Saturday, 22 August 2015

NEW ZEALAND PROTESTS

A brief history of protests in New Zealand

This is a brief account of New Zealand’s long history of protests, some that were successful and some that failed, some that were worthy and some that were not. New Zealanders as a nation have always been ready to speak up and take appropriate action, usually lawful, when they see an imminent new law as something they won’t like. Similarly, changes in business, foreign ownership, banking, education, welfare, health, labour, immigration, and practically any other change in society that they suspect will be harmful in some way, will bring determined protest action.
Sir Walter Nash was New Zealand's
oldest Prime Minister

Many protesters are of the one-protest type. They go about their daily lives rarely making waves, until some imminent change has a galvanising effect on them, and they join, even lead, the marchers. When it is all over, win or lose, they go back to their previous lives, living quietly below the radar. A small number of protestors are more of the career type and can be seen actively engaged in an array of protests. Whenever there is protest, they will be there. Some of these career protestors have another overriding, perhaps hidden agenda, and may be political party activists or at least sympathisers. Many protest movements have within their ranks both kinds of protesters. The career types are usually a tiny minority, but often in a commanding role because of their experience and ability to organise.

So when did protesting start in New Zealand? The most likely date would have to be 18 December 1642, when the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman sent some men to collect fresh water on the South Island’s north-west coast. The coastal area was an important agricultural place for local Maori and fearing that the foreigners were about to plunder their crops, they protested by killing four members of Tasman’s crew. Tasman subsequently called the place Murderers Bay, and sailed away never to return to New Zealand. It wouldn’t be a stretch of the imagination to say that the first known protest was highly successful, although somewhat misguided, and certainly a gross over-reaction. In later centuries, Maori would prove time and again that they were fully capable of mounting effective, determined protests, usually in a peaceful manner and within the law.
Nathaniel's Bloodline

Having been born in New Zealand some little time after Tasman’s fiasco, this writer’s memory of protests goes back only to the late 1940’s. I was at primary school in Warkworth when Mr Biro invented his famous ball-point pen to replace ink-wells and nibs, and the scratching sound of sharp instruments on delicate writing paper. Every parent in the district and, I discovered later, in the country and around the world, didn’t want a bar of the ball-point pens. It was claimed that the new pens would spoil children’s hand-writing if they were allowed into schools. Others claimed that the whole education system would break down, kids would grow up illiterate, and Kiwis would be the laughing stock of the world. Some people claimed that introducing ball-point pens was a conspiracy to destroy society so that the already rich and powerful people of the world would have complete world dominance. Some parents threatened to pull their children out of school. How stupid was that! But, as time went by, people got to like their new ball-point pens, schools eventually accepted them, and even the famous Parker Pen Company that had been producing upmarket fountain pens since 1888, came into line in 1960 and started producing ball-points. Meanwhile, the protesters melted out of sight and out of mind.
The Scapegoat

Before we leave education there is the case of Helen Connon (1859-1903). The Connons staged what was pretty much a one family protest as they railed against the exclusion of girls from many schools. This was in the day when a woman’s place was in the bedroom and the kitchen only, and they didn’t need to be educated for that. The Connons had to move to a new town to find a school that would accept Helen. Helen not only got into a school, but she excelled and went on to become the first New Zealand female university graduate (1881), and she graduated with honours, which was a first for a woman in the British Empire. Later she was a school principal.

Almost every invention has met with determined protest action before its launch onto the market. The telephone was no exception and even now, 135 years on, a very small number of people refuse to have anything to do with it.

Motor vehicles were widely objected to for a variety of reasons. People sited noise, pollution, and safety. Others objected because they saw motor vehicles as play things of the rich and famous. Still others objected because they feared that motor vehicles would frighten their horses. Even now many people believe that motor vehicles are the world’s greatest curse. But if they cared to think about the state of a world now without motor vehicles, they would realize that without them the world would be in a truly frightful state as we walked knee deep in horse manure, died early, and were mostly unemployed. The standard of living that we take for granted in the 21st century would not have been possible without motor vehicles. That protest was wrong, even though it may be right to campaign for safer vehicles and safer driving.
A Twist of Fate

Then there was the protest mounted by one man alone. Samuel Duncan Parnell arrived in New Zealand in 1840 and became self-employed because his conditions of employment were unacceptable to employers who could have given him work. He refused to work more than 40 hours a week. Parnell found little support during his lifetime and had been dead 46 years when the first Labour Government introduced the 40 hour working week as standard.

Changes to New Zealand’s voting system, however minor, have always attracted widespread protest. In the first general election in 1854 only male land owners over the age of 21 were qualified to vote. Non-land owning residents protested, but in vain. It wasn’t until 1874 that all males over 21 were able to vote. It took many years of highly organized protest to have women accepted as voters in 1893, the first country in the world to do so.

A minor change that involves fewer people has been the question of votes for prisoners, and their voting status has changed countless time. Labour usually changes the law to include prisoners and National changes the law to exclude them, and each time the debate gets heated.
Highway America

The campaign for the introduction of Mixed Member Proportional Representation goes back a long way and started as a protest movement, with government and conservative business interests leading the opposition to change. As pressure mounted the government agreed to hold referendums on the question, and subsequently there was a change and the first MMP election was held in 1996. But even now the system, although supported by a majority of electors, remains controversial.

In the early 1960's a decision was made to change New Zealand’s currency from pounds, shillings and pence (£.s.d.) to a decimal system of dollars and cents. Instead of 12 pennies to a shilling and 20 shillings to a pound, New Zealand was to have 100 cents to a dollar. The protest ran on for years. As I remember, it was probably only exceeded in fiery debate and action by the Vietnam War and 1981 Springbok tour protests, both of which I support in hindsight. It is difficult to identify the main objection to the currency change, but one that springs to mind was the disrespect for our British heritage. It didn’t matter that the UK and Australia were also preparing to change. Another objection was that it was too American. People said that children would lose their mathematical skills because the new currency would be too easy to work with. Many people said that they would refuse to accept the new currency.  Inflation was another reason for opposing the new currency because half-pennies were going to disappear, and items priced at 11 pence would become 10 cents which was previously 12 pennies. The 1960s were comparatively good times economically for New Zealand, but people said it wasn’t the right time to change, and that it would cost millions of dollars (sorry pounds) to replace all the coins and banknotes. But in the end, the coins and notes were replaced as required over many years, and New Zealanders got on with life and other issues. 
Coming hard on the heels of decimal currency was the negotiations between New Zealand and Australia for a free trade agreement, which became known as CER (Closer Economic Relations). Of necessity the negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, but both governments were unfairly criticized for that. As it was every industry on both sides of the Tasman Sea wanted special consideration, and to negotiate publicly would have created a shambles that would have destroyed any possibility of agreement. Union leaders were particularly vocal in their conviction that unemployment would rise. The people of both countries were convinced that the other country would be the only one to gain any advantages.  But the politicians and departmental advisers beavered away for years before finally signing an agreement that did justice to the people of both countries. CER has been a success, and was a small step in the direction of trans-Tasman union, a future possible step that could also benefit both countries.

EFTPOS (Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale) was created in the USA in 1981 as a secure and immediate system of payment using debit and credit cards. It was one of the greatest advances in retailing since the beginning of time, but it was bitterly opposed everywhere. In New Zealand the main objections included; it’s too American and the CIA is behind it, it will allow retailers and others to empty bank accounts with a simple zap of the card, and it will allow criminals access to your money. Most people said that they would refuse to have anything to do with EFTPOS. But by 1982 the first EFTPOS terminals were installed in New Zealand, and gradually the protesters faded away. Soon EFTPOS was so common that people started closing their cheque accounts, and even stopped carrying large amounts of cash. EFTPOS was an absolute winner, and today most people wouldn’t know how to shop without it.
The Tour Commentary

In the early part of the 20th century, New Zealand was a small colony with a lot of insecurity. The British had already sent a strong message urging us to find our own way in the world. They sent us a flag with a small union flag in one corner along with the stars of the Southern Cross. In 1907 they went a step further with the passage of the Statute of Westminster (an Act officially bestowing independence). But New Zealanders, led by farmers, resisted. They wanted to stay British. Without British citizenship, families would be torn apart, farm produce would rot at the farm gate, and the country which considered itself more English than England would be plunged into bankruptcy. The people spoke and the government listened. It took another 40 years for the New Zealand government to finally ratify the Statute of Westminster (Dominion Day, 26 September 1947), but the event went almost unnoticed and our most important day constitutionally is not even a national holiday, nor was a new flag adopted in recognition of independence. Meanwhile, generations of Kiwis have been born, lived and have died without understanding that their country is fully independent. As a protest, the resistance to independence was highly successful. As an exercise in national esteem, it has been New Zealand’s greatest failure.

Of less constitutional significance, and now also largely forgotten in the mists of time, was the Middle Island Association of Dunedin, which in the 1870’s demanded separation of the South Island from the rest of New Zealand. The meetings, protest marches and demands to Parliament went on for years before the protesters gave up. Just as surely as Tasmania is Australia’s smallest and poorest state, if the Middle Islanders had got their way they would only have succeeded in creating two Tasmania’s. The Middle Island protest failed in every way possible, except perhaps that they may have created a lineage that now includes some Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement protesters, who time will prove are entirely on the wrong track. Some people are so anti-free trade that they don’t even like one town trading with another town.

Even the medical profession has not been above making out-of-step protests. A 1913 medical conference held in Auckland set up a committee to lobby the government about the dangers of educating girls.

Although largely forgotten now, and pretty much ignored at the time, was the sit-in peaceful protest of the Parihaka Maori in Taranaki in the 1870’s and 1880’s. It was their land, but the government and land-hungry white settlers wanted it too. So the government had 400 protesters arrested and imprisoned without trial for 16 months. Their descendants had to wait 130 years for redress in the form of compensation and an apology. The land was never returned to them. That protest was admirable, but largely futile.

Public pressure and protest action stirred the government of the day to hold a referendum on the sale of alcohol in 1911. The result was that 55% of New Zealanders wanted a total ban on alcohol sales, but the government had already set the bar at 60%, so the protesters failed nationally but achieved some local dry areas. The three-yearly liquor licencing poll became a permanent feature of general elections for almost 100 years, but gradually the support for prohibition slipped away and all areas eventually became wet again. Had the protesters succeeded, it would have just needed an Al Capone to move in, and the crime rate and drunkenness rate would have soared. It was a protest that was determined and well-meaning, but sadly lacking in sound reasoning.

In 1972, New Zealand’s Equal Pay Act became law, making women legally entitled to the same pay as men for the same work. But in spite of bitter opposition and protests by business leaders and male working-class voters, the National Government of the day pressed ahead. It was claimed that equality would put businesses into liquidation, destroy the economy and be detrimental to the status of working men. But in the end, life went on and the standard of living was raised a notch for everyone. However, it has to be said that even today there are still some pay inequities involving female workers.

In the post WWII years, there was a perceived ‘juvenile delinquency’ epidemic as a crime spree gripped the opinion maker’s imagination. The cry went out loud and strong to imprison the offenders for longer terms with hard labour and bread and water, and to put them in the military to give them some discipline and training. In 1949, Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser finally acted by announcing a referendum on compulsory military training (CMT) for all males aged 18. The voters scooped up the opportunity (18 year-olds didn’t get a vote) and voted 77.9% in favour to 22.1% against. It was probably the most overwhelming vote ever affecting youth. But CMT did nothing to reduce crime and turned out to be one of New Zealand’s most expensive failures. A later Labour Government led by Norman Kirk, allowed CMT to slip quietly into oblivion. The protesters had been 100% wrong. However, in a footnote to the demise of CMT, people in the military were said to be ‘On Her Majesty’s Service’ and letters from the government carried the OHMS message on the envelope. But then there was a protest movement called OHMS which was Organisation to Halt Military Service, and they won their war without firing a single shot.
Connect with Peter on Facebook or Twitter

After eight years in power (1949-1957) the National Government (Holland and Holyoake) lost power to Labour led by Walter Nash, the oldest person to hold the office of prime minister in New Zealand. After electing a Speaker, Nash had a majority in the House of only one seat. He had the very able Arnold Nordmeyer as his Minister of Finance, and Nordmeyer could see that some economic reforms were needed to keep the country on the straight and narrow. In his first budget, Nordie as he was known, increased the tax on tobacco and alcohol. There was immediate and widespread protest and Nordie is only remembered now for his 1958 Black Budget. At the next general election Keith Holyoake’s National Party was swept to power with 46 seats to Labour’s 34. The beer-drinking, cigarette-smoking protester got their way and defeated a government that had faced up to its responsibilities, in spite of the obvious repercussions that lay ahead.

Also, in the year of the Black Budget, New Zealand’s first supermarket, Foodtown, opened in Otahuhu, after locals protested to stop it going ahead. Fearing the effect on small businesses, many people said that they would refuse to shop at Foodtown, claiming that by a combined effort they could send it broke and put a stop to all future supermarkets. Needless to say, Foodtown quickly became New Zealand’s busiest shop and branches opened throughout the country. Since 1958 the number of owner operated shops, and the number of wage earners in retailing, has continued to outstrip population growth.

The introduction of television in 1960 tells a similar story. Thousands of people said they would refuse to buy a television, and if everyone did that, the problem would go away. They were probably the sons and daughters of the people who said they would refuse to have a telephone in the house.

Much has been written about French nuclear testing in the Pacific, the 1981 Springbok Rugby Tour, the sale of government assets, the Vietnam War, and many other issues and protests. For that reason they have not been included here. This is about other protests that were important in their own way, but are now largely forgotten.

Forgotten now, is the bail-out of Air New Zealand. The airline had been government owned from its inception in 1940, but in 2001 it was a public company listed on the stock exchange with many Kiwis holding small share parcels alongside corporate investors. But due to changing markets and some not so wise strategies, the airline hit head winds in 2001 and was in danger of collapse. The government of the day offered to buy into the company. They could see that a failed Air New Zealand would have ramifications beyond the airline itself, creating a domino effect that could cause a major economic downturn and large-scale unemployment. Almost to a man, the public were up in arms at the proposal. It was a waste of money. The airline should be allowed to fail. However, the Clark Government went ahead and acquired 75% of the increased capital of the airline at 25 cents a share and Air New Zealand survived to fly another day. However, the protesters were out in force again in 2014 when the Government sold part of its stake at $1.65 a share. To some people, government can do no right.

One of the longest and most bitter protests reached a peak in the 1970’s and 1980’s led by the unions and churches, unlikely bedfellows in the eyes of many. In 1936 it had become illegal to operate a retail business on a Saturday or Sunday. But with the introduction of supermarkets and generally larger retail shops, the movement to extend trading hours picked up some steam. The protesters came out in force declaring that weekend trading would spell the end of orderly society, workers’ rights, and about a million other lame reasons. In 1980, the law changed to allow shopping until midday on a Saturday, and in 1989 all day Saturday and Sunday became the rule. Now, the people who were going to boycott shops that changed to the new hours, can be seen filling the checkout lines in every shop and supermarket in the country.  Seven day shopping is now popular and convenient. But like so many other protests, before and after this protest, it is now conveniently forgotten.

As usual, when all the hoo-hah dies down, life goes on.







Sunday, 16 August 2015

CANCER

Cancer is killing more people than ever before

Everyone knows someone affected by cancer, friends, relatives, the family next door. Everywhere people are dying from, or awaiting treatment for, the dreaded Big C. Everywhere, people speculate about the reason for the sudden rise in the number of cancer victims. Everywhere, the medical profession and drug companies are being criticised for failing to halt the rising rates of cancer, and are even accused of conspiracies and cover-ups that are allowing innocent people to die while they profit from the misery. More people, in desperation or from lack of trust, are turning to alternate healers and natural remedies.

Some people attribute rising cancer rates to lower standards of living, the pressure of modern-day life, climate change, pollution, insecticides, food ingredients, secret government missions to aerial spray populations with toxic chemicals, and so on. It seems that almost everyone has an explanation for the prevalence of the dreaded disease that is now one of the world’s biggest killers.

So what is the real truth about cancer? The answer lies in history, authentic research, and facts about the medical profession, changing life expectancy, and changing causes of death.

History reveals that humans are living longer now than ever before, and that the increased life expectancy is more universal than ever before. In the Neolithic Period (later Stone Age ending 10,000 years ago) the worldwide life expectancy from birth was just 20 years.  By the time of the Bronze Age (6,000 years ago) man could expect to live for 26 years on average from birth. In early modern England (1500-1700) Brits were doing better than many others around the world with a life expectancy 0f 37 years. By 1900, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, the world life expectancy had reached 31 years. By 1950 it had risen to 48, and to 67 years in 2010.

From the above it could be expected that fewer people would be dying from a particular cause, such as cancer, rather than more, but that is not the case. More people are dying from cancer now than ever before. So let’s look at the causes of death and how they have changed over time.

From the earliest times until quite recently, infant mortality was one of the major causes of death. As recently as 1700 a third of all births worldwide led to death before the age of nine, due to malnutrition, disease, accidents and violence. This had a major impact on life expectancy in general.

The gap between rich and poor has always created an unequal life expectancy, both between rich and poor countries and between rich and poor families living in the same countries, and even in the same cities. Poverty comes with a high price. However, the Industrial Revolution changed the thinking of business leaders, politicians and social reformers to the extent that it was realized that if the masses were unable to purchase the goods that they produced, there wasn’t much point in having industry because there would be a scarcity of customers with money. While there is still a considerable gap between rich and poor, the gap is closing rather than widening as is popularly believed. The progressive closing of the gap is a major factor in increasing life expectancy.
Connect with Peter on Facebook or Twitter

Medical science in the 20th and 21st centuries has made huge progress at a pace not unlike the progress of aviation and space exploration. The remedies and cures of 200 years ago often killed more patients than they saved. Surgery more often than not resulted in fatal infections of which there was no understanding. The discovery of germs is relatively recent.
Because of the advance of medical science and improved living standards, many common killers have been eliminated completely or are now extremely rare. Examples include smallpox, cholera, tuberculosis, typhoid, and diphtheria. Other diseases such as influenza, which killed an estimated 50 million in 1919-20, are now of a much lower incidence rate and are now rarely fatal. Improved hygiene, better housing and working conditions have also played a vital role in life expectancy.

We constantly hear criticism of peoples eating habits, but with freer trade and comparative economic security, more people are able to enjoy a more nutritional diet than at any other time in history. Even Alaskans now have access to bananas, and ice cream and refrigeration are available in the tropics. Life is good.

A study of war statistics for the last thousand years even shows a progressive decrease in the numbers killed as a result of war. The decrease has accelerated over the last 70 years since the end of WWII which killed 55 million. Fewer people, particularly young servicemen, are dying because of wars, and therefore getting a shot at old age.

Here’s a couple more things that are letting people live longer: Smoking is literally a dying habit with more and more people stopping smoking. Alcohol consumption is more controlled and responsible than in some previous centuries, when alcoholic addiction and drunkenness was the norm for millions of people, including those who could ill-afford it.

So, you may ask, what has all this got to do with cancer? Well, it’s pretty simple. Although cancer can kill the very young, it is primarily a disease of the elderly and it is proving one of the most difficult diseases to eliminate. Fortunately, only about 1% of deaths from cancer involve those aged under 15. In other words, the longer we live the more likely we are to have to face it. Many of the earlier big killers have been eliminated and that has opened the way for cancer later in life.

It is expected that as life expectancy increases, reported cancer cases will increase, possibly by up to 70% over the next 20 years. But an increasing proportion of those reported cases will survive into remission. The survival rate for some cancers is better than for others with high survival rates for breast, prostate and colon cancers. Meanwhile, pancreatic cancers have a much lower survival rate.

The essential fact about cancer is that there is more cancer in the world today, because we are able to avoid many of the things that previously would have killed us, and that leaves the tough one, the predominantly old-age disease, cancer. But even having regard to that, if cancer catches up with us, because of mainstream medical advances, we have a better chance of surviving it than ever before.

Meanwhile, medical quacks and magic remedy merchants are conning unfortunate cancer victims to the extent that they themselves are often a worse curse on society than cancer itself.








Sunday, 9 August 2015

THE NEW ZEALAND PARTY

Bob Jones’s New Zealand Party was the spark that ignited an economic revolution

In the period from 1890 to the late 1940s New Zealanders had voted in a series of governments strong on social reforms. During this period New Zealand’s reputation was that of a world social laboratory where new policies could be tested for the rest of the world to follow. Perhaps the greatest of all the reforms were the introduction of the first old age pensions and votes for women, introduced by Richard Seddon’s Liberal Government. The first Labour Government, elected in 1935, expanded on Liberal’s reforms and were able to claim enough credit to overshadow the earlier reformers.

But Labour’s socialization went a step further in a different direction, a wrong step for some people. The Labour Party had been formed in 1916 on a philosophy of nationalizing the means production and distribution. Many of the founding members, later to be Members of Parliament, were hard-core socialists and communists. To them, it was plain and simple; everything should be owned and controlled by the state. They started off boldly in 1935, but their enthusiasm tapered off as the 1940s progressed. However, by the time Labour left office in 1949, many industries had not only been nationalized, they also became state monopolies, including railways, coal mines, airlines, broadcasting, communications and electricity.    Most of these government enterprises were propped up year after year by taxation and borrowing.
Continued below . . . 

When the National Party replaced Labour in government in 1949 they were content to leave the state owned businesses in place and National continued in office for most of the period from 1949 to 1984 with just two brief periods of Labour government. These were the ‘steady as she goes’ years, but the writing was on the wall for New Zealand with Britain joining the European Economic Community and casting a huge shadow over New Zealand’s future exports of farm produce. It should have been clear that the country needed to become more competitive, instead of relying on borrow and hope policies.

This writer was a National Party candidate in a Labour stronghold in the 1972 general election, an election in which Labour toppled the National Government by a large majority. But the next year I left the National Party for the tiny Liberal Party, when it was obvious that National was going to have a new divisive leader. Liberal, which I led from 1973 to 1976, advocated economic and constitutional reforms, and free trade. But, like so many other minor parties at the time, we failed to attract the big names and the big dollars to make an impact.

The third National Government, led by the abrasive Robert Muldoon as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, was an eight-and-a-half year disaster of government intervention in the economy. Budgets were no longer an annual event under Muldoon with ‘mini-budgets’ every few months as he tried to ‘fine tune’ the economy. Meanwhile, he borrowed heavily for his ‘Think Big’ projects, while exports fell, the cost of imports rose, and inflation ran at 20% a year, and all that was happening while there was a wage and price freeze. Foreigners who dared to invest in New Zealand dollars could earn 19% on bank deposits.
The New Zealand Party logo

By 1983 the scene was set for Robert Edward Jones to create an electoral tsunami. Jones had been born in a public housing suburb of Wellington and had grown up the hard way, got himself through university and built a commercial property empire. He had no time for political correctness, could throw a solid punch in the boxing ring, and wrote rattling good yarns in his numerous novels. Bob was an extraordinary achiever. At age 44 his net worth was $44 million. With my campaign manager from 1972, we went to Jones’s first public meeting in Auckland and joined his New Zealand Party. Jones was offering all of the main policy planks that Liberal had offered several years earlier. But, like the Liberal Party, his biggest hurdle was to be the electoral system which favored heavily the two main parties. Under the first-past-the-post voting system, politics was a closed shop.
Bob Jones with Deputy Leader Janie Pearce

Jones wasted no time before asking me to accept nomination as a candidate for Parliament, but I was reluctant. With two failed bids behind me, a small business to run and a mortgage to pay, I wasn’t keen.
“There’s going to be an early election,” Jones warned.
I didn’t think so. New Zealand had a history of delayed, rather than early elections. I believed that Muldoon who was trailing in the opinion polls would look for excuses to delay the inevitable.
“We’re going to need a lot of good people in a hurry,” Jones insisted.
To appease him I took a gamble.
“Okay, Bob, if the election is held any earlier than November you can count on me. Otherwise count me out.”
It was a deal. And the deal would soon be called up.

About a month later, Muldoon while primed with Gin, took the nation by surprise by announcing a snap election for July. Even his own party president, summoned to Parliament for the announcement, had no prior knowledge. It was a one-man suicidal decision.

Bob Jones and his growing band of supporters did a magnificent organizing job over the next five weeks and put a candidate in every one of the 95 electorates, in most cases backed by a campaign committee. The New Zealand Party took off like a rocket in the opinion polls, sometimes registering up to 20% support. Jones was an excellent campaigner and communicator, and he attracted some talented and prominent people to the cause. At a hastily convened national conference Janie Pearce, an Auckland lawyer, was elected as his deputy-leader from a big line up of contenders. Others parliamentary candidates included high-flying businessman David Phillips; Margaret Evans who was Deputy Mayor and later Mayor of Hamilton; Peter Button who was a businessman and well-known rescue helicopter pilot; nationally known Wellington lawyer Mike Bungay; Josephine Grierson with an Honors degree in economics and politics from Oxford University; Ken Sandford, the first chairman of the Accident Compensation Commission; and Adrian Hayter a well-known military officer and adventurer. The lineup included lawyers, teachers, farming leaders, accountants, unionists, manufacturers, builders, journalists, retailers, authors, leaders of national organizations, and police officers. It was possibly the most wide-ranging occupational slate of candidates ever offered to New Zealand voters.
Sir Robert Muldoon

In the last days of the campaign, I was in Rotorua with a group of tourists and arrived at the hotel, and got them checked in before going into the bar for a quiet drink. Minutes later, Minister of Finance-in-waiting Roger Douglas came in, bought himself a drink, and sat at my table. We had met once many years earlier, and I didn’t think he would remember me, and he appeared not to. Like me, campaigning and running a business at the same time, Douglas seemed to just want a little time out. We didn’t introduce ourselves, or talk politics, but we did talk of many other things until he excused himself to go to an appointment. Silently and figuratively, the baton of liberalization was passed from a former Liberal Party leader to the man who would soon carry it across the finish line in the grandest style imaginable.

There was debate within the New Zealand Party about the best way to campaign; some favored equal attention for all electorates to encourage media coverage, while others wanted campaign funds and effort concentrated in electorates that were seen as winnable. The national campaign strategy was adopted, with the result that overall the party did exceptionally well for its first outing at 13%, but failed to win a single electorate.
Sir Roger Douglas in 2009

Bob Jones was personally disappointed with the result for his new party, but was pleased that the Muldoon Government had been soundly dumped. The New Zealand Party had succeeded in drawing a large section of the electorate away from National, some to itself, and some to Labour. It was clear that New Zealanders had had enough of interventionist government and wanted a new direction for the future. Roger Douglas was a known advocate of economic reform, having been dumped as shadow finance spokesman by an earlier Labour leader for daring to publish an alternate budget that didn’t sit well with Labour philosophy.

Changes of government normally are smooth, courteous affairs in New Zealand, but the transition from National to Labour in 1984 was marred by the refusal of Muldoon to accept the reality of defeat and to act on the advice of incoming ministers. New Zealand’s economic decline accelerated rapidly. Only intervention by Muldoon’s outgoing ministers brought him into line and avoided taking the country to the doorstep of bankruptcy.
Connect with Peter on Facebook or Twitter

Facing bitter opposition from Labour’s rank and file, Douglas proceeded full-steam ahead with his reforms. He swiftly changed New Zealand from a highly protected, regulated and government dominated system to an open, competitive, free-market, deregulated economy. In short order the New Zealand dollar was floated, farm subsidies ended, the tax system was overhauled with income taxes reduced and a Goods and Services Tax introduced, new banks were allowed to start, foreign exchange controls were abolished, import duties and tariffs were reduced or abolished, many state owned enterprises were corporatized or sold off. It was a period of major economic upheaval that hurt thousands of people in the short term, but was critical to the long term viability of the nation.

Roger Douglas sealed the fate of the New Zealand Party with his haste to introduce the policies they both shared, and this view was confirmed by the Timaru by-election in 1985. The NZP had a high profile surgeon as its candidate who campaigned well with many party supporters helping from around the country. It was the last time I talked with Bob Jones. He expected Bill Greenslade to win Timaru, but in the end Greenslade finished a distant third with 13% of the vote, similar to the party share in the general election a year earlier. It was clear that a majority wanted the Jones reforms, but were content to let Douglas and Labour introduce them.

Jones resigned shortly after Timaru and the party struggled on for several more years, first with farmer John Galvin as leader and then with tour operator Stephen Greenfield. But the party was no longer relevant.
A Cessna Citation Mustang

Sir Robert Muldoon was replaced as National Party leader by Jim McLay, who in turn was replaced by Jim Bolger who led the party to victory in 1990 and continued the Rogernomics reforms.  In an unusual twist of fate, Sir Robert Jones chaired the ceremony to farewell the other Sir Robert into retirement. In ten years they had been close friends, bitter enemies, and respected friends again. Muldoon passed away in 1992 at the age of 70. Meanwhile, Jones now 75, leaves politics to others, continues to write and has turned his $44 million into $600 million. He was in the news again a few months ago, true to his unique style, after being asked to leave an Air New Zealand flight for refusing to follow crew instructions. Again, true to his style, he went out and purchased his own personal $3 million Cessna Citation Mustang jet.

It is just not possible to ground people of the caliber of Bob Jones. After all, he was the man who created the spark that ignited an economic revolution, which set a nation on a new course to freedom and prosperity.



Thursday, 30 July 2015

MH370 UPDATE

Saturday, 29 March 2014


WHAT HAPPENED TO MH 370

The likely B-777 scenarios are narrowing down to just one

When the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 vanished almost a month ago speculation was rife about its fate: Suicide terrorism, criminal acts by passengers or crew, hostage taking, catastrophic structural failure (something that has never happened to the 777 in its 20 year history) were all on the table.

Although widely criticized as incompetent and dishonest, the authorities were wise to play their cards slowly while some form of criminality was considered highly likely. To do otherwise may have played right into the hands of those responsible. But the likelihood of criminal interference, or criminal actions by the pilots, are now receding.

Much news media mileage has been made of the captain’s flight simulator, but lots of pilots have their own simulator and many former pilots regularly ‘fly’ on a simulator. In my own case I’ve spent many hours on various Boeings including the 777. It’s not uncommon to indulge in flight activities that would be most unwise in the real aircraft. For example I sometimes simulate returning to the airport after all power is suddenly lost during climb out at 15,000 to 20,000 feet. Large jets are capable of gliding much better than many people would imagine.

Simulators, airline and private, have have done a lot to make flying safer. They keep pilots ahead of the game, and it’s my belief that the Malaysian pilots were right up with the game until fate took a hand. Every pilot worthy of the title will always fly with an instant action plan in mind to cover every possible emergency.

In the flight plan there may be only one alternate airport for diversion in the event that the destination cannot be used. But every minute of the flight the crew will always know the location of the nearest suitable landing place, and in a life and death emergency turning toward that airport will be the first priority.

We know now that shortly after the last communication the aircraft suddenly turned from a northerly heading to a south westerly heading on a course that would take it into the southern 


Available from Amazon or Smashwords

Indian Ocean. But that heading also pointed the aircraft to a 13,000 foot runway in Malaysia that was closer than the departure airport.

The next actions should have been to start the descent and transmit a distress call. The rule is Aviate Navigate and Communicate, in that order. The autopilot would have been used to turn the aircraft onto the new heading and the altitude bug may have been turned off while the pilots selected a new flight level and rate of descent. But programming the autopilot may have been interrupted when the pilots were suddenly incapacitated.

The likely culprit must be decompression, poisonous fumes of some kind; a smoldering tire, or fumes from the consignment of troublesome batteries that were in the cargo hold. The fumes from those batteries can kill within 10 seconds.

So we have a situation where the aircraft is trimmed for the turn (slightly nose up) and is being flown partly manually and partly by autopilot. If the pilots are unconscious at the completion of the turn the aircraft will climb. This may explain why it climbed 10,000 feet above its assigned altitude. At 45,000 feet the 777 would be struggling to fly and left to its own devices the nose would drop quite steeply. As it gained airspeed again it would have leveled off and and started another climb. This may explain the sighting of a jet airliner flying low and fast over the Malaysian Peninsula around the time that MH 370 would have been crossing.

The process may have taken several oscillations before normal flight resumed on the new selected heading, possibly with the altitude increasing slowly as the fuel load burned off. It all depends on the actual settings for the autopilot; heading we can be fairly certain of, but airspeed, altitude and power settings will only ultimately be revealed when the black box is recovered. It is possible that the airspeed at the top of the climb may have been very close to the minimum airspeed to remain airborne, or close to the point of stall. 

When the aircraft ran out of fuel it is likely that one engine failed before the other and the asymmetric thrust at the low air speed would probably disengage the autopilot completely. The remaining engine would wind the aircraft into a graveyard spiral with the airspeed then increasing very rapidly.

The cockpit of a Boeing 777. The autopilot controls are at the top center of the panel

If the last engine failed a few seconds after the first it would make little difference. Once in the spiral without a conscious pilot at the controls the aircraft would in all probability disintegrate before hitting the sea.

In aviation anything is possible once. In most other fields of endeavor the same mistakes can happen over and over again, but aviation is different. Aviation learns from its mistakes. That is why flying is safe.

But that is no consolation for the victims and their loved ones. However, if my scenario is the correct one, then the suffering was probably very brief.

UPDATE
30th July 2015

Wreckage, possibly from MH370, has been found washed up on Reunion Island in the western Indian Ocean, several thousand kilometres from the search area south west of Perth in Western Australia.

So, was the search being conducted in the wrong place? Possibly not. A study of the ocean currents tends to confirm that wreckage from the search area could indeed be carried on a circuitous route north, west and then south to the area of the find.




Indian Ocean currents/Wikipedia

If the wreckage found is confirmed as coming from MH370 then is can be expected that other wreckage may be scattered over a wide area of the ocean, the drift depending on shape and weight of individual items. For the flaperon to detach from the aircraft, the way it must have, indicates that there may be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of small pieces of wreckage, indicating a possible break-up in the air, possibly in a graveyard spiral after fuel exhaustion. 

This must be regarded as the most significant clue so far in the search for the missing airliner, and those on board.