Speaker by Various Artists

Hang on, what about Carlaw Park?

by Richard Simpson

The following post has been compiled from emails from Auckland City councillor Richard Simpson, and outlines his argument for Carlaw Park to be considered as the site for the Rugby World Cup stadium in Auckland. Cr. Simpson illustrates his ideas in this Powerpoint presentation (2.9MB, right-click to save). I would normally have asked him to write a formal guest post, but he is in transit from New York, and given that Cabinet meets on Monday to deliberate on stadium options, I thought the idea needed to be aired today. - RB

---

I believe we should seriously consider Carlaw Park as a site for the Rugby World Cup Stadium. This site would create a much needed punctuation point in Auckland's use of rail. Government will make a final decision on the 16th October.

The Stadium footprint would require the repatriation of of the original Domain land (including Carlaw Park) back into the Domain to ensure adequate space ie. Stadium would be built on the Domain. This would enable an almost complete reconstitution the Domain as it was in July 1840 when it was defined by the paths of the Waipapa (Parnell) and Waiparuru (Grafton) streams. The Domain has lost 4.3 ha (roughly 10 acres) of land since the November 1860 Public Domain Act of the first Prime Minister (Edward Stafford). Some of this missing land can be accounted for by he Hospital and the Bowling Green, the rest is Carlaw Park and a fat sliver on the Parnell side of the railwayline. This act of Domain definition was three months prior to the flagstaff being raised in Auckland ie. this was Auckland's genesis - Auckland was therefore born as a park the Domain is not a park in a city but Auckland is a city within a park- this thinking needs to be the basis of Auckland's future urban planning directions. This historical fact needs to be celebrated and inspired from with a much better standard of urban planning and design than the dross we have in the past accepted without fuss.

A Stadium on this Carlaw Park site would catalyse the use of public transport and transform Auckland into a world class city. Carlaw Park could be serviced by a new Musuem/Domain/Parnell Station on the Southern line, at the same time as a temporary Kingdon St Station on the Western line. Run concurrently this is more than twice the capacity offered by Britomart. For road transport Carlaw Park is serviced by SH16 at its front door.

This site is very near Auckland hospital for rapidly addressing serious injuries. In situations of major emergencies, the stadium at this site would serve as strategic assembly point (eg. as New Orleans Super Dome served during Katrina).

In wet weather, a covered stadium on this site could serve as a standby contingency for major events in the Domain. The Museum steps could serve a podium for the opening of the RWC and for prize giving etc. where hundreds of thousands of people could attend and participate. Auckland would shine at its best for international eyes.

There are many benefits a Stadium on this site could serve for better connecting Parnell, the University, Domain, and CBD together for pedestrians and cyclists. A stadium on this site could also provide car parking for these areas, and could enable the car parking in the Domain to be greatly reduced. This would return this premier park back to the people.

There are some strong arguments on the grounds of heritage and place making supporting this site. Some All Black test matches were even played at Carlaw Park in its early years.

I believe the special merits of this site warrant serious investigation into the feasibility of this option.

---

NB: I pointed out to Cr. Simpson what I regarded as two potential drawbacks in the proposal: access for hospital traffic at peak times; and whether the difficulty of gaining consents would preclude the stadium being used for concerts. He responded thus:

Good point on the issue of hospital traffic - the reality is this issue would be the same for a stadium on the waterfront.

Carlaw Park could be serviced far more efficiently by rail than Britomart; a deadend that limits rail frequency as trains have to back out to clear. (For example by two stations on two lines: a temporary Kingdon St Station for shuttle services from the west and a Museum/Stadium/Parnell Station on different dual track lines for the South and Britomart. I expect Britomart to be badly blackened by the dirty soot of these Diesel locomotives by the time of the world cup. We do not want Britomart to make Auckland a joke while it has its moment on the international stage._

Tickets for the game/concert could be integrated with rail tickets to further encourage rail as the major mode people would arrive on. This preferential seat ticketing for rail commuters, augmented with an efficient public transport to rail hubs and much better cycle way access could keep the traffic down to manageable levels.

Parnell has had Carlaw Park beside it for nearly a century. Concerts, monster truck derbies etc have all been held there. They are also used to the huge concerts in the Domain. While there will be some who protest, there is a win for people living nearest to the stadium.

Repatriation of the original Domain land would mean the Domain would reach right into Parnell to the properties in Heather St and Gibraltar Cres. 'Daylighting' Waipapa Streamwould significantly enhance the area, as would electrification of rail to remove the noise and vibration hostility of the current Diesel 'clunker' locomotives that work this track.

This backyard of Parnell facing the Domain could become its front lawn. Cafes could be set up in this sheltered valley where people could sit by the stream - with the Domain, Stadium and a sleek new Domain/Museum/Stadium station could serve as backdrop. The Domain could be featured as part of Parnell with easy access to via bridges to the Stadium and over SH20. All this should make the properties nearer the Stadium more desirable. Certainly there could also be interest in siting hotels near the Stadium and the Domain - tough design standard could be applied to enhance it. As you can see from some of the slides there are a few leaking trash-buildings in the area that I would like to see taken out/rebuilt to a respectable quality. The incentive could come with making the Domain their front door.

The supporters of the Domain should support these scheme. The creeping of the Stadium beyond the dimensions of Carlaw Park to enable a 60,000 + audience would be less than the land now taken up by the car parking littering the Domain. THis car parking could be removed and planted as park land. Also with Carlaw Park repatriated a large share of the 4.3 hectares (10 acres) of Domain land that has disappeared since Stafford's 1860 Public Domain Act (see slide on this). The current railway is taken as the boundary of the Domain - this was built in 1914, the original boundary was the Waipapa Stream much closer to Parnell. Caralw Park was in the swamp of the Waipapa - the Parnell bank of the stream was the private property boundary.

The nearby Museum steps could serve as a podium for the opening ceremony etc. and also for awards - this could enable crowds of well over 100,000 to gather and provide for spectacular television coverage.

Auditing the Auditor-General

by "Rex"

Auditor-General Kevin Brady's report into taxpayer-funded advertising expenditure in the three months before the 2005 General Election is difficult to stomach.

The principle Brady has sought to uphold is that taxpayer money cannot lawfully be spent on electioneering; he has identified around $1.1 million of advertising spending which he believes transgressed this rule. Relying on the then-Solicitor-General's advice, he defined electioneering as anything that could be construed as encouraging someone to vote for you.

There are two primary reasons why his approach is impossible to accept.

First, political parties have not been treated according to principles of natural justice.

Labour has made much of the fact that the same pledge card now deemed unlawful was not deemed as such in the two previous elections. It has also pointed to National spending money on similar material in the 2002 election according to spending rules that have not materially changed since. The reason Labour considered its spending lawful was because such spending had taken place over many elections by many political parties and never before been questioned. Thus, Labour has categorised Brady as changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Labour's critics have pooh-poohed this defence - saying:

a) Two wrongs don't make a right. That is, just because Labour got away with something unlawful in previous elections doesn't mean it should do so again this time.

b) Ignorance of the law is no defence. Just because you thought the rules made the pledge card spending lawful doesn't make it so.

This is a superficially appealing couplet of arguments, but a misleading one. When working out whether something I wish to do is legal, I might ask myself: "Have similar actions been considered legal by relevant authorities in the past?" Indeed, if relevant authorities had treated a certain action as legal over many years, it would seem capricious if I were then prosecuted because they all turned out to be wrong. So, while blithe ignorance of the law is not a good defence, ignorance because everyone who should have known something was unlawful didn't consider it such is a pretty good one.

Clearly, the important clause in the above question is "relevant authorities". Who are the relevant authorities where parliamentary advertising rules are concerned?

a) First, everyone involved in the parliamentary advertising process: the parliamentary political parties (who wrote and followed the rules) and the Parliamentary Service (the bureaucrats that administer parliamentary spending, and the Speaker, as the Minister responsible for them). All of them (including National) had, over many election cycles, interpreted the rules to allow all advertising except that which explicitly solicited votes or party membership. All of them had interpreted "electioneering" in this narrow way, including the National Party. (It is this narrow interpretation that is very convincingly defended in the legal opinion by Chapman Tripp's Jack Hodder and Briony Davies in their excellent legal opinion for the Speaker.) This might have been a self-serving interpretation, but it was one which parties across the political spectrum followed. This explains why the Labour pledge card was not remarked upon after the 1999 and 2002 elections, and why a similar pledge pamphlet was distributed by National in 2002. None of them - not the politicians on either side of the House, nor the apolitical Parliamentary Service - had understood that the wider definition of "electioneering" now endorsed by the Auditor-General was in play.

b) Second, none of the relevant watchdogs (including the Auditor-General, the Solicitor-General, and the Chief Electoral Officer) had, after previous elections, declared such spending "electioneering" - the Auditor-General had never declared the spending unlawful; the Chief Electoral Officer had never counted such spending towards party election campaign limits; the Solicitor-General had never provided a legal opinion stating that for the purposes of parliamentary advertising spending, "electioneering" meant anything which could be construed as trying to get someone to vote for you. And while the Auditor-General did ask parties before the 2005 election to be careful in how they spent their parliamentary money, he absolutely did not foreshadow the radical widening of the definition of "electioneering" that he has now adopted.

In short, the behaviour of political parties in the 2005 election was not materially different from previous elections; rather, it was only the reaction to that behaviour by the "watchdogs" that changed. Why is this relevant? Because Labour had very good reason to believe that its spending on the pledge card was lawful. It knew that all political parties (including its opponents) had acted similarly in previous elections. And it knew that the relevant legal authorities had not declared such actions unlawful in the past.

Imagine I called the Queen ridiculous repeatedly over many years in front of my local constable, my lawyer, the mayor, the Police Commissioner, and the Solicitor-General, as well as in public (say, in a newspaper column). Now imagine that none of them said anything over that time. Now imagine that I do it again, and the next day my local constable, armed with a newly-minted legal opinion by the Solicitor-General, arrests me for treason. Would that seem fair? Of course not. Yet, something very similar has happened to Labour and the other political parties called up for big over-spends by the Auditor-General.

The second major problem with the result of yesterday's events is that the scope of the Brady report is arbitrary. Brandishing his wide definition of "electioneering", Brady has picked on only one type of Parliamentary spending (advertising) and focused on only one, specific period of time (the three months before the 2005 general election).

While this arbitrariness might be understandable given the origins of the Auditor-General's report, its consequences are deeply concerning. Brady has accepted a definition of "electioneering" as "something that is intended to persuade a voter to favour a candidate or party in an election". If this is the rightful legal definition for parliamentary spending purposes, then it ought to be applied consistently across all areas of taxpayer-funded parliamentary political party activity and across all election cycles that took place under the current funding regime (i.e. at least all the MMP Parliaments). If the Auditor-General believes strongly that an important legal principle has been breached, and unlawful action has been undertaken by political parties over many years, then surely it is incumbent upon him to identify all the unlawful expenditure so as to remedy all the harm caused?

The reason he couldn't possible do this is that it would entail an investigation without precedent. He would need to investigate:

a) the expenditure of parliamentary political parties in at least the last three election cycles.

b) all parliamentary political party expenditure, not simply that relating to advertising.

Indeed, if Labour's pledge card expenditure in 2005 was unlawful, then so was its pledge card expenditure in 1999 and 2002, and so was much activity undertaken by National in previous election cycles (including the English pledge pamphlet in 2002). Why should only this most recent advertising expenditure be paid back, but not that from previous elections? Why should Labour be landed with the bill for the 05 pledge card, and National not be landed with the bill for its 02 pledge pamphlet? How is that fair and consistent?

While National and the media have beaten on the "taxpayers shouldn't fund electioneering" drum repeatedly over the past few months, they haven't done so with any consistency. To see what I mean, take a look at the 2005/6 Budget for Vote: Parliamentary Service. It's worth around $120 million. Breaking this down a bit:

a) $17 million for 'provision of secretariat support and travel services' to MPs.

b) $14 million for 'Party and Member Support' - this money is used to support parties' parliamentary operations, including the salaries of parties' press secretaries, researchers, and political strategists, as well as the advertising the Auditor-General examined.

c) $3.5 million for 'Members' Communications' - such things as MPs' cellphones, business cards and office stationery.

d) $9.9 million for air and land travel for MPs, their families, former MPs and other dignitaries.

That's close to $50 million of taxpayer funding in each of the past few election years. If we're to take the Brady report seriously, the vast majority of this would have been used for 'electioneering' as the Auditor-General has defined it, is thus unlawful spending, and thus should be paid back.

Here's the rub: If the Auditor-General is serious about ensuring that taxpayer money appropriated for parliamentary purposes has not been used for electioneering (in his broad definition), then he should be seeking to root out all unlawful expenditure and demanding repayment. He could start by demanding the repayment of all MPs' travel and celllphone bills during the election campaign. When Dr Brash flew to his campaign launch, or his tax policy announcement, taxpayers paid for it. When Dr Brash made cellphone calls during the election campaign to discuss his Brethren gaffe with advisors, taxpayers paid for it. If we're to take his report seriously, Brady has to believe all of this was unlawful.

Perhaps he could also start asking for the diaries and work programmes of the people who worked for our parliamentary party leaders in the three months before the general election. Was Dr Brash's chief of staff, Richard Long, involved in any electioneering in the 2005 election campaign when we were paying him to undertake taxpayer-funded parliamentary business? Were taxpayers paying him to take part in National election campaign committee discussions? What about Peter Keenan, Dr Brash's speechwriter? Were taxpayers paying for him to write Dr Brash's election campaign speeches? Or the National Party parliamentary research unit? Was it formulating National's election policy? Or its media team? Were they speaking to members of the Press Gallery about the election campaign?

Of course they were, and that is unremarkable because all other political parties did the same thing. They all have taxpayer-funded researchers, spin doctors, political strategies, and speechwriters, whose job during the election year is almost exclusively about electioneering. And that's my point: if you accept Brady's ruling, then almost all parliamentary expenditure undertaken by political parties during at least the past few election years was unlawful. If you accept his reasoning, unlawful taxpayer-funded political party electioneering is much more widespread than a million dollars worth of advertising. We're talking about possibly more than a hundred of million dollars over several election cycles. That strongly suggests that everyone involved in the system, including National, have rejected Brady's wide definition of electioneering, in favour of Chapman Tripp's narrow one.

The reason to pick on National in my above examples is that it has undertaken a cynical, hypocritical campaign to pretend that it is purer than pure and Labour is blacker than black when it comes to using taxpayer funding for electioneering purposes. This is palpably untrue. Both have acted in the same way in this regard for many, many years, because all political parties had the same understanding of appropriate use of taxpayer funding for parliamentary purposes.

Which leads us to the nub of National's credibility problem. If it genuinely accepts the Auditor-General's definition of "electioneering", then it has to accept that it has unlawfully spent millions (if not tens of millions) of taxpayer money over many election cycles. It should now proceed to pay the money back. If it genuinely believes the rules were clear, and that they were to be interpreted as the Auditor-General has interpreted them, then it needs to be signing an awfully large cheque to taxpayers. Of course, National will never do this, nor will the media demand that it pay this money back. But that doesn't make its position any less craven or any less hypocritical.

This leads us to one of two conclusions. In effectively deeming tens of millions of dollars of expenditure over many years unlawful, the Auditor-General has either:

a) Erred, by adopting an extreme definition of "electioneering" for Parliamentary spending purposes which bears no relation to actual practice or the understanding of the rules by all those who wrote them and administered them over many years.

b) Ruled correctly, but then applied his ruling in an arbitrary, capricious manner.

Neither conclusion bestows much honour on the Auditor-General. That the Herald is already declaring him a candidate for New Zealander of the Year illustrates how ill-informed its editorial writers are on this issue, and how reflexively anti-Labour they have become.

I'd like to conclude with a brief commentary on the political fallout of the heated political debate that arose during the period between sections of the Auditor-General's draft report being leaked to the media and yesterday's release of the final report.

First, the Auditor-General acted unprofessionally. While his report says that it was 'unhelpful' that some of his provisional findings were leaked to the media, he allowed himself to be dragged into the public debate. Why did he and his office provide copious comment to journalists, on and off the record, during the conduct of his inquiry? How was that conducive to the conduct of a fair, consultative inquiry? Why not just stay mum throughout?

Second, the National Party has acted with breathtaking hypocrisy. It knew that like all political parties, it had, over many years, abided by a narrow interpretation of "electioneering" when determining whether using taxpayer funds was lawful. It knew that Labour had acted in precisely the same way in 2005 as National had acted in previous elections.

Breaking rank now for short-term political gain was bad enough. But it is nothing short of deplorable that National turned such a hypocritical campaign into suggestions that:

a) Labour stole the election.

b) Helen Clark led the most corrupt government in New Zealand history.

These accusations betrayed not only a lack of any meaningful historical perspective, but also a complete amnesia with respect to similar actions National had undertaken in previous election cycles.

Third, it is deeply regrettable that some sections of the media aided and abetted National's campaign to destroy Labour, and by extension the country's confidence in our democratic processes. The worst offender was the New Zealand Herald which placed all its coverage of the Auditor-General's report over many weeks under the headers "Pay It Back" or "Paying It Back". This was a newspaper using a National Party slogan to brand its coverage of a highly controversial political issue. It'd have been like the Herald placing its election coverage during the election campaign under the header "Forward. Together." More generally, there was very little attempt on the part of the media to explain:

a) National's hypocrisy on the issue, given its past and current practice.

b) That the Auditor-General's definition of electioneering (based on the Solicitor-General's advice) was completely at odds with the understanding and practice of all political parties over many years.

c) That the wide-reaching implications of the Auditor-General's decision are that tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars of taxpayer money has been unlawfully spent over several election cycles, and that National has a multi-million dollar liability of its own.

In short, the media got seduced by two alluring storylines - politicians are irredeemably corrupt; and this third-term government is on its way out - without stopping to think how the issue should be responsibly framed. Had the above three points been made crystal-clear, then rather than being about a Labour rort of the taxpayers, the story would have been more generally about the rules around parliamentary spending needing clarification because of disagreements between various state authorities on what those rules meant. A less sexy story, to be sure, but a much more accurate one. On the contrary, the general literacy of those commentating on these issues in the media (the Herald editorial writers, for example, don't even appear to know the difference between the budget of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the budget of the Parliamentary Labour Party) has been woeful.

Of course, there's no denying that Labour handled the pledge card issue in a ham-fisted, almost suicidal way. It shouldn't have attacked the Auditor-General. It shouldn't have fought a war in the media, seemingly coming up with a new excuse every day as to why the spending was legitimate. It shouldn't have dismissed the issue as of concern only to those living in the Beltway. All this did was:

a) provide further fuel to the fire that National and the media were trying to stoke;

b) reinforce latent perceptions of Labour as feeling itself above the law.

Rather, it should have retained a dignified silence, noting that it was in discussions with the Auditor-General about his provisional findings, and that it would make a decision as to its response once he released his final report. It should have added that:

a) Out of respect for the Auditor-General's statutory position, it would be willing to pay back money he found in his final report to have been unlawfully spent;

b) It had at all times acted in good faith and in accordance with its understanding of the rules;

c) National's behaviour in previous election campaigns suggested it had a similar understanding of the rules to Labour.

d) It would be useful for the media to analyse the practice over the past several election cycles of all parliamentary political parties with regards their taxpayer funding, and especially how the term 'electioneering' was defined and interpreted by all those involved in the system.

And once these four simple statements were made, it should have shut up. Whenever asked about the Auditor-General's report, the Prime Minister should have patiently responded: "We have made our views known. We invite the media to investigate the issues we raised. We are now waiting for the Auditor General's report before commenting further." This would have taken the heat out of the debate and avoided the many blows Labour has landed on itself in the past six weeks.

All of that said, Labour's actual, much more vociferous, response was understandable. It has been treated very shoddily - by National, by the Auditor-General, and especially by the news media. Its eventual capitulation to the demand to pay the money back was the only politically sensible option open to it; this political calculation, however, doesn't make the Auditor-General's findings any less arbitrary or capricious, the actions of National any less hypocritical, or the news media's coverage of the issue any less deplorable.

NB: "Rex" has past experience in the New Zealand political system and some insight into process. He is not associated with any political party.

Refugee Stories Our Politicians Never Tell Us: Part II - Lan Le-Ngoc

by David Haywood

The subject of refugees is never very far from the political spotlight. In recent years, various fringe groups and minor political parties have expressed strong anti-refugee attitudes. And - in the past eighteen months or so - these views have even been echoed by some mainstream politicians.

Amidst all the shouting it is easy to overlook the fact that the vast majority of refugee immigrants end up as hard-working New Zealand taxpayers. In fact, many of them do more than that - and go on to play crucial roles in commerce, the arts, and in scientific research.

It is unfortunate that our politicians never shout about these ordinary refugee success stories. But to help counteract their silence on the subject, two of my friends - both of whom arrived in New Zealand as refugees - kindly allowed me to interview them for Public Address. In the first part of this post I talked to Shahzad Ghahreman, the highly-respected Liaison Librarian and Archivist at the Auckland University of Technology. This second interview is with Lan Le-Ngoc, one of the key scientists at Industrial Research Limited in Christchurch.

Lan had just turned fourteen when he arrived in this country - the only other surviving members of his immediate family were left back in Vietnam. He discusses his experiences as a child during the Vietnam War, and his early life under the communist regime.

Lan grew up in New Zealand to become both an engineer and scientist. His research is currently focussed on two important areas: ocean wave energy systems for electricity generation, and assistive devices to help increase the independence of the physically disabled. He has numerous scientific publications to his credit, as well as a number of commercial patents which have added significant value to New Zealand industry. His scientific work was recognized by a Royal Society Medal in 2001.

Lan was delightful to interview. He is witty, entertaining, and one of the nicest blokes you could possibly meet.

* * *

My name is Lan Le-Ngoc. I was born in Saigon (which is now known as Ho Chi Minh City) in 1964. At that time my father was serving in the South Vietnamese army, and my mother was employed by the Reserve Bank of Vietnam. I am the youngest in the family; my sister is nearly two years older than me.

One of my earliest recollections is the shelling of Saigon during the Tet offensive in January 1968. I would have been four years old at the time. It sticks in my memory because the emergency sirens woke me in the middle of the night. I knew that I had to run to the bomb shelter, but in my haste I managed to get myself stuck in the mosquito net that hung over my bed. I was still half-asleep, and began to panic - but my struggles to get free only made me more tangled in the net. I could hear my mother's anxious voice in the bomb shelter asking where I was, and then the whole family started to shout out my name. My mother rushed back into the main part of the house, and I can still recall the enormous sense of relief when she disentangled me, and then carried me out to the safety of the shelter.

Despite events like this, my early childhood seems very ordinary to me. The war was just another aspect of day-to-day life - mostly it was in the background. In a lot of ways we were quite similar to a New Zealand family of the same period. My parents owned a car, and had just purchased a small house. They had a savings account at the bank, and insurance policies - all the usual things. I went to kindergarten, and my sister went to school. Our lives were very conventional.

Everything changed when I was six. My mother died of cancer, and my sister and I were sent to live with our grandparents in another part of Saigon. My father couldn't come with us - army regulations meant that he had to live close to the military base. That was very difficult. We didn't like being separated from our father, but he was very conscientious about visiting. He would cycle across town every evening to spend a few hours with us before we went to bed.

After the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, everything began to look more hopeful. People became quite optimistic about the future. The fighting had stopped, and my father even took us on holiday. We went into central Vietnam, which had previously been far too dangerous to visit. It was the first time I had travelled north of Saigon, so I was very excited.

But then the war started up again. At the beginning of 1975 I was sitting an exam, and suddenly a fighter-bomber flew right over our school. It dropped a bomb which exploded just across the road. We had to evacuate the classroom, and go to a safe area outside the school. As a ten-year-old I didn't really feel frightened - in fact, I was rather pleased to get out of the exam. Shortly afterwards the schools were closed indefinitely, and there were no more exams at all. So I was at home when the government surrendered on April 30th, and the North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon.

My grandparents' house was close to a prison, and the first thing the North Vietnamese did was to unlock all the cells. Some of the inmates were political prisoners, but a lot of them were real criminals. They came pouring out of the prison, and managed to get hold of some automatic weapons. All afternoon there was continuous gunfire on the street where we lived. We were terrified - and locked ourselves in the bomb shelter where we would be safe from the bullets.

My father was in the military compound while all this was happening. Everyone was being evacuated to the US bases in Guam. The army wanted him to leave as well, but he protested, saying: "If I go then who will look after my children?". So he was allowed to remain behind. He put on his civilian clothes, and tried to make his way to my grandparents' house. By this time the military compound was under heavy fire, and several times he was nearly hit by artillery shells. When he got outside there were North Vietnamese soldiers everywhere, and dead bodies of South Vietnamese people lying in the street.

He arrived home that evening, and my sister and I were extremely relieved to discover that he was safe. The whole family were together in the house that night. But after we children had gone to bed some North Vietnamese soldiers came to the front door. They started waving their guns around, and shouting out for my father. Everything became terribly chaotic - people were screaming, and my sister and I hid inside the bedroom with my uncle. But my father was amazingly composed. He calmly greeted the soldiers, and answered their questions in a very self-assured manner.

It turned out that one of my father's subordinates had betrayed him to the North Vietnamese. The subordinate was actually there in the house - giving the soldiers information about my father. They were trying to discover the whereabouts of some of my relatives who had been serving in the armed forces. The subordinate was telling the soldiers about my father, and saying: "He's got a son and daughter - they must be somewhere in the house as well."

At that point my uncle grabbed my sister and me, and took us out into the back garden. His motorcycle was nearby, and he put us both on the pillion and drove to his house. It wasn't a pleasant journey. The streetlights weren't working, and the night was absolutely pitch black. From time to time we could hear gunfire from the surrounding streets. The whole city was under military curfew - we would have been in serious trouble if we'd been caught.

The next day we discovered that the North Vietnamese soldiers had arrested my father. It was a very worrying time - we didn't hear any news for about a week. But then one day my father arrived back at my grandparents' house. It turned out that the North Vietnamese regime didn't really know what to do after the fall of Saigon. So they just took people like my father into custody. He hadn't been treated badly - they'd only asked him a few simple questions and then let him go.

By that time the city had calmed down a bit, and everyone had begun to get used to the new situation. After a few weeks the new regime announced a plan. All the people from the South Vietnamese army and government would have to go through a re-education programme. They would be taught about the communist system, and how to be a good citizen in the new Vietnam.

We were advised that the programme would take one month. A lot of my family members were ordered to go: my father, some my uncles and aunts, and various other relatives. Because my father had already been in North Vietnamese custody we weren't really too concerned about the situation. They'd already let him go once - it seemed logical that they'd let him go again. If they'd had any unpleasant ideas, they would have carried them out the first time they had the opportunity.

So we didn't suspect a thing. I can remember helping my father to pack some clothing and other items into a small bag. He seemed quite unconcerned when he said goodbye to us all. We waved to him as he left the house, and he called out cheerfully: "See you in a month!".

Of course, my father and all of my other relatives just disappeared. We didn't hear anything about them again. A month went by, and then six months, and then a year. Even after three years the only thing we knew was that they were still undergoing re-education.

In the meantime, Vietnam had become a desperate place. It was like industrialization in reverse. In the early 1970s we'd had lots of cars in Saigon. Then, towards the end of the war, petrol became very expensive and everyone rode around on motor scooters. After the communists took over there were only bicycles left. Factories closed down, and all sorts of essential services fell into disarray. Everything was rationed. Food was very strictly controlled, and people were only allowed to buy a small amount every week.

With so many family members in re-education I honestly don't know how we survived. But somehow my grandmother managed to cope. I was in charge of getting her around the city. She would sit on the back of my bike, and I would pedal her wherever she wanted to go: shopping, visiting the temple, and so on. I became very good at navigating around the different parts of Saigon.

School eventually reopened. It was rather different from before: we learnt all about Ho Chi Minh, and the communist version of history. The fact that my father was in re-education meant that I had no opportunity for any sort of higher learning. Those with relatives in re-education weren't allowed to pass the advanced exams.

I had no prospects outside school either. A father in re-education would have disqualified me from any sort of career. I would only have been permitted to do the most unskilled sort of work, or could perhaps have been a low-ranking soldier in the army. The latter became a very real possibility when Vietnam declared war on Cambodia in 1978. Teenage boys were being conscripted into military service. My fifteen-year-old cousin - only a few years older than me at the time - was sent off to fight the Khmer Rouge. I'd always expected to go into the army, so I didn't mind the idea of being a soldier, but not on the side of the North Vietnamese.

By this time, life in Vietnam had become so bad that lots of people were trying to leave. My uncle was trained as a navigator, and he was approached by a group of Chinese-Vietnamese who wanted to escape. They had purchased an old boat and bribed some local officials to let them sail into the South China Sea. They offered my uncle a deal: in exchange for navigating their boat he would be allowed to bring along his wife and children. They would be able to start a new life elsewhere.

My uncle also managed to negotiate a passage for his youngest sister (my aunt), who was only a few years older than me. I remember that I took my grandmother down to the river to see them off. It was quite an event. The local officials were there with a couple of policemen to make sure that no-one got aboard the boat without paying them a bribe. Some of my other relatives were there as well. One of them took me aside, and told me that I should try to sneak onto the boat.

I thought this was a crazy idea. The local officials were running a very strict boarding process. They would call out each name from their list, and carefully check the person's identification papers. Two policemen would let the person onto the jetty, and would supervise them as they climbed into a water-taxi. The water-taxi would transport about thirty people at a time to the main boat. It would have been quite impossible to sneak aboard without anyone noticing.

I could sense that my relative was serious about trying to get me onto the boat, and so - to avoid an embarrassing situation - I hid myself behind one of the sheds on the waterfront. Later on I heard my aunt's name being called out. So I came out to wave her goodbye, and as I did so, my relative caught sight of me. He grabbed me and asked angrily: "Why are you still here? Get yourself on that boat!".

I became really annoyed with him; he was making an impossible request. So I started marching down the jetty - deliberately trying to be caught by the policemen. I think it crossed my mind that when they arrested me I'd point out my relative and say: "He made me do it!". But by pure chance, when I got there, the policemen just happened to finish with the last person on the list. So they turned around and walked down the jetty. The next thing I knew I had walked behind them all the way to the water-taxi.

The policemen got into the water-taxi to count the number of people aboard. They didn't want any possibility of a stowaway. I stood behind them at the edge of the jetty, and thought to myself: "Do I step down into the water-taxi with them, or do I stay here?" I put my foot out - but I was still undecided. And then I slightly lost my balance, and had to step down into the boat to regain my footing.

That one step completely changed my life. There was enough room behind the policemen for me to sit down. When they finished counting they didn't give me a second look - even though they had to step over me to get out of the boat. I suppose they must have thought they'd already counted me.

The water-taxi went a surprisingly long way down the river before it arrived beside the boat. I looked up and saw my uncle standing on the deck - which was very reassuring. Then I noticed that several policemen were on the deck with him. They were double-checking the list to see that no-one got aboard who hadn't paid the bribe money.

The water-taxi pulled up beside the boat, and - as luck would have it - I was the closest person to a policeman. He reached down to help me aboard. I had no idea what to do. So in sheer desperation I took the baby from the woman beside me, and handed him up to the policeman. Then I started lifting out everyone's bags, and helping all the other passengers to disembark. People were saying "Thank you very much, young man" and making approving comments about my politeness.

Eventually there was a long queue of people on deck, and then I climbed aboard. One of my uncle's friends had been watching me. He grabbed me and smuggled me into the group of people who had already been counted. There was absolutely no planning in my escape from Vietnam - everything happened by complete accident.

Finally the policemen and local officials left the boat, and we set off down the river. The trouble began when we reached the sea. There were over 250 people aboard a 21 metre boat - it was terribly overloaded. As soon as we hit the waves it tipped over onto one side.

My uncle took charge of the situation, and told everyone that we were going back to Saigon. He said that the boat was too dangerous to take to sea, and that we'd all end up drowning. But the refugees started shouting and arguing with him. They'd sold everything - their houses and all their belongings - to pay the bribes so that they could leave. They said they weren't going back.

The situation got quite nasty, and in the end my uncle was forced to continue the voyage. But he managed to get a compromise from the refugee leaders. He persuaded them to bring all the luggage up from the cargo hold and throw it overboard. Then he loaded everyone down under the deck, so as to lower the centre of gravity of the boat.

The refugees were packed in like sardines; there wasn't an inch of space anywhere. The cargo hold had no lighting - everyone was in complete darkness. I could hear people groaning and retching, and even from the deck we could smell their vomit. But my uncle's plan made the boat much more stable, and enabled us to get moving again.

I wasn't a member of any group, so I was probably the luckiest person on the whole boat. No-one ordered me into the hold with the other refugees. Instead I made myself useful helping the crew on deck - carrying things for them, and so on. I didn't feel seasick at all.

Towards the end of the day the crew finished their work. I stood at the railing and looked back at Vietnam. I tried to memorize every detail - thinking that one day I'd return. It was strange because although I'd been there all my life I'd never before seen it from the outside. In my mind, Vietnam meant the city of Saigon. But from the sea it looked just like in the movies. I could see banana plantations, and rows of coconut palms; the jungle looked very green against the water. I stood there just watching my country, as night fell, and it slowly disappeared into the darkness. I was thirteen years old.

That night a storm came and I got very seasick indeed. The boat was listing steeply over onto its side. Every so often a big wave would hit us, and it would flip over onto the other side. It felt like we were going to sink at any moment. The rough weather was with us for several days, and I was seasick the whole time. I became very dehydrated. I remember that at one stage I managed to glue my face to the floor of the wheelhouse with my own vomit. It must have been absolutely terrible for the refugees in the cargo hold.

On the evening of the fourth day we reached Malaysia, and my uncle managed to navigate the boat into the harbour at Kuala Terengganu. The water was calmer inside the harbour, and everyone began to recover from their seasickness. We moored our decrepit boat beside a group of expensive-looking yachts. We could see the glow of the city lights, and the head-lamps of cars driving on the road beside the bay. Civilization again! It was very exciting.

Morning arrived, and the citizens of Kuala Terengganu awoke to find us moored in their harbour. Nobody came out to see us, and we didn't know what we should do. So a couple of people from our boat jumped into the water, and swam to the land. As soon as they arrived they were beaten up by the Malaysian police. Eventually the police dumped them back in our boat, and then towed us out of the harbour into the river.

We were moored on the river until evening. The people in the hold were getting very edgy. I think someone tried to make a hole in the hull so that they could escape. The boat began to get very unstable as everyone moved around. I could hear a lot of voices shouting below deck. Then the police returned with a flotilla of small boats. They started to take people aboard, and everyone rushed to try and get off. Our boat began to tip really far over, and for a couple of seconds I thought it would capsize.

The police took my uncle away for interrogation, and I was loaded onto one of the small boats with some other refugees. We were taken to Paulo Bidong - a deserted island which the Malaysian government had decided to use as a refugee camp. They offloaded us onto the coral reef, and then we all had to wade through a lagoon to reach land.

Once ashore, everyone just stood around looking exhausted and confused. Then some of the refugees who were already on the island came down to the beach, and recognized their relatives in our group. Everyone started talking excitedly in Chinese, and in the midst of all this the police arrived with guns. They made us get into an orderly queue, and then took down our names for their immigration records.

By the time the police were finished, all the Chinese-Vietnamese refugees had been found by their relatives. Just my uncle's wife, her children, and my young aunt were left with me on the beach. None of us had any idea what to do. We could see one of the Chinese-Vietnamese families disappearing into the distance, and so we decided to follow after them. We tagged along for several kilometres until they arrived at a rough shelter where their relatives were living.

They went inside - which left us in an awkward position. In the end we just lay down outside the shelter and tried to go to sleep. There was nothing else to do. It was the first time I'd slept under the stars.

We had a miserable night. When I awoke the enormity of the situation suddenly dawned on me, and I became very distressed. I missed my sister and grandmother - I wanted to go back home to them.

Matters became even worse when we discovered that there was nothing to eat. The island had no food reserves for new people, and the supply ship wasn't due for another week. We tried to beg food from the other refugees. In the end we found some dried fish that had been thrown away, and tried to make a meal out of that. It had gone bad, and made us all sick.

On that second day we found a sheet of plastics, and collected a few sticks to build a tent. During the night there was heavy rain, and it turned out that we had constructed our new home in a river bed. The water rose up inside the tent, but we were so starved and exhausted by this stage that none of us could get up. We just lay there and let the water wash over us. I actually slept half-submerged in the river.

The next morning someone took pity on us, and give us a little rice to eat. Those first few days on the island were really hard - probably the worst experience in my time as a refugee. But my uncle arrived back on the next supply ship, and soon had us all sorted out. Eventually he managed to obtain some corrugated steel sheets, and built a two-storey shack. Apart from the cladding, the whole structure was created from tree branches - even our beds were made of branches. Under those circumstances it was like living in a mansion.

I soon fell into a routine on the island. In the morning I would collect water from the wells, gather firewood from the forest, and then queue for our food rations. In the afternoon I was free to do whatever I wanted. I made friends with some other kids my own age, and we used to swim at the beach and explore the coast. Later on my uncle found someone who spoke English - so we also had language lessons to keep us occupied.

But all of this was simply marking time. Everyone had applied to be settled in new countries, and we were all waiting for our cases to be considered. I had a relative who had been to university in New Zealand, and when Saigon had fallen he had been able to go back there. So I put New Zealand down as my first choice - but I also applied for Australia and the USA.

I had to wait about five months to hear from the New Zealand authorities, and in the meantime my other refugee applications were rejected - which was quite worrying. Australia had accepted my uncle's application, so it seemed like our group would be split up. He and his wife and children would be flown to Sydney, and my young aunt and I would be left behind on the island.

It turned out, however, that New Zealand had been working behind the scenes. One morning some officials turned up and interviewed me and my aunt. The next week New Zealand arranged for the Malaysians to send us to a transfer camp in Kuala Lumpur. So we actually ended up leaving the island before my uncle.

In the transfer camp we met up with about a hundred Vietnamese all going to New Zealand. We were flown to Singapore, and then a delegation of New Zealanders met us at the airport. Life completely changed as soon as the New Zealanders took us under their care. We were taken straight to the New Zealand army camp and given a proper meal - which seemed like an absolute banquet in comparison to our refugee camp diets.

This was actually the first time I spoke English in a real situation. A New Zealand soldier came up to me and asked: "How old are you?" He spoke so quickly that all I heard was 'how' and 'you'. So I took a guess and replied: "Fine thank you." He looked a bit surprised at that, but then he figured out that he needed to slow down - and we managed to have a simple conversation in English.

After our meal we were put on a plane to Auckland. The main thing I remember about the flight was the pleasure of being cool after the constant heat and stickiness of Malaysia. When we arrived in Auckland airport I was astonished by the temperature of the terminal, and thought: "Wow, this whole building is air-conditioned - it's even colder than on the plane". Then I went outside, and it was even colder still. For a few seconds I had the crazy notion that New Zealand had air-conditioning outdoors - it was so strange for me to be outside and cool at the same time.

We were taken directly to Mangere hostel, and given our own rooms with beds and pillows and sheets and blankets. It seemed incredibly luxurious in comparison to what we'd experienced over the previous six months. We were at the hostel for about three weeks, I think. In the mornings we had English classes, and in the afternoons we learnt about New Zealand culture. We were even given spending money, and encouraged to go to the shops to buy small items for ourselves.

There was a very nice Maori family staying in a different part of the hostel. I used to practice my English on them, and eventually they became my first New Zealand friends. They introduced me to some typical New Zealand foods as well as the game of table-tennis - which I still play today. Those first few weeks in New Zealand were quite formative in terms of my future habits.

At the end of the English course, my young aunt and I were sent to Christchurch to stay with my relatives. I started school almost immediately. Everything was extremely well organized - people were visiting and donating furniture so that we would have all the necessary items. I even got given a bike, which I rode to school on my first day.

I have some very strong memories of those initial months in Christchurch. The first time I had fish and chips on a Friday night: learning how to tear the top off the newspaper to get the chips out; hugging onto the hot packet to keep myself warm. Or the first time it snowed: sitting in a classroom, and suddenly realizing that snowflakes were drifting down from the sky; watching the students throwing snowballs at lunchtime, and pedalling home through the snowdrifts in the evening. It was just as I had imagined from French stories about winter - it felt like being in a fairytale.

I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed school in New Zealand. My education in Vietnam had been under the French system which involved a great deal of rote learning. I found memorization rather difficult, and wasn't a great student. But I discovered that the New Zealand system emphasized understanding rather than rote learning - an approach that suited me much better.

I was put straight into a third form class, which I found pretty hard until my English improved. But the teachers were really good, and gave me lots of extra help. As soon as I overcame my language difficulties everything got much easier. By fifth form - much to my amazement - I was top of the school in maths, science, and technical drawing.

After sixth form I decided to leave school and go to work. My family in Vietnam had managed to contact my father in a North Vietnam prison, and so I wanted to earn money to send to him and my sister. I was also keen to move out on my own - and allow my relatives some time to themselves.

But the teachers at school were very unwilling to let me leave, and when I explained my reasons they said: "We'll try to find you money somewhere - we really think it's important for you to finish school and go to university". So they arranged for me to have a meeting with the principal, and he managed to find me scholarships at the Rotary Club and Riccarton Trust.

The scholarships provided enough money for my needs during seventh form, and I was able to supplement the income with a part-time job. I was also offered the chance to board with one of my friend's families, which resolved my only other obstacle to staying on at school.

I was really determined to make the most of my opportunities during that seventh form year. I worked hard at school during the day, and studied every night. In the weekends I'd get up very early and cycle to Meadow Mushrooms in Prebbleton. I'd put in a full day's work at the mushroom factory - and then hit the books again when I got home. It was a hard year, but very enjoyable because I had such a clear goal to work towards.

At the end of the year I passed my exams, and also managed to win a university scholarship. With my bursary and living allowance I would be getting almost as much as a real job. I felt incredibly privileged - being paid to study seemed almost too good to be true.

 

The only drawback to the scholarship was that I was expected to go directly into second year at university. I had decided to do mechanical engineering, which is a really tough course at the best of times. Skipping first year meant that I had a lot of catching up to do. But I studied really hard, and at the end of the year I was awarded another scholarship for being the top student in mechanical engineering - much to my surprise.

A consolation for the stressful workload was my home life. In my first year at university I boarded with a retired couple, and I lived like royalty. Real kiwi food: lots of meat and vegetables followed by a nice pudding every night. And then a big roast dinner on Sunday with wine and all the trimmings. It was pretty wonderful.

During summer I did my practical work experience as an engineer. The next year I moved into a big flat in Ilam with some of my university friends. We had a very multi-cultural household, and I ended up living with Nigerians, Samoans, Tongans, Fijians, Malaysians, Sri Lankans, Solomon Islanders, and Cook Islanders as well as lots of New Zealanders.

I met so many nice people at that flat over the years - they really made me part of their family, and used to include me in all their social activities. I was actually a paid-up member of the Samoan club, the Fijian club, and the Tongan club all at the same time. In retrospect it must have looked quite funny when we were out together. A group of big strong Pacific islanders, and this skinny Vietnamese guy.

I finished my mechanical engineering degree with first class honours, which meant I could go straight on to a Ph.D. But doing more study was the last thing on my mind. I'd just heard that my father had been released after more than a decade in a prison camp, and I was desperate to bring him and my sister to New Zealand. There were a lot of obstacles to this plan. I knew that I'd need a decent income to afford the immigration costs.

But again, fate conspired to keep me at university. I was awarded a doctoral scholarship, which meant that I would be paid a generous stipend to study for a Ph.D. And when I mentioned that I had no intention of accepting the scholarship, I got a long lecture from my professor about missing the opportunity of a lifetime. So in the end - slightly against my will - I found myself enrolled in the Ph.D. programme. Again, like so many other events in my life, as a consequence of accidental circumstances.

It turned out that I wasn't so busy during my Ph.D., and so I decided to offer some of my time to coach school-children who were having difficulties with maths and science. I ended up with four kids to tutor every Saturday morning. It was quite hard work, but it ended up being very worthwhile because one of my students had an older sister who was really nice. Exceptionally nice, actually. And one day I plucked up enough courage to ask her out on a date. Six months later we were engaged.

That put the pressure on me to finish my Ph.D. as quickly as possible - I didn't want to get married while I was still a student. And, of course, I wanted to have my father and sister at the wedding. This was a problem because my application to bring them to New Zealand had been turned down by the immigration service.

That was a very difficult and upsetting situation. I tried every possible avenue to get my case reconsidered: I applied for a special hearing on compassionate grounds, my friends wrote letters supporting my submission, I even got the local member of parliament to talk to the immigration service on my behalf. But nothing worked - it was really devastating.

And then one day - completely out of the blue - I read in the newspaper that the immigration service had changed its rules. And under the new criteria I was eligible to re-apply. And when I resubmitted my application everything went smoothly, and my father and sister were accepted into the country.

The year 1990 was a real annus mirabilis for me. At the beginning of the year I handed in my Ph.D. Then my father and sister came to New Zealand, and we were finally re-united as a family. Then I got my job as a scientist at the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), which enabled me to buy a nice house for us all to live in. And then, at the very end of the year - on Boxing Day - I got married.

Since then we've had two children. Our family has a very conventional life-style: typical New Zealand food, and the same sort of day-to-day activities as everyone else. My son and daughter are both very passionate New Zealanders - in fact, my son wears red and black rubber-bands on his braces to support the Canterbury Super-14 team. My daughter is a keen netball player, and studies art, dance, and music in her spare time. I occasionally think it would be nice if they were more in touch with their Vietnamese heritage, but as long as they're happy I don't really mind.

Over the years I've had a lot of pressure to leave New Zealand from my extended family in Australia and the USA. I know that I could earn much more money in these countries - but I'm not a person who is particularly motivated by that sort of thing. It's more important for me to make a contribution to New Zealand, which I hope that I do through my science work. My passion is to help solve the problems that face all of humanity, and to improve everyone's quality of life.

The only trouble - and this is very hard for me to say - is that these days I'm not entirely sure if New Zealand wants me. I feel that I'm appreciated in my profession and within the science community, but on the streets I get a very different reception. People who don't know me will often treat me quite rudely. In fact, sometimes they are actually insulting.

This behaviour is a comparatively new phenomenon - just in the last five years or so. I never saw it when I was a teenager, and I certainly didn't live in a posh area or attend any sort of exclusive school. I had summer jobs picking fruit in the orchards down in Clyde, and worked with all sorts of New Zealanders; and I don't recall any incidents of racism at all. But recently it seems to be everywhere. I've had people shouting abuse at me from cars. Even children - that's the worst.

Only a few weeks ago I dropped my daughter off at school, and as I went back to my car there were some kids standing at the front gate. Just primary school children - only nine or ten years old. And one of them shouted at me: "You f**king Asian. Go home!"

That incident really depressed me - because you can judge a society by its children. Where would a child have learnt those attitudes? Just nine or ten years old, and already he thought that Asians shouldn't be in this country. The message is actually out there in society for him. It was a terribly worrying thing to happen at my daughter's school, and it's a real concern of mine that these new racist attitudes might affect her as well.

I suspect that part of the responsibility for such attitudes can be laid at the feet of certain politicians. The rhetoric of people like Winston Peters and Don Brash has actually promoted anti-immigrant sentiment. It was probably always there to a certain extent, but when senior politicians start spouting this sort of nonsense then it isn't merely airing the views of a racist minority - it actually starts to incite racism.

Easily-led people take such political rhetoric as legitimization of their own bigoted views. They think it gives them carte blanche to treat immigrants rudely in shops, or to shout insults from their cars. Of course, I'm not suggesting that this is the intention of Peters or Brash. They're just doing it to get votes. I'm sure that after the election they forget all about it. But they don't realize the long-term impact that it's having on people like me and my family - who can be easily identified as having ancestry from somewhere other than Europe.

The ridiculous thing about being told to "go home" is that I've lived in New Zealand twice as long as I lived in Vietnam - I've been here for nearly half my childhood and all my adult life.

I am home.

© David Haywood, 2006.

Science Shops

by Mary Gardner

I am sitting in a room with three dozen people from fourteen different countries. We hardly notice the cool grey rain outside. We are all concentrating on the presenter, Henk Mulder, who is struggling with a bad cold. But he is here anyway so he can explain the day to day efforts of a revolution in science at his university of Groningen, the Netherlands.

“We call it a science shop. But it can go by any name. It’s a group that provides research support in response to questions brought by citizens. The research is independent. It is also participatory. The researchers work with the citizens. It costs the citizens little or no money at all. The results are high quality and public. They are used by the citizens and by decision makers from local to national levels here in the Netherlands. “

This is the beginning of a three day residential workshop at the prestigious summer school at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Some of us are here on behalf of employers such as a university in Turkey, Romania, or Ireland or a government department such as one called the Promotion of Science in China. Some of us are students or volunteers, members of an activist group in Portugal, Italy, Japan or Germany. Some of us are members of other Science Shops or similar, in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and USA.

We all look pretty ordinary but for our enthusiasm. Our experiences have led us to support a different approach to the practice of science. We take Henk’s criteria for science shops as a good expression of what seems obvious to us. We are here to learn how to spread the revolution. We are set to talk with each other nonstop for the next three days.

Me, I am all ears. I am here as a freelance science worker from New Zealand. I don’t know of any organizations in NZ which match up citizens with researchers so they can to explore questions together and build knowledge which is then shared publicly.

But I have sat at many public meetings in New Zealand, organized in response to citizens concerns where experts are presented to answer questions. The first question to them all is “who do you work for?”

Citizens ask because they expect who is paying has great influence on the researcher. Independence and integrity are not to be expected to go hand in hand with research.

In NZ, like many other places, most researchers are employees of a university or government, a consultancy or a business. Often, in our little country, researchers work a bit for everyone at one time or another.

As employees, the researchers work for their employers to certain financial goals and within confidentiality restraints. A citizen or community group or an NGO wanting to research a question has to network and fundraise to get the attention of a researcher. In our little country, that worker is often putting a career on the line by getting involved with community interests.

Last I heard, a science worker on behalf of community interests in the Happy Valley case was gagged and could not appear as an expert in court because of conflicts arising from what is now the working reality of science in NZ.

The problem is not unique to NZ. Mae Wan-Ho, head of the Science in Society Institute in London, describes the “unholy alliance” of science with commerce. A writer from the USA coins a new label for the people in these roles – “biostitutes” – from “biology” and “prostitutes”.

Henk is now outlining the three fold mission of Dutch universities: education, research and interestingly, service to society. He quotes an article from the constitution which says “they (the universities) transfer knowledge on behalf of society...”

Later, Gerard Strearer, from Wageningnen Agricultural University and Research Centre, refers to this mission. He describes how the university supported its researchers' freedom to be involved in a controversial science shop project in spite of considerable government pressure.

Casper de Bok, of Utrecht University, talks about the role of students in science shops. Some students show us the chemical pollution testing their science shop does for free on behalf of citizens. Another woman, from Tilberg University, tells about how she is paid to work in their science shop. This started her on research about family care givers. She produced not only papers for a thesis, but a book for families and also a training course for providers and support agencies.

I thought of NZ science workers I know, myself included, who put together community based projects and programmes. The effort? Usually volunteer, squeezed in between everything else. The resources? A bit of number eight wire. The amazing effort and positive responses of the local people involved.

Imagine putting quality time, resources and institutional support behind the projects. And giving students meaningful projects which have clear links and feedback with community. This could be also be really good news for departments wanting to provide better opportunities for more students.

How science is done and who does it is hugely important. When the Dutch science shop collaborated with Romania in an urban project, the student researcher from the Netherlands was asked to set up the study with the Romanian students. What he found was that the Romanian students had no experience in setting up research questions: their expertise was solely based on being able to implement a teacher’s directives. This research project developed not only new knowledge but a totally novel skill for the students. The teachers learned. Now, the science shops have become quite important to Romania for practical, academic and ethical reasons.

We hear many other stories where knowledge and unexpected resolutions to controversies come about because of a question from the community, developed in cooperation with the community. Often results are unexpected and require all parties to adjust. The resolutions are novel. An industry accepts tighter pollution controls but ends up welcome in the town as a new employer. A city garden club gains new respect as a community asset but also opens up new access for the public in general. Fears of cancer provoked by a horticultural industry prove to be unfounded but new savings are identified by modifying spray programmes, which pleases all parties in the end.


Over the three days, we meet with people from 5 different styles of science shops. Most are based within a university, either at the main office or within different departments. There are coordinators who manage the service as both an outreach programme for citizens and also as an incubator for meaningful projects for the universities' students. Other science shops are run by students within their university. Still others are independent non-profit groups which provide specialist services to fund their suite of research programmes, which bring together researchers from various institutions.

The leaders from the different shops talk frankly about the problems the science shops face. Threats to funding come with internal politics. Contestable funding rounds often leave important projects unsupported. Some shops close. Others open. One breakthrough example is the Brussels network, where the government funds a science shop coordinator within each university.

The science shop approach seems to be a happy revolution. It helps citizens to use science research, students to learn new skills in exciting meaningful projects and researchers to extend their research. The EU university support, although based on the third mission of their charters, is also good publicity for them. When push comes to shove, the science shop approach also upholds the independence and dignity of their researchers.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, all of these are issues for our society. On the last day, we all talk about the international support gained by a worldwide network. The EU supports setting up science shop type services. There are programmes like this workshop and a major conference in Paris. There is finance for the Living Knowledge website, which is an extensive resource. There is a new fund for projects.

Many participants describe how they can see their groups back home taking the next step in setting up a science shop. I wonder what could be even the first step for NZ universities. Well, I can at least email a few people I know….

For more information from the network: www.livingknowledge.org
For questions, information and presentations: email Mary Gardner [email protected]

"Usually fatal ..."

by Paul Brislen

I’ve had cancer longer than I’ve had an email address.

That’s quite a thought, when all’s said and done. This end-of-the-line illness has been lurking in my thoughts and in my lymph nodes for as long as I’ve been a journalist and yet here I still am, splitting infinitives quite happily. It even got me a job, which is unusual for a cancer, but more on that below.

I had bought a new pillow, slept awkwardly and ended up with a stiff neck. A few hours of work, sitting hunched over a keyboard complaining and sighing a lot drove my colleagues nuts, and someone insisted I go and see the company nurse (remember those days? Canteens and company nurses). Off I trotted to Fiona, a fearsome Scot with a no-nonsense approach to staff ailments.

“Get yer shirt off,” she bellowed “And I’ll gi’ ye a wee rub”. She may have been less colloquial – time has coloured the story somewhat.

No sooner had I bared my scrawny neck than she shrieked with what I took to be awe at my manliness.
“What the hell is that?” she cried, pointing to a lump on my left arm.

That was something I’d toted around for about a year without really paying too much thought to it. I’d had a patch of rough skin there for years – it had come and gone, waxing and waning, but eventually coalescing into a lump about the size of a 20 cent piece (an old one, not one of these hopelessly small newbies). I’d seen some doctors in the past about the rash (“Change your soap powder” one had declared. “You’re allergic to something”) but nothing much had come of it. Fiona wouldn’t have a bar of my dismissals though.

“You’ll be here at 10am tomorrow and the doctor will have a look.”

The doctor didn’t know what it was but sent me to a dermatologist. He didn’t know what it was either, but declared himself ready to chop it off, which he duly did with my wife looking on. She likes a good bit of surgery, does my wife.

This was about a month before Christmas in 1996 and the holidays and staff levels and whatnot conspired against me. It was a couple of weeks before he could get me back in for a visit.

“Well, we haven’t got the final results back yet, and I’m sorry about that, but it looks like cancer of the lymphatic system. It’s a bloody good job that you’ve got medical insurance.” And there it was.

In the early days of such a pronouncement, you may find yourself adopting a strange and unexpected role: that of comforter. Flat mates, mothers, neighbours, friends, colleagues – they all need a pat on the back and a “there, there, it’ll be all right. Just you see.” It’s not quite like the movies, although I’m pleased to say the flat did commemorate the occasion by throwing a party at which we all got riotously drunk. I even remember declaring “Why me?” at one point which is just to theatrical for words.

My wife and I went to a bookshop to look up lymphoma (remember, this is pre-widespread adoption of the interwebs so we had no resources). The first dictionary in Whitcoulls said “Lymphoma: an aggressive cancer of the lymph system. Usually fatal”. We looked at each other and went off to find a bigger and better dictionary. Rule number one: never accept the first diagnosis. Always get a second opinion, preferably from a bigger book.

From there it was something of a whirlwind of tests for a couple of weeks to try to get sorted over the Christmas break. Off to see an oncologist (if you need one I can wholeheartedly recommend Dr CS Benjamin, Dr Benji to most of us, who is simply one of the nicest people you’ll ever meet, not to mention one of the most intensely busy) who ordered a raft of tests including bloods; CT scan and, my favourite of favourites, the bone marrow biopsy.

Another thing the movies got wrong – up till now nobody had bothered to tell us what it was that I had. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, declared Dr Benji. Never heard of it, said I, but I’ll see what I can find out. This was the first major online search I’d ever undertaken but not having an internet connection at home I was somewhat hampered. Fortunately my brother-in-law came to the party and printed off around 300 pages of NHL information from the US National Cancer Institute.

The NCI is a great resource and these days divides its website into three parts: patient information; clinician information and specialist information. Back in the day, however, it was all lumped in to one great file so the information I got was somewhat alarming, to put it mildly. “No cure, palliative care is required,” cried the text and put into something of a tailspin of fear. Palliative care means keeping you comfy till you die – I had visions of morphine drips and Christmas dinner on the ward. Of course, it also means treat the symptoms as they arise rather than trying to stop the beastie itself, but that’s not how it read to me at the time.

But on with the tests. The CT scan came first. In preparation I had to drink two 300ml bottles of something called ReadiCat. This is a contrast agent that looks like milk but is radioactive and shows up on the CT scan giving the radiologist something to look at. It had a faint mandarin smell to it and tasted like radioactive milk that had gone off. Choice.

The scan itself was pretty painless – they inject a dye into you at one point and that made my legs feel like they’d been dipped in warm water but other than that it was painless.
I wish the same could be said for the bone marrow biopsy.

Apparently they used to do these without sedation. I have no idea how, because the procedure involves sticking a rather large bore needle into the bone – these days it’s the iliac crest, the back of the pelvis – and sucking out the bone marrow. Twice.
Fortunately the drugs are rather good. Unfortunately, they’re not perfect.

I recently had a vasectomy and to any guy out there considering it but putting it off, let me tell you – it’s a breeze compared with this. You can chat and tell wanker jokes with the doctor while he spays you. It’s great.

Once the results were back – it’s contained and hadn’t spread to my bones – it was off for a quick round of localised radiation on the scar and a couple of suspect patches of skin and that was that. Over and done with by early New Year.

Since then I’ve been back to see Dr Benji every few months, slowly tailing off till this year it’s an annual thing. He feels me up and we talk about cricket and how our families are going. It takes about ten minutes. My wife can’t see the point to it but I quite like going along. Southern Cross pays so what do I care?

It’s strange what having cancer like this will do to you. It’s a death sentence, but I’ve got news for you: one hundred years from now I guarantee everyone reading this will be pushing up daisies. I learned something that we should all know – we are all going to die – but which most of us try desperately not to think about. I’m glad I know I’m mortal because it means I can relax a bit and just get on. I prioritise things somewhat differently to the way I would have before Fiona screamed at me. I won’t put up with a job that drives me nuts because I simply don’t have the time. I don’t suffer fools gladly because frankly I have better things to be doing.

A few years ago a GP asked me if I had any conditions and I said yes, NHL. I explained it all and she said “that’s no good”. I said I didn’t mind and she said “well, you’d be better off without it” and I had to give that some serious thought. Would I actually be better off without it? It doesn’t get in my way much. It’s taught me a valuable lesson or two. Would I be better off blindly wandering through life thinking I was immortal? It’s a tricky one.

The process for dealing with it long term is quite easy, I’ve discovered. It comes in two parts. The first thing you must do is put it out of your mind entirely. Forget you’ve ever had the diagnosis, forget about the beastie residing in your body. Get on with your life.
The second thing you must do is never forget. Not for a second, because the clock is definitely ticking.

Non-Hodgkin’s got me a job once. I’d written out my job application and it was a bit dull and boring so I added “Health: Excellent, apart from the cancer” to the front page. That got me the interview and I bluffed my way in from there. I became a reporter, something I’d wanted to do all my life but which I’d done nothing about. There’s plenty of time, I’d always thought.

Today is Lymphoma Awareness Day so I told Russell I’d write something for him. So spare a thought for those poor bastards who are stricken and I’ll spare a thought for those of you that aren’t. It seems only fair.