere and job opportunities would be lost.
How this arrangment works in practice is shown by the case of National Semi-Conductors. In July last year National Semi-Conductors laid off over 2500 workers claiming the economic downturn was the cause of this. The Singaporean daily New Straits Times carried an advertisement the following month for workers to fill the 'fast expansion' of National Semiconductors in Malacca in Malaysia. The salient point in the whole story was that Singapore's National Semi-Conductors pioneer status was to expire in October, after which they would be required to pay taxes. National Semi-Conductors branches in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia were still enjoying their tax exemptions.
The problem of retrenchment of workers was exacerbated by the manner in which the massive layoffs were conducted by the multinationals. Often very little notice was given, there was no severance pay and there was no consideration for those with family responsibilities.
These actions against the workers were carried out quite openly because the emasculated trade union leadership in Singapore is prepared to allow such abuses. The National Trade Union Council (NTUC) is well integrated into the PAP and collaborated with the government in formulating legislation 'in the best interests of all Singaporeans.' Secretary-General C D Devan Nair had made a number of pronouncements about 'belt tightening' to enable companies to survive. Criticism of the retrenchment policies by the trade unions would have begun an examination of the multinationals and their real intentions which differ so markedly from that portrayed by the PAP.
The workers had found themselves without allies or organisation until the student unions began to act. Tan Wah Piow of the University of Singapore Students' Union (USSU) established a Retrenchment Research Centre to examine retrenchment, including ways in which the worst factors could be ameliorated. As Tan said:
"We must admit that it (the Students' Union) is a very rare organ left in Singapore which can still express independent, critical ideas and can still attempt to organise public sentiments which express the aspirations of the majority who have no channel to register their resentment. Other effective organisations are either banned and non-existent or effectively crippled with their leaders thrown into prison . . . Knowing the social value of our students' union, we must work harder to organise the union to serve the people whenever possible .... We are all at the university at the expense of many others. Remember our responsibility to society, our responsibility to justice, equality and freedom."
The Government reaction was swift. Tan was hauled into court on blatantly fabricated charges of rioting arising from an incident in which workers approached the Pioneer Industries Employees Union (PIEU) to attempt to resolve a retrenchment problem with American Marine; builders of pleasure boats. After a 47 day trial Tan was convicted and sentenced to a year's jail by Judge Sinnathury. Two other defendants were given a month each. The trial, widely publicised throughout Singapore was obviously a fraud. Melbourne barrister Frank Galbally covered the trial and reports that "the account of riotous incidents as given by the prosecution witnesses lacked credibility", and that Tan "is not obtaining any real measure of a fair trial". PIEU functionaries stood outside the court clapping in the prosecution witnesses.
The end result of the trial was Tan joining a number of other opponents of the government in the jails of Singapore. Some political prisoners have been there since
Lee has in the past said such things as "If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies -even those who do not subscribe to our views as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself." With the deepening crisis and the rising clamour of the critics the Lee of old has changed — the "in principle" qualification has become larger. A recent book by T. J. S. George, political editor of the "Far Eastern Economic Review" — "Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore" strongly criticises Lee. George cites a statement by Lee that "We have over a hundred political detainees, men against whom we are unable to place even an iota of evidence."
Others have also been outspoken. Ian Buchanan describes Singapore as "a garrison state in which it is considered essential to regiment society".
When such descriptions are made of compradorial puppets like Lon Nol they are often accepted and lived with. For Lee Kuan Yew they are generally dismissed as exaggerations. Lee's dual mission to ensure the quietitude of Singaporean students studying in New Zealand and the continued presence of New Zealand forces in Malaysia is likely to fail on the first count. The second will probably be successful.
It is no accident that this visit comes just prior to the Labour Party conference when once more our overseas military commitments will be reviewed. The UK forces will be out of the area by the end of the year and Australia's presence is down to two air bases. New Zealand's contribution is still substantial and Lee is here to ensure that it remains so. It must be hoped that this time an examination of who New Zealand chooses as its friends and in what way they wish to help such people will lead to a disappointing visit for the Prime Minister of Singapore.
'The recent kangaroo-court trial of student leader Tan Wah Piow in Singapore is a reflection of the repressiveness of the police-state of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew' G. Nathan, vice-President of the Wellington Malaysia-Singapore Students Association said to Salient.
'The MSSA condemns the trial as a violation of basic human rights and as a reflection of the Prime Minister's desire to mould Singaporean society into a smoothly functioning, highly profitable economic unit', said Mr Nathan.
The fate of those who have spoken out against the government's policies has been the same - denial of democratic rights, and unspecified terms of imprisonment in detention camps,' he said.
The MSSA expresses it support and sympathy for those who have been brave enough to express opposition to the Prime Minister's repressive policies, and it condemns the gangsterism behind the apparent respectability of this 'Guest of Honour.'
The cinema industry is one or the most grotesque cases of monopoly known in New Zealand. The two chains, Kerridge-Odeon and Amalgamated, between them determine what the movie-goer sees. Both chains are controlled from overseas: Kerridge-Odeon by the Rank Organisation of Britain, Amalgamated by 20th Century Fox of the United States of America. Both are insipid and conventional in their taste in films. And a system of government licensing protects their monopoly and allows them to inflict their taste on the movie-going public.
As a result New Zealanders see very little of the world's total film production.
Ever wondered why films made by famous directors like Godard. Bresson. Rohmer. Bunuel. and Orson Welles are not shown commercially in New Zealand? Or why unusual British and American films that win acclaim from critics overseas, like The Conversation. The King of Marvin Gardens, How I Won the War. The Long Good bye, and Bring Me the Head of Afredo Garcia Sam Peckinpah), sit gathering dust on distributors' shelves for years and then receive only a few screenings or none at all.
Its all to do with the power of commerce over culture - the power of a handful of men to decide what films New Zealanders will see.
Of the two chains Kerridge-Odeon is the bigger and stronger business operation. It is also the more old-fashioned and restrictive. We will therefore concentrate in this series of articles on describing the workings and sources of power of Kerridge-Odeon. The earlier part of the series deals with the historical and commercial background of Kerridge-Odeon, and discusses the association with the Rank Organisation and the effect of the licensing system. Later in the series we show, giving examples, how the Kerridge-Odeon-Amalgamated monopoly restricts the range of films shown commercially, and why the dominant mood in the New Zealand cinema industry is one of lethargy and dullness.
Popular legend has it that Sir Robert Kerridge is a self-made man. Nothing could be further from the truth He has always had money behind him. As a young man he started up business in Gisborne - he acquired Gisborne Theatres in
In those days the cinema industry wasn't as rigidly controlled as it is now. There were chains of theatres but there were more of them and they were more fluid in ownership. The independent theatres had a stronger position.
The growth of monopoly in the industry occurred naturally, given the capitalistic environment. Distributors offered the best films to the chains with the best circuits and the best houses. Getting the best films enabled these chains to ex-tend their circuits and improve their houses, which meant that they continued to get the best films. The smaller operators got what was left over, and were always in danger of being squeezed out.
There was one sure way that a chain could guarantee itself access to good films and strengthen its competitive position; it could form an association with an overseas distributor.
Competition was severe. The ownership of both theatres and chains changed hands continually, and Kerridge's road to fame, fortune and knighthood was strewn with commercial corpses
By
In the course of their scramble to the top both Kerridge and Moodabe called in outside help. Early in
It might help at this point if we go into Rank's interest in all this:
J Arthur Rank was an Englishman of means. Considerable means in fact. He was involved in flour milling and baking in a big way, and diversified from there into the ownership of cinemas. Later he moved into film making and distribution.
His career in the cinema was a bit like Kerridge's, only on a much bigger scale, building his empire by gobbling up the smaller operators. During the war he made a killing, and when it ended he felt strong enough to expand further - not only in Britain but throughout the Empire and Europe as well.
He acquired a half interest in an Australian company. Greater Union Theatres, which was an amalgamation of four theatre chains: West's Pictures, Spencer's Pictures, Amalgamated Pictures -and J C Williamson, the Australian end of the J C Williamson Picture Corporation of New Zealand.
Rank attended to New Zealand next, where he found Kerridge anxious to deal with him. Now Rank was anxious to deal with Kerridge because he wanted a share of the action in New Zealand. However, 20th Century Fox, who were already here through their shareholding in Amalgamated, wanted more of the action too. Rank and Fox also had their problems in England There were two theatre chains there that were ripe for the picking, the Odeon and Gaumont-British chains. Both Rank and Fox wanted a share.
So they made a deal. Rank took over Odeon, and Rank and Fox jointly took over Gaumont-British. Moodabe and Kerridge were summoned to New York (Kerridge went at Rank's request) where their fate was worked out. 20th Century Fox was to expand its shareholding in Amalgamated; Kerridge was to sell a half share of Union Investments to Odeon Holdings (NZ) in which the Rank companies held 416,000 shares and the joint Rank-Fox outfit, Gaumont British held 384,000.
This meant that Rank gained control of Kerridge, and that Fox gained an -interest in the operation too.
We noted earlier that this transaction took place in the middle of Kerridge's takeover binge, and we commented that it gave Kerridge and Moodabe control of the cinema industry in New Zealand. The takeover of the J C Williamson Picture Corporation illustrates this perfectly.
Kerridge had been interested in the Picture Corporation for some time, but the Australian interests in it, the Tail brothers, weren't interested in selling. Kerridge wasn't offering enough. The Tait brothers also knew that Kerridge was anxious to come to some arrangement with Rank, and they reckoned that Kerridge would have to come to terms with them if he wanted to deal with Rank. This was apparently because Rank wanted the whole industry sewn up.
After the Rank-Fox arrangement, the Tail brothers had no option but to sell. With Rank and Fox in control of the New Zealand scene, they were worried about their supply of films (remember, Rank and Fox were distributors). They got the price they wanted though because they were the only complicating factor, and Rank (through Kerridge) was happy to pay them off.
It is because of this sort of commercial malpractice that distributors, in many other countries aren't allowed to engage in the exhibiting of films. It is too easy for them to squeeze out competitors through their control of the supply of films.
New Zealanders were naturally concerned about these goings-on, and about the degree of monopoly that was developing in the industry. Kerridge Odeon and Amalgamated between them owned 177 cinemas including practically all of the city ones. Most of the concern was about the fact that Fox was involved in both chains and the Labour government appointed a Committee of Inquiry in
Among the things that the committee had to consider was the extent to which the New Zealand cinema industry should remain in the hands of British and New Zealand nationals. This reflected the anti-Americanism underlying the resentment against Fox. The Labour government apparently preferred British investment to American, an attitude that is still common. American firms operating in New Zealand come in for a lot of (deserved) criticism, particularly in radical papers and magazines, British firms escape comparatively unscathed, despite the fact that there are still a lot more of them.
This attitude is apparently common in Australia too. In a private letter commenting on the New Zealand situation, An Australian show-biz personality John Tait wrote, The picture business in New Zealand now will be absolutely controlled by the Rank, Kerridge and Fox interests, which in many respects is a pity, but it is nice to know that English and New Zealand money is the dominating factor.'
When the Committee of Inquiry issued its report in
Some of the concern about Fox was due to the fact that people believed that Rank (whose main interests were in exhibiting films) would be well and truly
Rank's enormous personal fortune gave him in fact a strong position in his dealings with Fox (in contrast to Moodabe who would have had to do what Fox told him). Rank eventually had a violent disagreement with Fox over the standard of the Fox films shown in England. He
As well as this, Rank was the only European film concern to ever try to invade America. He didn't think that the American distributors were giving his films a fair run, and he set up an American distributing company of his own. It was a dismal failure and cost him millions of dollars. But he at least felt strong enough to make the attempt.
The introduction of television brought hard times to the cinema world. Rank closed most of his film studios and a lot of his cinemas. The Gaumont circuit collapsed and was absorbed into the main Rank circuit (we haven't been able to find out what happened to the Fox interest in Gaumont; however Fox and Rank still share a distribution company). Rank was forced to diversify and is today involved in property development, bingo halls, ten pin bowling (these particular activities being suitable for closed-down cinemas), a string of radio stations, Southern Television, British Space Development, Butlins holiday camps, precision instruments, hotels, laundries, wine wholesalers, Murphy Radio - to name a few of the Rank interests.
The Rank activities revolve around a central company, the Rank Organisation, which is controlled by the Rank Foundation (a legal device to keep the company in British hands. The man in charge is an accountant turned tycoon called Sir John Davis. The Rank Organisation carries on business through subsidiary companies, hundreds of them, operating in dozens of different countries. Many of these subsidiaries are in fact partnerships with other companies. The Midland Bank, for instance, is the largest shareholder in Odeon Theatres and has several directors on several Rank companies.
Most successful of the Rank subsidiaries is Rank-Xerox, a joint venture with Xerox of the United States of America. (Rank is also one of the largest shareholders in the Xerox Corporation, which earns Rank about three-quarters of its income. Which isn't surprising seeing that Rank-Xerox enjoys a virtual monopoly in Commonwealth countries like New Zealand. (The Xerox Corporation has the monopoly to itself in many other countries).
As well as controlling the Rank Organisation, the Rank family is still involved in its old flour milling and baking business, Ranks Hovis McDougall, which has now-expanded into the food business generally. They are the makers of Cerebos salt and own the Dominion Salt Company of New Zealand, and are another enormous (by British standards) organisation.
Henry Kissinger sure gets around. He also has a reputation as a man of peace who has put his own life and newly acquired wife into second place in the quest for international security. If only ol' Henry had just once ever brought peace to anyone at all then perhaps you could believe it all. But Henry hasn't brought peace. Instead he has masterminded attack after attack on the developing third world countries. He has directed US interventions, continually threatened war and seems to live solely to see the growing movement of the third world peoples divided and broken down.
Henry has become famous (once again) recently for his threat to send in US troops to takeover Middle East oil fields. But that remains only a threat. On
But a lot of Henry's concern to bring about peace never reaches the public until too late. When things weren't going Henry's way in negotiations on the Peace Agreement for Vietnam it was he who suggested the infamous Christmas
Kissinger is a man alone in the handling of US foreign affairs. The debacle of US involvement in Cambodia stems from the same doctrine that Kissinger has applied in all his work for 'peace' and 'security'. The following excerpt from the New York Herald-Tribune
Lon Nol overthrew the Sihanouk government in March 1970. Whatever its role in that coup, the United States intervened quickly thereafter. In April President Nixon sent in American troops. He said the purpose was only to hunt Vietnamese Communists, not to 'expand' the war into Cambodia.' But has raged ever since in that once so peaceful country, with the United States playing a dominant part.
The Ford administration is now putting extreme pressure on Congress for more aid to Lon Nol. What is the rationalisation? President Ford explains that American policy is to help 'where the government and the people of a country want to protect their country from foriegn aggression or foriegn invasion.'
That a man as decent as Gerald Ford should accept such stuff from his advisers, and repeat it, is disheartening. For his premise of Cambodia resisting 'foreign' attack is the opposite of the truth.
Americans in Phnom Penh concede that the war is a genuine civil war - Cambodians against Cambodians. Nor do they pretend that Lon Nol has much popular support. His corrupt, ineffectual government is totally dependent on the United States.
The United States has given $1.8 billion to Lon Nol so far. Americans still direct much of his war effort, and supply it entirely. From March 1970 to August 1973 when Congress called a halt, American planes dropped 442,735 tons of bombs on Cambodia. No Chinese or Vietnamese planes have dropped bombs - or been given as aid to the Khmer Rouge.
As a new excuse for more American aid to fuel this hopeless war, administration spokesmen say there might be negotiations if Lon Nol survives long enough. That is a desperate argument, and disingenuous. When the Khmer Rouge leader, Khieu Samphan, toured Eastern Europe in 1974, the US ambassador in Phnom Penh, John Gunther Dean, urged that contact be made with him. Kissinger rejected the idea.
No, Kissinger's concern is not for the Cambodians, who want no more war. It is for American credibility, and especially his own, which he thinks would suffer if we 'lost' Cambodia. Because the only conceivable settlement now would mean Lon Nol's departure, the war must go on. Kissinger is prepared to fight to the last Cambodian.
In the New York Times the other day, next to the story about the latest Ford-Kissinger appeal for more arms to Lon Nol, there was a report from the Times' correspondent in Phnom Penh, Sydney H. Schanberg. It told about what had happened to Cambodia in these five years.
'Cambodia before the war,' he wrote, was 'so rich in its food produce that even the very poor were never hungry. . . Now it is a country of landless nomads with empty stomachs - human flotsam living amidst damp and filth. . . The countryside is charred wasteland....
That is the result of the Kissinger doctrine of an obsession with order and power at the expense of humanity. Whatever else he accomplishes in office, Henry Kissinger will be associated forever with the destruction of Cambodia.
There is a very important feature of the Mt Davy coalfield in the West Coast, about to be mined for export by a foreign consortium, which has been glossed over in the press It is that this field represents New Zealand's last significant deposit of high-quality coking coal - that is, coal suitable for the steel industry. With the present energy situation it should be regarded as a priceless power resource. Instead it's being sold off in a hurry to a Japanese aligned consortium who plan to use it to smelt South Australian Iron ore to make steel for export. And as with the infamous Comalco deal, it's quite likely that New Zealand will not benefit economically from the exchange.
West Coast Resources Ltd is currently seeking approval from the government to start mining at Mt Davy. It is a consortium 50% owned by Ataka and Co (a member of the Sumitomo Zaibatsu, the largest conglomerate in Japan). Foreign control is also expressed through New Zealand Forest Products, a 25% partner which has up to 30% of its shares owned overseas. With foreign interest as high as this the whole enterprise can be expected to run for maximum foreign gain.
The price figure for this coal is quoted as $40 a tonne. Most probably this means freight on board at Lyttelton, since that way the price turns out highest, and conceals transport costs. Yet it's still an absurdly low price, since West Coast Resources will still be selling the coal at $40 a tonne in
By exporting raw materials and importing finished products (the classic colonial economy), New Zealand is continually losing out to inflation. We have to sell the coal at a price which is fixed for 15 years, but we must buy our Japanese cars at constantly inflating prices over that time.
In a recent statement, Mr Colman said 'the government was doing its homework on the price carefully.' It will need more information than this to convince us that New Zealanders will eventually profit from the sale.
The two New Zealand companies in the venture can afford to operate the mine at a loss, since they stand to gain huge tax rebates on their investment in the area under Labour's regional development provisions. These tax losses may amount to a considerable expense to be borne by the New Zealand taxpayer.
In addition, the type of development this scheme will bring to the Coast has not been properly considered. The government proudly announces that 200 men will be employed, but what happens to them in 15 years, when all the coal runs out? Until all these points are clarified, no contract should be made.
Projects like Mt Davy and the Clutha hydro-electric schemes are continually pushing the country towards the dangerous technology of nuclear power. Apart from the inevitable harmful pollution, a nuclear powered plant requires minerals and know-how which are completely controlled by the Western capitalist powers. New Zealand would be totally dependent on these countries if the present development policy forced us to go nuclear.
In New Zealand terms, the Mt Davy field is a big potential power source. But Japan can consume every ounce of coal in the country and just grow a little more overdeveloped. Surely it's preferable to build a national industry, consuming our own resources.
When the Labour Party was elected in
Since the Labour Government took office, tertiary students have been waiting for the government to take concrete steps to introduce this policy which would mean a radical, change in the nature of students' bursaries.
The standard tertiary bursary would not mean that students would get a living wage. What it would mean is that students would get a realistic level of assistance during the academic year and that students' bursaries would increase with increases in the cost of living.
One suggestion has been that the standard tertiary bursary would give a similar allowance to the present unemployment benefit. So if this suggestion is adopted students over 20 would get around $28 a week during the academic year.
The present bursary system has been haphazardly developed over the years, new parts being added to it as the need has arisen. It does not treat all students fairly. For example, it does not provide anything near an adequate level of support for technical institute students, while a number of university students are rewarded because they have been successful in passing competitive exams, like the University Scholarship examinations.
Discussions between NZUSA, NZTISA and STANZ, and the Department of Education on the new bursary system have been going on for some time. We have received some proposals from the Department about the structure of the new bursary system.
This pamphlet outlines a draft proposal for the standard tertiary bursary. It is being circulated on all campuses to encourage student discussion and debate on the new bursary. It does not represent your student association's final views on the new bursary system.
We would like your ideas, suggestions and criticisms so that when we negotiate the details of the new bursary system with the government, we can fight to get the best possible deal for students.
Initially the standard tertiary bursary should be paid to all full-time unbonded tertiary students who are eligible for admission to a tertiary institution. Sixth form leavers going straight to university would receive a level of assistance comparable to a secondary school boarding bursary plus assistance with fees and books. However sixth form leavers who go to university after a year in employment should be eligible for the standard tertiary bursary. Tuition fees should be paid for all students.
The bursary would be paid from the date of enrolment until the end of examinations in the case of technical institute and university students. In the case of student teachers the bursary should be paid throughout the year.
A university student would lose his or her bursary if he or she did not pass a minimum of two units or 24 credits a year. However in the case of university students who have been at university for two or more years, their whole academic record should be taken into account. A university student's bursary would be reinstated after passing a minimum of two units or 24 credits.
The standard tertiary bursary would be a cost of living related bursary which would be tied to general wage orders, providing that representatives of the national student organisations concerned would have the right to negotiate with the appropriate government agency on increases if they so desired.
The present unemployment benefit has been suggested as a possible basis for the standard tertiary bursary. At present levels of payment for people over 20 on the unemployment benefit receive about $28 a week, while a married person with a dependent wife receives about $46 a week. However, the actual level of bursary paid should be the subject of negotiations between the three national student organisations and the Department of Education. Under the present bursary system the older a student is, the more money he or she receives. Should this practice continue under the new bursary system?
Additional allowances to cover consumable materials, travel, etc. for costly courses should be paid to the teaching institution concerned. Some of the areas these additional allowances would cover include field trips at Lincoln College, Fine Arts courses at Canterbury and Auckland universities, forestry courses at Canterbury university, veterinary courses at Massey University, dentistry courses at Otago University, field trips for student teachers, etc.
Separate boarding allowances would not be paid under the standard tertiary bursary. Students' accommodation costs
At present student teachers receive allowances which are generally much higher than those paid to university or technical institute students. Student teachers receive these higher allowances because they bond themselves to work for the Education Department for a certain period as teachers, and they undertake to repay part of their allowances if they default on their bond obligations
STANZ, NZUSA and NZTISA will strongly resist any attempts to introduce the standard tertiary bursary on the cheap by lowering the pay of student teachers or worsening their conditions of employment.
The standard tertiary bursary should be introduced at first to cover all tertiary students except student teachers. Negotiations between the three national student organisations and the Department of Education would be held immediately to work out means of introducing the standard tertiary bursary to cover student teachers.
STANZ, NZUSA and NZTISA believe that the cost of training people for a profession (such as leaching) should be borne by the employer or employing authority which receives the benefit of this professional training, not be the individuals undertaking the training. The same principle should apply to those undertaking apprenticeships or trade training. The present system of training teachers by forcing them to bond themselves to the state is thoroughly inadequate.
It is a generally accepted principle that the older an more experienced a student is when he or she enters college, the belter a teacher he or she will become. Provision must be made for attracting people to the
However one group of bonded students who would definitely benefit from the introduction of the standard tertiary bursary are those on Health Department bonded bursaries such as physiotherapy students, occupational therapy students and nursing students studying at technical institutes.
These students' allowances range from $430 in the first year, to S475 in their second year, to $520 in their third year plus a boarding allowance of $480 if they are eligible. In exchange for these bursaries these students are bonded for two years. Once during their course they have to work unpaid in a hospital during their long vacation, usually between their second and third years of study. There is no guarantee of work once they have finished their training.
Not all of these students Can get Health Department bursaries, NZTISA, NZUSA and STANZ believe that it is essential that these students should be included in the standard bursary system as soon as it is introduced.
Whatever level of bursary allowance is negotiated, there must be provision for the needs of married students, i.e. a student who is married with a dependent spouse and possibly a family. Such provision should also apply to a student who is living in a de facto relationship, although two students who are married or who are living in a de facto relationship should both receive the allowance for a single student.
Consideration must also be given to the position of people who are older than most students, who have a dependent spouse and family, and who have financial commitments (e.g. purchase of a home).
It is understood that the present hardship allowances which exist under the bursary regulations will continue under the new standard tertiary bursary system. These allowances should be extended to cover female students who are disadvantaged because of a lack of vacation employment opportunities or because of discriminatory rates of wages.
It is recognised that some part-time students have particular needs and NZUSA, NZTISA and STANZ would not be prepared to see their needs neglected. After there has been an investigation into the needs of part-time students, special negotiations would take place to determine the position of part-time students in a standard bursary system.
It is difficult to estimate the total cost of introducing the new bursary system. One private news agency in Wellington has estimated the cost at around $17 million on top of the costs of the present bursary system. This figure is close to independent estimates made by NZUSA.
Some people have argued that the government could finance the introduction of the new bursary system in part by taxing corporations and professional firms which benefit directly from tertiary education.
This draft proposal does not put forward ways of dealing with the problems of part-time students, the position of student teachers, the actual level of bursary paid, etc.
Some of these matters will require lengthy negotiations and the government should establish a committee comprising equal numbers of representatives of the three national student organisations on the one hand, chaired by an independent person who is acceptable to all sides. This would be a permanent committee which would meet regularly to work out solutions to areas not covered by the standard tertiary bursary and to any anomalies that may arise. Its operations would be funded by the government, it would have wide powers to consult interested parties (e.g. the universities and the teachers' organisations) and it would make its recommendations directly to the Minister of Education.
If we're going to get the standard tertiary bursary this year, every tertiary student will have to think about it, talk about it to others and take part in some form of collective action.
This proposal has been put forward for the purpose of discussion by the national offices of the New Zealand University Students' Association, P O Box 6368, Te Aro, Wellington; the Student Teachers' Association of New Zealand, P O Box 9172, Courtenay Place, Wellington; and the New Zealand Technical Institute Students' Association, P O Box 6116, Auckland.
Tertiary student groups have been Salient reports on the Wellington demonstration, actions in other centres
Vic students congregated on the Hunter lawn between 12 and 12.30 pm last Wednesday in preparation for a march to Parliament. Ostensibly we were going to present Mr Amos with a set of two faded, damp, pale pink (for his political colour) facecloths, the facecloths were to be awarded to Mr Amos in recognition of his long years of service to education. Two rather than one were to be presented because the SRC motion authorising the presentation stipulated that one facecloth was to be presented for each of the minister's faces.
The real purpose of the march was to press for the implementation of the promised tertiary bursary. 1500 students from all faculties (yes, law and commerce students as well) had gathered before the march set off downtown.
The number of students present was a remarkable confirmation of the student support NZUSA has claimed in negotiations with the Minister. At Victoria apart from articles in Salient and occasional leaflets not one forum had been held on the issue yet one in four of Vic students dropped their studies and turned up for the march. Nationwide 10,000 students were involved in protests at the inaction on bursaries by the Minister and his department.
The march started off down Salamanca Road with a variety of libellous, possible libellous and only slightly libellous banners and placards commenting on the fruits of Mr Amos' 'long years of service to education'. The march proceeded in a lively spirit and leaflets were handed out to cars, people, building sites and buses that the march passed by explaining why we were marching and asking for public support. Already all the major teachers' organisations, some trade unions, various public groups and the Australian Union of Students have given their support to our campaign and it is hoped that we can keep increasing our backing from the public.
The march was led by Sue Green, Education Vice-President of NZUSA, and Lisa Sacksen, President of Vic students carrying the facecloths. Chanting 'No money, no vote' and '1 2 3 we want the bursary' we were met by 600 Polytech students led by Bryan Hughes, their president, at James Smith corner. The march was assuming mammoth proportions covering the whole of Willis Street to Lambton Quay with plenty to spare still coming up Manners Street. Students had been joining the march all along the route and when the march strode into Parliament grounds our numbers were up to 3000.
The march had just gathered around the steps of Parliament when out popped Rob Muldoon complete with leering grin. But the crowd did not want Rob -it wanted Amos and the chant 'We want Amos' was started up. However it became obvious Amos did not want us as we heard that a delegation was to be allowed to see the Minister but the Minister would not be gracing the rest of the students on the demonstration with his presence. (For what happened to the delegation see Sue Green's story). So in went the delegation with the facecloths.
While the delegation was inside trying to get the Minister to give the students a! least one of his faces the students outside chanted for Amos. A speaker from Teacher's College got up and said that their banner had mysteriously developed a hole in it but that they were here with the march and 'heartily endorsed it'. Mark Peck from STANZ (The student teacher's organisation) said STANZ believed students should have, as right, a living wage and that the negotiations for this living wage should be done directly with the Department by the students' own representatives.
Peck went on to raise the question of who should pay for the proposed bursary. He said the 'overburdened taxpayer' should not be made to pay any more than he is at the moment. The ordinary worker was supposed to gain by this new bursary by being able to afford university education for himself and his children if they wanted. If the tax burden for the new bursary was to fall on him then half the reasons for the new bursary would disappear. Peck said he supported a corporate tax whereby the current beneficiaries of university education would pay towards the cost of creating graduates. Peck's remarks were greeted with strong applause.
Then, while still waiting for the return of the delegation, another National MP came out but students realised there was nothing National could do for them and that their struggle was with the Labour government. A 'young' National proceeded to say the march had their support but this was not well recieved. The marchers wanted one thing only - a genuine promise from Amos for a tertiary bursary this year - they weren't interested in party political broadcasts from anybody.
At 1.30 pm the Nats tried again as a veritable Task Force of Tories wandered onto the steps, Bert Walker, Les Gandar, Adams-Schneider, and Ken (Rupert Bear) Comber. 'National, of course, supports students. ..' said Gandar who knew like everyone else that even a Labour government would introduce the bursary before National would get back in. Gandar had to finish his speech using two loudspeakers as the crowd wouldn't keep quiet for him and after a while the Nats started to 'circulate.'
Then the delegation arrived back. Sue Green reported:
Sue said that once again Mr Amos 'basically had nothing to say' about the bursary. She asked us what we thought of Mr Amos - as one we replied 'piss poor'. Sue finished her report with the words, 'All I can say is that Mr Amos, as is the Labour government, is going to have a lot to answer for in November.'
There being little left for the demonstration to do it was decided to disperse. The last speaker reminded everyone that we could continue our campaign, and we must continue our campaign by writing letters and telegramming two things:
The march is over now and it looks like Amos has weathered another storm. But don't think he won't have nightmares about 10,000 students demanding action. What we must do is to keep on the offensive. We must write letters and telegrams, harrass our local MPs (especially if they are in the Labour Party). publicise our case to the public and try and draw in as much support as we can. If 10,000 is not enough then we might just have to go back with a few more.
A delegation of three - myself, Lisa Sacksen and Bryan Hughes, President of WPSA, entered Parliament Buildings to meet Mr Amos, as had previously been arranged. The angry cries of the students demanding that he address them reverberated through the entire building.
We entered the outer chamber - and were then kept waiting over ten minutes by his excellency - sorry. Honourable Minister. On being admitted at last to the inner sanctuary we presented the Minister with the facecloths, which were returned to the students with his regards!
We then invited the Minister to speak to the students. He declined, stating that as he was meeting STANZ, NZUSA and NZTISA in two weeks this would serve little purpose. When I pointed out that perhaps the students would like some explanation of his actions (or lack of them) regarding bursaries over the past 21/2 years, he smiled benignly. The fact that 3000 voices were shouting 'We want Amos' outside his office window did not appear to penetrate his aura of... .
We then had a more formal discussion, in particular of the inadequacy of the recently announced hardship allowance. To our objections to the stringent means test, Mr Amos said, 'Ah, but student bursaries have always been means tested.' He then, by some devious logic, proceeded to argue that because the boarding allowance was paid to students whose parents lived some distance from a university town, as extra financial aid, this therefore constituted a means test.
NZUSA has been given a copy of the criteria for the hardship bursary. To my question - 'May we publicise this to our members so they will be aware of the basis on which they are being judged?' - the answer 'No."
As to when we could expect a definite announcement on the Standard Tertiary Bursary - 'Hopefully, the end of May.'
Is that definite?'
'No!'
Discussion then moved to a detailed letter NZUSA had sent the Minister the previous day. While he admitted having received the letter, whether he had actually bothered to read it remained unclear. I pointed out that Mr Amos had told a Waikato student that a definite relationship existed between university first and second year bursaries, and technical institute third and fourth year bursaries, and that one could not be increased without the other. Yet two days later he had done just that. He agreed that yes, in two days he had changed the whole basis of the bursary system.
To our request for a paper on the Standard Tertiary Bursary before we meet the Minister on 8 April - 'I will be considering NZUSA's letter with the utmost urgency.' (Now where have I heard that before . . . )
Realising we were merely wasting our own time (Mr Amos' time being of doubtful value) we bade him good-day and went down to speak to the students.
Otago 1500 students from the university, medical school, teachers' and polytech marched to the famous Octagon (which has even ides than Mr Amos' arguments) calling for the Standard Tertiary They met with quite a favourable response from the Dunedin who know what it's like to have politicians fall asleep on them, bury students had been discouraged from marching by their
The following is a comment on the current campaign for a standard tertiary bursary by Simon Collins. He raises some important issues and contains an interesting view on educational change.
The current controversy over bursaries has got the government on the run. MPs are concerned about the effects that 40,000 politically sophisticated bursary-receiving students will have as voters in the election. Already the agitation has had some effect and it is likely to have more pretty soon. This might be claimed as an example of a properly functioning democratic system, were it not for the fact that, as with most purely self-serving demands, it is socially irresponsible.
Quite apart from the fact that it tends to falsely portray the National Party (which did nothing about a standard tertiary bursary in the 12 years it had available), as more attentive to educational needs it also ignores the wider question of the future of tertiary education. It assumes that the elite groups which happen to be in the institutions deserve to be entirely supported by the taxpayers for as long as they want to be. What we ought to be advocating is the extension of higher education from this elite group to everyone who can afford it (?) This is recognised by NZUSA, but by submerging the wider question under the immediate (and more politically sensitive) demand for higher bursaries, the government can ignore them.
First of all, we must be clear as to the basis on which we claim support from the government at all. The onus is on the proponents of government intervention on any issue to prove the need for any such intervention, because generally speaking it must be assumed that individuals are best able to decide for themselves what will make them happy, and what to spend their money on. Consequently unrestrained government intervention has net harmful effects.
There are in this case two major arguments that are advanced for subsidies for higher education:
It would be all very well to make each student pay for his or her own education (through holiday work, or a loans system to be repaid later) if each person had equal opportunities to earn the required money. In fact, in our society, (and in my opinion, in any desirable society) this is not so: not only can men earn more than women on the average, but the person whose parents are rich enough would be able to obtain an education without even working at all, whereas the person who has to support a widowed mother with young children, or whose father has deserted or is an alcoholic or in gaol or unemployed, etc. etc. could never go to university. If we believe such inequalities should be reduced then society has a duty to reduce them by such measures as a cost-of-living (COL) bursary. Of course it would be even better if the inequalities were minimised (to the desired extent) by a COL family benefit, and COL unemployment and other benefits. But since these are not at present provided, subsidies for education are a second best.
In my opinion (and you may disagree) these two reasons are enough to justify government subsidisation of tertiary education, in order to make possible, and encourage, its use by a wider segment of the population.
* * *
Having reached this point in the argument however, I want to suggest that merely to provide COL bursaries, though necessary, is not sufficient to cause these two effects. In particular, if we are to promote truly equal access to higher education, and a more responsible, educated mass citizenry, then we should propose with equal emphasis the following reforms as well:
First, tertiary education is at present restricted to an elite by the all-too-successful screening process of school and external exams. This is undesirable because those excluded could greatly benefit from tertiary education, and could thereby benefit society as well. So long as half the candidates for an exam are required to fail to make the system work, this inequity will remain. What is needed is a much more flexible school system, where all students are helped to reach the standard required to partake of higher education if they want to, at their own pace and in a flexible way, without being branded a 'failure'. In any case, of course, it is really only in science, maths and languages that school learning is directly useful for university courses (besides a competence in English). To provide this grounding to the person who left school without it is another thing that should be covered by bursaries.
It is natural that this abolition of such certificates as School Certificate and University Entrance might upset employers. Whether those employers are profit-seeking capitalists or socialist co-operatives concerned merely to provide a good service to their customers, they will still want to ensure that their new clerk, for example, can add up a row of figures and can spell, or that the new apprentice has reached a certain standard in metal work. In actual fact, a university or technical institute requires just these same kinds of skills but these skills are not at all what is measured by external exams. It would be far better, therefore, for each student to decide what skills and knowledge he wants and will require for a job and higher education. He and his teacher can then keep on trying until they reach those standards, at which stage they can write out a note to that effect to secure the job or place at university.
Actually, the government is already moving in the direction of abolishing external exams, and we ought to be actively pushing it and the public further in this direction.
Secondly, tertiary education must come, come, literally, down off its hill and into the areas where the people live and work. Obviously, people in Blenheim for instance, cannot be expected to come to Wellington for their education if they have family responsibilities, or some other reason for staying in Blenheim. And by concentrating the university in central cities, part-time university is effectively denied to all those who do not work close to the centre of the city and cannot afford the transport and the loss of working time to come into a few lectures a week. Thus we should not only oppose Von Zedlitz -we should advocate that its facilities and personnel (and the university library and laboratories) be duplicated in such locations near the workplaces and homes of Levin, Masterton and Porirua, etc.
By such decentralised de institutionalisation the prejudices against education among such of the population, and the feeling that it is not their sort of place (because they didn't like school) or that they are too 'dumb' for it, can be broken down. Most university departments are already big enough, and it would not hurt them to direct future growth to separate campuses. Indeed, such a move might encourage the cross fertilisation of ideas that tends to occur when there are several independent centres of academic debate and research.
Again, the Labour government is already committed to this decentralisation through its policy on community colleges (the first of which is being set up in Hawkes Bay), and its policy of extending
Third, the present degree structure is totally unsuited for the purposes I have been describing. Tertiary education has been taken over by professions to such an extent that 'education for citizenship' and 'education for understanding' of the world have been almost excluded. We will not get more people to partake of higher education so long as to do so they are practically forced to (at least if they want to keep their bursaries) to specialise narrowly in one professional field. Rather than that, we should be providing an opportunity for people to get an introduction to the whole range of professions and areas of knowledge within two or three years without forfeiting their bursaries. A student should be free to make up his course entirely of stage 1 units if he so desires, especially if those units are extended somewhat, in a flexible way, with the interests of each student in mind. After all, we can see from our own experiences that there are diminishing benefits to further education in most specialist fields compared with the relatively great value of the first insights into a subject.
Furthermore, this professional division has been taken even to the extent of offering different types of education in different institutions. We are prevented from taking courses at Polytech that might interest us and make us more informed citizens, but both the physical separation of the two institutions and the fact that we have to pass a certain number of university credits to keep our bursaries. And if we have specialised in arts subjects at school but subsequently decide, for example, that we would like to know something about science, we practically have to go back to school before we can take science courses at university. In other words if tertiary education is to cease to be the preserve of professional elites, there needs to be a much greater integration, physically, and in the matter of bursaries among the various institutions that now offer higher secondary and tertiary education. And courses must be more flexible so that they can be attuned to the needs of those who want a general education, as well as those who want a narrow professional training. (This applies not only to content, but also to timetabling - more general education courses should be scheduled at night when part timers can attend more easily.
Beyond that, there are people who are put off by any kind of formalised education at all, but are nevertheless anxious to learn more and think about the world. These people (who at some stage of our lives may include all of us) should be catered to by making the library of each tertiary institution open to the public (and indeed amalgamating with the public library) and providing study guide books for independent use of the library's resources in particular fields; and by appointing tutors in each institution. These tutors can serve as resource persons, available to help people in the neighbourhood in their particular study needs. They should also include adult education teachers who can offer tuition in basic reading, writing and arithmetic and in how to get on in our impersonal world, to those who are excluded from higher education by the fact that they went right through school without picking up these basic skills, as well as to Polynesian and other immigrants.
These people will not be helped by a mere increase in the value of bursaries for
Fourth, as higher education is depro-fessionalised, there can naturally be a reduction of the emphasis placed on certificates of passing and failing courses. Instead, as with the schools, students should be able to choose the standard they want to achieve (e.g. a general outline of the subject only, ranging to a fully advanced understanding of it). Then they can work with their tutors and lecturers to ensure that they reach this standard if they still consider it worth reaching. If they have not reached it by the end of the year, they should be able to carry on into the holidays and even the next year, part-time if necessary, until they and their tutors are satisfied that they have reached the standard. If this sort of flexibility is not introduced, higher education will continue to alienate those who are preordained by statistical fetishism to fail, just as school does at present, Everyone should be able to acquire the understanding that he wants in the shortest possible time, without the interference of such arbitrary, discriminatory and alienating processes.
And finally, so long as the family benefit is not high enough to pay for child care, it is necessary to provide free child care facilities for all parents desiring tertiary education. Nothing more need be said on that.
What I've been saying can be summarised in this way: A standard cost of living bursary is desirable. But to advocate only that, without tying it to other reforms in higher education is irresponsible because it will encourage Cabinet to try to buy student votes by granting this one demand, while it ignores the interest of the great majority of the people who are not as well organised or politically informed as students. This is all the more important to the extent that Mr Amos, as we have seen, is genuinely interested in pushing for wider educational reforms, and by not backing him loudly enough we are 'betraying' him to Cabinet. Hence the five addional proposals which I have suggested that we push with equal energy:
Play Strindberg is an adaptation and reworking by Friedrich Durrenmatt of Strindberg's The Dance of Death. In the original, Strindberg used the medieval Danse macabre idea as the basis for a modern morality play. Durrenmatt has extended the motif, structuring the play like a boxing match, in 12 rounds, the beginning of each round signalled by the stroke of a gone. He has pruned the play of Strindberg's more obsessive concerns (Edgar in the original is a vampire), retaining the essential story and dramatic idea and reworking the dialogue into a grimly funny little parable of modem marriage.
Very much a play for actors, the action is confined in one room. The set is sparse, the properties minimal (the captain's sword balanced across the table throughout much of the action is a nice little touch providing visual tension) and theatrical effects nil. The play depends for its success on a delicate balance between an impeccably timed dialogue and the movement of the three actors. Stuart Devenie's production is successful on these counts and his actors provided three intelligent and accomplished performances. The acting tempo never flagged and the timing and effective use of the pause (especially as Alex Trousdell as the tolerant and urbane Kurt, a fine and splendidly relaxed actor) in this difficult dialogue was good indeed.
Ray Henwood's Edgar, the histrionic and misanthropic army captain, determined to die with his boots on, 'take away his boots, there's nothing left', whose view of man is 'nothing but a barrow load of shit for the rosebeds', who fakes fainting fits in order to hear what the others are saying about him, is a good piece of character acting. Henwood invests the part with a mad-eyed megalomania. In the final throes of the play, mute in his chair, he has the tragic quality of Roualt's 'Old King.'
Dorothy Smith as the aging coquette, the actress who married for status, is the other half of the unholy alliance, bonded by hate. Her restrained performance and controlled vitriol counterpoints Henwood's more flamboyant Edgar.
Garth Frost's pallid, measled see-through set of spindly piano, couch, tables and chairs, and lampshades like elegant bat skeletons established a queasiness early in the piece. Although roping the set like a boxing ring may have been a bit heavy handed, the set worked well and neatly solved the problem, always present in theatre in the round, of not obscuring the action. The actors were able to move freely and did. The 'choreography' in fact was the high point of the production. The constant movement and interweaving of the characters created a nervous tension and carried the danse macabre motif throughout.
I wish however, that I could say I liked the play better. Durrenmatt says of it 'out of a bourgeois marriage tragedy developed a comedy about bourgeois marriage tragedys.' We've laughed ad nauseum at innumerable plays of this kind since Albee's 'Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf' a similar play indeed, and while others may care to keep on laughing I do not and, I suspect, from the absence of mirth and of the fur coat brigade on the night I went, that others may feel similarly. I'm sick of the theatre of cynicism, and of theatre as a mirror for the middle class.
I hope Mervyn Thompson has something better in store for Wellington theatregoers.
If you have stamina enough Waiting for Godot is playing at Downstage at 11 pm after
Jean Belts' production introduced two new elements to the play; all the parts were taken by women, and the play was staged in the middle of the theatre. Using women may have at first seemed merely a gimmick, a theatrical sop to International Women's Year, but in the event it proved entirely successful. Beckett's plays, especially Godot are about universal human experiences, and this production proved women, loo, can be universal, can suggest dimensions beyond the personal, beyond the sexual. Downstage is fortunate to have such a strong quartet as Susan Wilson, Donini Searell, Allannah O'Sullivan, and April Kelland. 'Godot in the round' was not so successful an innovation. The central stage may have been forced on the producer, as it was needed for, and worked superbly in Play Strindberg but it dissipated much of the force of Beckett's play. Beckett himself has sard that Godot ced closed box' and this production proved every element prescribed by Beckett is necessary. The actors still used the stage as if it were a convenional one, which left those of us not fortunate enough to be sitting centre front feeling as though we were perched in some imaginary wings, uneasily waiting for our cue.
The force of the play was also diminished by its extremely slow pace. Admittedly, the pauses in Godot axe as important as the speeches in establishing the rhythm of the play. They're used to
Much of the success of the play rests on the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon, that ragged pair so chronically unsure of everything, but this relationship too was flawed in some indefinable way. Individually the performances were strong, specially that of Allannah O'Sullivan as Vladimir, end-lessly devising little canters' to pass the time till night falls, or Godot comes, or.... but the tenuous connection between the two characters was never established.
Waiting for Godot is not a short play; the performance we went to finished at 1.30. By then the late hour and the slow pace had certainly made ennui a universal experience. One perfunctory round of applause, and everyone left.
The Central Intelligence Agency is currently losing one of its most important assets - secrecy. In a number of well-documented books, substantiated articles, and through the personal testimony and revelations of highly-placed members of the United States' political hierarchy, the CIA is being exposed to public scrutiny, a position in which it must feel, at the least, distinctly uncomfortable.
Concerned no doubt that its freedom of action - to operate anywhere and in whatever manner is most expedient -may be impeded by the exposure of its organisations-techniques, and of the political and economic interests which it serves, the Agency has responded in a number of ways. One response has been the censoring and reviewing of books, prior to publication, which have described and analysed CIA activities in highly critical terms and with embarrassing accuracy. The principal objection raised to such disclosures as CIA support for the production and transportation of heroin in Southeast Asia is that of 'damage to the national interest'. As with the Pentagon Papers, however, reputations are the prime casualties of such disclosed 'secrets'. Nevertheless, the censoring continues. Marchetti and Marks' book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence contains a number of empty spaces labelled Deleted, the result of court orders obtained by the CIA. These give the book a stepping-stone quality as one ends in mid-sentence, jumps an empty space, and then tries to pick up the threads of the authors' revelations in the following passage.
Another response to the threat of public scrutiny is official deliberate lying (called 'plausible 'When necessary, the members of the cult of intelligence, including our Presidents (who are always aware of, generally approve of, and often actually initiate the CIA's major undertakings), have lied to protect the CIA and to hide their own responsibility for its operations. . . The Kennedy administration lied about the CIA's role in the abortive invasion of Cuba in
A third response of the Agency and its private armies may be the 'removal' of any pesky investigative reporter who comes too close to discovering the truth Thus Alfred McCoy, author of The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, was fired upon by soldiers of the CIA's Laotian mercenary army during his investigations in that country. General Edward Lansdale, Ngo Dinh Diem's top adviser on intelligence and counter-insurgency warfare when he was with the CIA, warned McCoy when he heard of his intention to research his book in Southeast Asia, that he would not return alive.
It is remarkable, therefore, that in spite of all the obstacles to revealing the truth about the CIA the past few years has seen the publication of a small but significant number of books doing just that. Four deserve special mention: OSS, a history of the organisation which preceded the CIA, by R Harris Smith; The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, by Victor Marchetti and John D Marks; The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, by Alfred W McCoy and Inside the Company-CIA Diary, by Phillip Agee. These books have been used as the basic sources for this article, along with a number of more specific books (e.g. My War With the CIA by Prince Norodom Sihanouk and Wilfred Burchett) and magazine articles.
The Office of Strategic Services was created by President Roosevelt nearly a year after the United States entered the Second World War. Its function was to 'plan and operate such special services as may be directed by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. The new organisation was headed by William Joseph Donovan, a 58-year-old millionaire Wall Street lawyer whose 'blend of Wall Street orthodoxy and sophisticated American nationalism appealed to Roosevelt. (1) (2)
Despite his Republican affiliations Donovan's new organisation contained within its ranks both dedicated conservatives and ardent communists, along with 'a heterogenous mass of New Deal Democrats and Wilkie Republicans!' Donovan considered the skills of Marxist academics, men who had fought with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade for the Republican Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War and members of the Young Communist League to be of value to the OSS' It was on that basis that he defended their employment against the demands of the FBI for their removal. In the fields of guerilla warfare, the organisation of socialist trade union groups in the European underground, and in the Research and Analysis Branch, members of the political left performed valuable services for the OSS. Working in the Research and Analysis Branch were such prominent left-wing intellectuals as Herbert Marcuse, analysing German social structure and Marxist economist Paul Sweezy.
'While Donovan diligently sought left-wing intellectuals and activists for the operational and research branches, he saw no incongruity in appointing corporate attorneys and business executives as administrators.' Corporations were more than generous in loaning their executives and resources for OSS service. The J Walter Thompson Advertising Agency supplied the chief of the OSS Planning Staff, the head of the Morale Operations Branch in London, the executive officer of OSS in Cairo and a 'black propaganda' specialist in Casablanca. (3) The United Fruit Co, the Standard Oil Co,(4) Paramount Pictures, law, banking and investment firms, steel and railway corporations were all represented.
Donovan was an irrespressible optimist, mobile and active, who 'offered a sympathetic ear to every eccentric schemer with a hair brained plan for secret operations (from phosphorescent foxes to-incendiary bats'). Informality was fostered by Donovan, who refused to be bothered with organisational detail. Administrative officers 'wouId walk into Donovan's office with dozens of charts, charts for the budget, charts for the administration, charts for the various divisions .... Donovan would glance at them, smile at them, approve them with a mild wave of the hand and then he would have another idea, and he would forget them completely.' Insubordination became a way of life for OSS officers who realised that their superiors avoided disciplinary actions even in cases of incompetence or corruption. When Donovan finally decided to court-martial-two overseas officers, aides protested that court-martial proceedings against any officer for any reason would be damaging to the secrecy and morale of the organisation.
Some disgruntled OSS officers saw the composition of the organisation as a mistake. One officer charged that 'OSS top men are nearly all picked from the Red baiters.' Donovan, he said, 'had succeeded in collecting one of the fanciest groups of dilettante diplomats. Wall Street bankers and amateur detectives ever seen in Washington.' Another officer, who served behind the lines in Italy, was equally bitter. He railed at the 'rotund, happy-go-lucky, devil-may-care young Republican businessmen who sported themselves in the OSS enjoying the thought of sending packages or arms, money, food etc. by parachute, but who didn't really care if they got there during this or the next moon, while all the time poor devils in the mountains slaved at budding fires in the snow, waiting, hoping, night after night. . ."
'The oppressed peoples must be encouraged to resist and to assist in Axis defeat, and this can be done by inciting them, by assisting them, and by training and organising them. Sabotage alone would not suffice. It must be accompanied by efforts to promote revolution.
The undercover agent must set up his machinery for building up an organisation dedicated in the beginning to passive resistance. If his task is successful, passive resistance will lead by natural steps to open violence and even - at the proper time - to armed rebellion.'
These tactics for liberation were not written by Lenin, Mao Tse-tung or Ho Chi Minh - they were both written by OSS officers, the first a Special Operations chief, steel corporation executive and Russian emigre, the second a freelance writer who later became an editor of Fortune and Time magazines. 'Even Donovan's executives realised that OSS was confronted with the task of political revolution . . . New social and ideological forces were clamouring for the overthrow of old regimes in Europe, and Asian nationalists were plotting the destruction of colonial rule, 'writes Smith. Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Soceity, charged that OSS 'frequently the threw the weight of American supplies, arms, money, and prestige behind the Communist terrorist organisations of Europe and Asia.' There was some truth in this statement. But the full story of OSS relations with the resistance was a complex product of organisational struc-ture, the nature of guerilla warfare, the ideologies of the men behind the lines, and the competing political interests of America's allies. In China and Indo-China, for example, OSS field officers were in the ambiguous position of assisting or wanting to assist, the Chinese Communists and the Vict Minh in spite of the opposition of the former colonial powers and their local allies, such as the Kuomintang. OSS attempts to co-operate with the Communists in Yenan against the Japanese were repeatedly frustrated by Chiang Kai-shek and his 'completely trusted subordinate and guardian' Tai Li, the chief of a combined secret police and intelligence organisation said to control over 300.000 agents throughout China and abroad.
In Vietnam, co-operation between OSS and the Vict Minh, the strongest nationalist movement was more fruitful. The under underground Viet Minh organisation created in the northern provinces of Tonkin under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap supplied OSS with intelligence on the Japanese occupation forces and in return received arms, ammunition and training. In fact, in the relations between the Viet Minh and the OSS officers in Vietnam there was little to suggest the future imperialist role the United States would play that country. The OSS officers believed that Ho was a 'true patriot' and 'much more a nationalist that he was a communist'. An OSS lieutenant later recalled that Ho expressed a particular interest in the American Declaration of Independence and another remembers that 'he knew American history well and he would talk about American ideals and how he was sure America would be on his side.... He thought that the United States would help in throwing out the French and in establishing an independent country. . . "Was not Washington considered a revolutionary?' he once said to the OSS second-in-command. 'I, too, want to set my people free.' (5)
In this cursory summary of the OSS and its activities I have tried to place emphasis on the features of its ideology and practice which were incorporated into its post-war equivalent the Central Intelligence Agency. As Smith has written: The OSS was the direct lineal ancestor of today's CIA. The CIA is no aberrant mutation of 'Donovan's Dreamers', it is in many ways the mirror image of OSS' Edmond Taylor, the OSS man who fought Vichyism in Africa and colonialism in Asia, reflected in a recent memoir that the wartime activities of his organisation established 'a precedent, or a pattern, for United States intervention in the revolutionary struggles of the postwar age.' One feature which does not seem to have been retained, however, is the political heterogeneity of the staff. After the experience of McCarthyism and the Cold War there is now no room for Marxist academics or members of the Young Communist League.
Writing in the Chicago Tribune about a proposal in
(To be continued next week)
Notes:
OSS R Harris Smith, New York OSS, p.31.
The post-war role which the United States did eventually assume in Vietnam was markedly different from that foreseen by Ho Chi Minh and only now is it coming to an end as the US military puppets fall in the face of Ho Chi Minh's successors.
Earlier in the evening Dragon Ray Goodwin, lead guitar; vocals: Mark Hunter, lead vocals, percussion; Todd Hunter, bass vocals; Neil Storey, drums. Robert Taylor, guitar, vocals - had performed one of the best concerts yet seen in the Union Half It was their final performance in Wellington before continuing a national tour (during their stay stay they played at Uncle Albert's Attic and the Speak? asy), which was undertaken partly to promote their new album 'Scented Gardents for the Blind' recorded at Stebbings Studio in Auckland during December 1974.
(Ray talking) We were going to record an LP called 'Rock and Roll Ponsonby'.
The original cover had tow people sitting in a high-backed chair around a small table, and in the middle of the table is a bowl of flowers. The couple are dressed in thirties clothes and they're smelling the powers through an apparatus specially designed for it - and they 're blindfolded. It was originally planned as a concept - a hand in Ponsonby - but somehow Rick Shad well, the producer, saw fit to change it to 'Scented Gardents for the Blind.'
We were waiting for the rest of the band to arrive. Ed, the manager of Hush, sleepily in one chair. Neil on the couch beside him and Robert cross-legged on the floor. Also present were Mark and Steven who had helped out during the concert.
Ray leans forward and continues: 'The fold-out cover was going to have photos of various places . . . We'd taken shots of Ponsonhy outside the Glue-pot and outside the Ponsonhy toilets. The Hydra pig-factory . . . Sussex Street brothel. . . things like that. It was sort of realistic -you know? But it never came to be.'
He doesn't like the cover which Pono Phonogram the record company, came up with a painted face by Super Graphics Ltd with a lot of brilliant colours and the words Dragon and Scented Gardens for the Blind in large letters.
(Ray): 'We didn't mean 'Scented Gardens' to be taken seriously at all - really it was just a track on Rock and Roll Ponsonby.'
When the interview began we moved to the relative quiet of the kitchen: Todd, who had left the Union Hall before the others, being the only band member not present.
Salient: Listening to you play tonight I didn't notice any big difference in the sound and it occurred to me that you, Robert, might be compensating for the organ in some way - perhaps when you might have preferred to other things.
Robert: No. I just believe in playing complementary to how a song is written . . . how the feel is . . . songs from the LP have sections where I would Definitely play something with full chord feeling. . . the guitar is not in there just to play breaks. . .
Mark: The songs are being played to promote the LP and because they're good songs. So Robert would just naturally learn the songs and you can say that he was filling in for the organ.
Are there any songs, besides your Robert, which you play now which you couldn't have done with an or-gan - songs like 'Dixie Chicken' and Rebel Rebel'.
Ray: Well personally I just think they sould better with Robert . . . he's a better style of player for that kind of song.
How important is it for Dragon to be ploying their own material.
Ray: Well I'd love more than anything to play a concert of our own material . . . so it is important.
Do you think that will happen when you have more original songs.
Ray: Well, the potential for writing our own material is greater than ever.
Yet you have two albums already - why don't you just play those songs instead of songs by other people which - although played well - makes you just another pub hand.
Robert: It all depends on who you're playing to whose dancing or listening at any time.
Do you ever play concerts of album material?
Mark: We have done it quite a lot and it's what we're working for now. With the old band it was easy to do because we'd established ourselves, but with the new band we need to have money ... we need to play in as many places as we can. We're going to do a tour next of just concerts, but at a four hour dance at a university you've got torrelate on that level.
How do you feel about the selections on the album. It seems to be very uneven - side one has three strong songs, side two has none.
Ray: Fucking Rick Shadwell! ... we had it all picked out and Rick changed it. 'Rock and Roll Ponsonby' was going to come after 'Grey Lynn Candy' but Rick put 'Darkness' in instead.
And what about 'Vermillion Cellars'-the title.
Mark: It pertains to a very refined sense of culture. Todd wrote the lyrics and it reflects his imagination as such.
When I first heard 'Vermillion Cellars' I though - ah! that's a New Zealand song. I couldn't imagine an overseas band writing it.
Mark: You know if you're talking about defining New Zealand music obviously you're talking about bands who write lyrics about New Zealand.
Well without being so obvious as having lyrics with Maori names - the Fourmyula's 'Otaki' for example -I think I recognise other qualities. There are no really strong melodies for instance.
Mark: It's just a lack of experience . . you can hear an amazing motown band play two chords for three hours and it sounds brilliant, but on New Zealand records it's really terrible because the production is bad. But you cannot say that there's a characteristically New Zealand sound just because it's a bad production. It's a bad production, that's all; a lack of experience on the part of the technicians.
But isn't it also the music itself -doesn't it often seem inferior.
Mark: Not really. I've heard a John Rowles record that sounds brilliant. Graham: It's just that the studio people do not know enough about rock music . . . there's not enough business ... as in the States or in England to keep technicians producing rock music all day long.
Ok. What about 'La Gash Lagoon I think it's probably the best song on the album.
Mark: La Gash Lagoon was originally Todd's name for Auckland. I wrote the lyrics a long time ago ... it used to have words like: 'Are we men, are we fools. . .'
Neil: We were at Granny's one night and we just blew on it - is that right?
Mark: Something like that. The song was around for years and years ... it wasn't 'La Gash Lagoon' at all. . . it was something else for a long time.
Neil: And we played it for a while and didn't like it, then resurrected it again a long time later.
Mark: That's right. It was hard when we first started to do it - we couldn't do it properly.
Robert: It's still hard to do. . .
Let's talk about the New Zealand rock scene.
Ray: About a year ago hauraki was presenting rock concerts that were extended into nightly concerts in a theatre - that's how it all got started.
Neil: Buck-a-head concerts . . . free at Albert Park . . . that's more or less what is happening.
Ray: If you can make it at a buck-a-head concert then I guess that admits you to the New Zealand rock scene.
Robert: I think the New Zealand rock scene comes from getting the best records from England and the best records from America . . . the New Zealand hit parades have always had better music than many overseas places cause they've always been into Tamla Motown and things like that. . .
Are you saying that New Zealand music is copied from someone else. Robert: It's not copying other people it's listening to people and finding out what you like. There's no band in New Zealand that can say it didn't learn anything from someone else, just as there's no band in America that can say it . . . most rock musicians have a pretty good cause for not feeling nationalistic.
What are the best New Zealand records you've heard?
Neil: The Underdogs had a very good record called 'Wasting Our Time'. . . the production wasn't very good but the songs were excellent There was another album alter that, 'Space Farm' that was also very good, the songs were excellent.
A lot better than say, what Human Instinct have done.
Neil: Yeah. Far better I didn't think their songs were particularly good.
Robert: Blerta did a song called Freedom St Marys' (flip-side of 'Dance All Around The World') which is the best recorded piece of music I've heard. . . it's just amazing. It's also the best song I've heard from New Zealand. It was written by Bruno. . .
Ray: Littlejohn were brilliant . . .
Peter Dawkins?
Mark: Yeah, he was the best thing to come out of EMI. We haven't had such a good sound 'or a long time.
Well flow can we begin to talk about a national rock music?
Mark: You can't define it like that. Split Enz is brilliant ethnic music but it's really highly derivative.
But Split Enz virtually deny all connection with New Zealand - they're constantly looking overseas.
Neil: Yeah well they're not willing to stay it out at all.
Ray: They're a concert band.
What other good concert bands have come out of Auckland?
Ray: I know Father Jive but I haven't heard them, and Think.
Neil: Think play all original material.
Graeme: Ragnarock are pretty good. . .
Neil: Rock Squad, Powerhouse, Mandrake. . .
Ray: You're just saying all the groups you used to be in!
(laughter)
Mark: Quintessence were fucking amazing, amazing..
Ray: Teddy Tuhoe's band!
(laughter)
Robert: It's hard to say who was the best in Auckland - there's so many . . . thousands of bands.
So Auckland is really Rock City. What else?
Ray: When you fly through New Zealand to Christchurch, you get out, get into a taxi and the driver will say: 'Yeah? You fly to Auckland, to the taxi stands and there's 20 taxis - all with islanders in them. Polynesians everywhere ... it's just a lot more colourful. And it's so obviously just a big drag - just look at it.
Letters can be handed in at the letterbox just inside the Salient office or handed in to the editor personally. However if you wish to pay 4c postage then send your letters to P O Box 1347, Wellington. Letters should be double spaced and on one side of the paper only. We'll print just about anything you send in except we can't print libellous material.
I was surprised to see Ernest Rowntree's letter who for sentimental reasons would rather have the Old Hunter, rambling, out-dated, and unsafe to a modern, air conditioned, space conscious successor. Obviously he has forgotten what it's like to sit through a lecture in H312! With such a crisis on the campus for space it's not practical to allow such a 'space-hog' as Hunter to be spared for sentimental reasons.
I read Professor J D Gould's attack on John Henderson's report of the SRC that decided to oppose the pre-set examination timetable with considerable interest.
The good professor believes that there are three possibilities:
He bases these alternatives on the apparent difference between the SRC decision opposing the exam timetable and the 65% of students who said they found the timetable 'helpful'.
While no student in his right mind and doing one of Prof Gould's courses would dream of questioning his awesome powers as a logician, it appears that he has ignored one particularly salient point.
The students who filled in the questionnaire at enrolment were asked 'Did you consult the
In the context of the questionnaire, it is quite apparent that the students were being asked for their opinion of the little pink booklet we were all mailed and not for their option of the idea of pre-set examinations. Given that it had been decided when to hold the exams, it is quite obviously 'helpful' to any student who did not find any clashed to know what time his exam will be held. That same student could, however, object to the whole concept of organising students around exams rather than exams around students.
It was on this matter of principle that the SRC made up its mind and its objection was to exam timetables that 'limit student's choices.'
To draw a comparison in an area Professor Gould is more familiar with, it could well be that while disagreeing violently with the ideas expressed in one of Prof Gould's books, many a student of economic history has found them 'helpful' in writing essays.
Finally, it may be 'helpful' to Professor Gould to remember that while he may find the idea of SRC 'thoroughly despicable' that body does appoint the four student representatives on the Arts Faculty which recently elected him as Dean.
I have no doubt that while Arts Faculty may well not like the idea, they will find Professor Gould 'helpful'.
(Apparently Professor Gould is only Dean-elect of the Arts Faculty. He will assume this position in reality on May 6. The credit in last issue was, therefore, incorrect.
Discover Quakers at 8 Moncrieff Street every Sunday at 11 am.