The return of Sir Roger Douglas to the New Zealand Parliament should be welcomed.
Politics should always be about the contest of ideas and Parliament gives the opportunity to publicly express them.
Regretfully, his return has been greeted with some ridicule and even vitriol by those who choose to ignore that we once lived in a fools paradise.
I very much doubt that Sir Roger needs my assistance in anything, least of all in justifying the reforms of the 1980s, but the recent carping by those who should know better does, however, demand a response.
I was one of the thousands of farmers who paid well over 20% interest because of the removal of farm subsidies during the '80s due to what has become known as Rogernomics. For many farmers, that burden was too great, and so they lost their farms and, tragically, some their lives as well.
I do not hear a clamour from the public, or indeed farmers, to return to the days where we were effectively beneficiaries, subsidised by those with little to give, in order to increase the capital value of our farm land.
I listen in vain to hear the environmental lobby demand the return of grants to clear native bush for farm land that Sir Robert Muldoon thought was or would be the salvation of New Zealand's desperate balance of payments problem.
The post office closures caused an uproar, yet no government since has reopened them, even in remote rural villages.
The later reforms of Ruth Richardson such as the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which requires the opening of the books before an election, has never been repealed.
If all that was done back then was so wrong, why have successive governments not reverted to protectionism and privilege?
Sir Roger's whole raison d'etre was the removal of privilege, which the bleaters now want reinstated.
In more recent times, I have heard Sir Roger ask why the standard of education available in (say) Fendalton should not also be available to the children of Otara.
After all, he (Douglas) would say - if you buy a hamburger from McDonalds in Fendalton, it is guaranteed to be of the same quality as a hamburger sold in Otara, by the same company, so why can't that principle be applied to education to ensure equal opportunity in education, regardless of where a child is born?
After all, it is the Government which delivers most of the education in this country, so why is the standard in education not the same as it is with a hamburger?To some, that logic is right-wing, red-necked ideology.
To most, it is simply sensible.
It was interesting to note a comment made recently that this country would be in a far more difficult financial position were it not for the sale of some assets which were, in reality, loss-making liabilities.
The question as to why nine years of a socialist government and their supporters did not demand a wholesale buy-back of all sold assets is rarely asked.
Yes, Air New Zealand and TranzRail are back in public hands at huge ongoing cost and little benefit.
To be fair, we can probably thank MMP and the Greens for that.
Helen Clark will now drift into time and also a coveted job with the UN.
For me, the argument over Roger Douglas and his contribution to our country and its economy is summed up rather beautifully by the New Zealand poet Thomas Bracken, who penned these words in this, a verse of his famous poem, Not Understood.
Not understood!
Poor souls with stunted vision
Oft measure giants with their narrow gauge;
The poison shafts of falsehood and derision
Are oft impelled 'gainst those who mould the age,
Not understood.
• Gerrard Eckhoff is a Roxburgh farmer, Otago regional councillor and former Act New Zealand MP.
