Diane Revoluta

Something is rotten in the state of New Zealand

Yesterday somewhere between 2000-5000 people marched in Wellington against the government’s plans to partially sell state assets. This followed a similar sized march in Auckland last weekend and a week-long hikoi starting in Cape Reinga. After last year’s record low voter turn out, it would seem that when it comes to political issues apathy is rife in New Zealand. People seem disinterested in the traditional ways in which politicians engage with the public and disillusioned by the corruption and lack of integrity displayed by some politicians. Which is why the size of these protests and the strength of the opposition to asset sales is all the more impressive. Protest is the antithesis of apathy, and the fact that an issue has mobilised so many New Zealanders is good reason for the government to sit up and take notice.

Did John Key sit up and take notice? No. In fact, John Key’s response to thousands of New Zealanders spending their lunch break protesting on the streets (and thousands more supporting them from around the country on Twitter, Facebook and other online forums) was this:

“How many people did they have? Ok, where was it? [laughs] Well, OK, no I wasn’t aware of it.” 

More repugnant than his words is his manner. Key laughs and smirks as he dismisses this protest – the angry, desperate voices of thousands of the people he represents demanding answers.  When around 10’000 people protest over your actions in the space of a week, you know about it. And if you don’t – if you’re not ‘aware of it’ and you show a complete lack of interest in being made aware of it – you are positioning yourself as a leader content on acting without the support of the people and without even the respect to listen to their grievances. The image of that hardened face, scornful smirk and that disdainful laugh are not images of democratic governance. We elect our leaders to represent us: to listen, engage and give life to the will of the people. The very reason we participate in the democratic process is the expectation that the successful candidate will act as a voice for all of the people – not just those who voted for them. A leader who refuses to answers the hard questions, a man who laughs at thousands of his people voicing a plea for change and disrespects the sense injustice that drives people to protest, is not fulfilling their function as a democratically elected leader. At the very least, John Key has a duty to listen to and respect those with a dissenting view.

Last night, Key appeared on Campbell Live for perhaps one of his longest and most pressing interviews in some time. For this, people congratulated him. They said that John Key had ‘fronted up’ and YOU GO JOHN KEY, YOU GO for doing so. John Key deserves no praise for finally agreeing to an interview with a reputable journalist. The fact we see Key fronting up to the media on controversy within his government and hard questions stemming from his actions as a rare event and one for which he deserves praise reflects a dire state. This is part of John Key’s job description. Currently, he is the teacher that refuses to get up in front of a classroom; he is actor that refuses to perform. As the leader of a democratic state, paid and entrusted with power by the people, he has a duty to ‘front up’ and be accountable for both his actions and that of his government. This is not something to be congratulated; this is something to be expected.

Every day I hear Radio New Zealand reiterate that ‘John Key is unavailable for comment’ on whatever the pressing issue of that day. John Key is never available for comment. He is available to Year 6 students to discuss the perks of being prime minister, yet he is unavailable for interviews with one of the most widely listened to and reputable radio shows in the country – every morning and every day. If John Key wants to discuss how much he enjoys being prime minister, what, with all of that free food and spare change jangling in his pocket, that is just fine with me. But that is the warm fuzzy part of being a democratically elected leader. His core function is to represent and be accountable to the people. It is this function for which John Key needs to start being ‘available’.

John Key states that this government has a mandate for asset sales, given that ‘over one million New Zealanders voted for National’ in the 2011 election. Despite this incredibly flawed logic that ignores the fact people vote for a party for a myriad of reasons – perhaps least of all policy – and the fact Labour, as the only viable alternative for many voters, was wallowing in the depths of unpopularity, this argument cannot withstand a citizens initiated referendum that patently states he does not have this mandate; that the majority of New Zealanders – red, blue or otherwise – oppose asset sales. If this referendum takes place, a vote on the single issue of asset sales must override his supposed ‘election mandate’. If it does not, and if he continues to smirk and laugh in the face of widespread opposition and discontent, this country needs sit up and take one, long look at where we are heading. Because there is something rotten in the state of New Zealand and it is this: we have a government that is committed to seeing through its agenda with absolutely no respect for the will of its people; a government more concerned with backroom deals and short-term solutions than representative government and this country’s long-term future. We have a man leading us who does not see it as not his problem – not something about which he should even be aware – that thousands of people are vocally opposing his government’s plans. A man who has the audacity to laugh in the face of his people, who continuously refuses to be held to account for the actions of his government, and a man who is disinterested in the mounting frustration and unrest in New Zealand, is something rotten and we all need to sit up and take notice.    

Things I would like to ask John Key

Does it ever bother you that your entire public persona is built around making you seem like a buffoon? That your media advisors’ mandate is simply to make you seem like a loveable chump? Do you realise that by playing into this caricature you are implicitly agreeing with the notion that the majority of New Zealanders are just too dumb to elect a leader who is smart, forward-thinking and politically astute?

Have you ever considered that it is not that youth are unengaged with the political system, but that your conception of engagement fails to reflect the way in which young people engage? Yes, voting is important, but a triennal vote is only one form of political expression and not necessarily the most important form to all young people. Remember John, it’s a dynamic environment. Things, technology, forms of engagement – they’re all changing. When you tell young people that you think they’re so disengaged they can’t even get out of bed before 7pm, you’re not proving that young people are disengaged with the political process; you’re proving that politicians are disengaged with young people.

Have you considered a good concealer for those bags under your eyes? Do you think it’s wrong that your appearance is almost never the subject of such snarky remarks, yet when Helen Clark was leader more words were written and more conversation had about her appearance than perhaps any other aspect of her leadership? But seriously, get some sleep.

When you came into government, did you actually believe that you would simply ‘cap the public service’ and not butcher it to pieces? I should probably remind you that when you came into government, the world was already in the throes of an economic recession and, on your own admission, things were pretty bleak. Yet, on these facts, you thought that you could save all of this money (which, by the way, is actually a tiny drop in the bucket in terms of public expenditure: please refer to ‘building new prisons’ question below) within the public service without making any job cuts. And now things have suddenly changed so dramatically that you need to cut hundreds of people from the public service? It just seems odd.

On the subject of this bleak economic outlook, our ‘dynamic environment’, and preparing New Zealand for a long-term future that is likely to be charactised by increasing insecurity around land, water and resources: asset sales. Common sense, try it some time. You might enjoy the feeling. 

Do you find it ironic that so much of your success is framed in terms of your ‘state house upbringing’, yet your proposed welfare reforms further stigmatise any reliance on state support and frame those who receive support from the state as no-hopers and bludgers? Does it ever occur to you that the very message your reforms send will act as a barrier to moving off welfare; that while it seems your family had faith in you and supported you in every endeavour, not every child in New Zealand grows up with those kind of positive messages, and so when even their own Prime Minister tells them they’re no hopers, it’s pretty hard to get past that and go on to become ‘the next John Key’?

Actually, in general, inequality in this country: when is that going to feature on your agenda? I have a few different types you could look into if you need suggestions – income, gender, racial just to name a few. Also, so you know, increasing GST and giving tax breaks that ultimately serve only to benefit the wealthiest doesn’t count as addressing inequality.

I’m a little curious as to why you have proposed a new $900 million prison in Wiri. If this is spare cash just lying around, can I please suggest 101 better uses for this government expenditure? How about giving it to some of those services like Women’s Refuge that actually make a positive, useful contribution to keeping our communities safe and from which you cut funding last year? If you are spending this $900 million with the hope that this prison will actually prove effective in either reducing prisoner rates or cutting crime and building safer communities, please let me direct you to the overwhelming amount of the international literature and research that conclusively proves more prisons and higher incarceration rates do nothing to bring down crime and that punitive solutions ultimately benefit no one. I can send some to you, highlighted and all, given that you probably won’t have any public servants left to do this kind of research. 

That’s probably enough for today. I would hate to bore you with the ramblings of a politically disengaged and somewhat despairing young person. 

Unmuted: You Don't Have My Vote

Response from the New Zealand Herald

I have received the following response to my complaint to the New Zealand Herald. Needless to say, I do not find this satisfactory; I think Holmes’ article clearly DOES intend to be a commentary on all Māori people, and — sorry New Zealand Herald — but Holmes’ rant was hateful and bigoted, not ‘raw and provocative’. This article was nothing ‘like Helen Clark’s [criticism] of protest leaders as “haters and wreckers”’ and, while I am an ardent believer in the freedom of speech, I do not believe in inciting racial hatred or irresponsible publications that cry freedom of expression when a journalist has simply overstepped the line of decency and good taste.

I will be lodging a formal complaint with the Press Council and hope the New Zealand Herald comes to its senses and apologises for this article. 

[Edit: It seems this was the stock reply the Herald sent to everyone who complained. It also seems the Herald needs to work on its email policies, because my friend received her response along with a thread of emails which included the Online Editor making a snide comment to David Hastings that ‘There are eight other identical messages featuring this exact same stuff from different people…’. As my wonderful friend and the recipient of that thread responded, ‘”stuff” was arguments based on principles stated by the Press Council, and references to the Bill of Rights Act 1990. So basically professional principles and the law. You should look those things up sometime, it’s fascinating “stuff.”’] 

Dear Diane,

Thank you for your formal complaint regarding the Paul Holmes column of Saturday Feb 11.

As you are no doubt aware, it is one of many messages we have received on both sides of the ledger since publication.  Those supporting his right to his opinion have markedly outweighed those against.  Having said that, we are concerned that a number of people have taken such strong exception to it.

There is no question the piece was written in a raw and provocative style.  But it is not, as many people have suggested, a commentary on all Maori people or Maori culture generally but on the few protesters who disrupted proceedings.  Nor does it breach Press Council principles, which accommodate freedom of opinion in comment pieces. 

It was one of a series of opinion pieces discussing Waitangi Day and its place in New Zealand society which began the previous Saturday with a front page cover story by Buddy Mikaere and included an editorial which recognised the obvious divisions in society but supported the idea of the day as being our national day.

The column in question was clearly aimed at the behaviour and attitudes of Waitangi Day protesters at Waitangi itself – similar to criticism by former Prime Minister Helen Clark of protest leaders as ‘haters and wreckers’,  in another context. Disparaging and critical words, but neither intended to cast all Maori in that light.  Holmes expressed his opinion as a columnist as he is entitled to do in a country where freedom of speech is regarded as a central pillar of public discourse.

Although many have objected to it — as is their right —  I hope they can recognise that the very  ‘freedom’  in the concept of freedom of speech is meaningless if it applies only to speech that offends no one. As has been recognised by the Press Council, true freedom can mean the freedom to be ignorant, offensive and wrong.  

We strive to publish the breadth of opinion on major public issues and no doubt will carry strong views in the paper and on our website in response to the latest Holmes column. 

David Hastings

Editor

Weekend Herald