.

.

Current affairs tv on Sunday morning, 28 April, offered a bit of a grab-bag, for the viewer. From the sublime to the wretched…

.

.

At 8pm, The  Nation began with a piece of recent history, interviewing former head of David Lange’s  Prime Minister’s Department, Gerald Hensley. Hensley’s soon-to-be published book “Friendly Fire: Nuclear Politics and the Collapse of Anzus 1984-1987 ” writes about the conflict between New Zealand and the US over it’s nuclear-free policy.

With the collapse of the former Soviet Union; the end of the Cold War; and the current ascendancy of global corporatism, for many people this is “ancient” history.  For others, it rekindles memories of an international struggle between nuclear-armed  super-powers that nearly saw the end of human civilisation in a Final World War.

Some of Hensley’s quotes in his book appear to be incorrect, and were contested – including some attributed to former-Prime Minister,   Geoffrey Palmer, who was also interviewed on the programme.  Hensley was defensive, saying his sources were close to Geoffrey Palmer.

One is left asking; why didn’t Hensley ask Palmer himself?!?!

Despite possible errors, it’s a  fascinating  insight into the 1980s; a time of revolutionary upheaval  in our history.

At 8.50pm, host Rachel Smalley inviteds the panel – Brian Edwards and Bill Ralston – to comment.

But does she ask Edwards and Ralston  to comment on the main story of Hensley and his book? Super-power rivalry?  Or New Zealand’s independent foreign policy, which shook the very foundations of  international relations?

Nope. She opened the panel discussion – whether tongue-in-cheek or seriously –  with this,

“Let’s start off with the big issue this week – X Factor!”

!!!  Wtf ???

The X Factor is one of TV3’s latest “talent” shows.

TV3 would not have plugged their rival – TVNZ’s programme, – The Voice, would they?

Obviously.

Plugging entertainment  programmes, in a current affairs show. What next to attact viewers? Maybe dressing Smalley in a bikini?

Let’s hope this was a one-off occurrence.

.

.

Shane Jones…

Where do I begin.

You can either congratulate him for his brutal honesty in his  description of his luke-warm support of the Labour-Green policy on NZ Power – or we can do a collective ‘facepalm’ at how he under-mined it with faint praise. Your call.

He was, however, correct on several points – namely the shrill hysteria with which National’s proxies – merchant bankers and share broker firms – reacted.

Normally, the financial sector is not known for emotional outbursts. But following 18 April’s announcement by Shearer, Parker, and Norman, the market-boys went ballistic with apoplexy. (Did anyone burst a blood vessel at JBWere or First NZ?)

Even if NZ Power never gets of the road, it was a Leftist’s pleasure watching the huffing’n’puffing; screams of “sabotage!”; and other hysterical fits and outbursts from the share-pushers. Payback. Karma. Bitch.

But that aside, WTF was Jonesy doing fronting for this policy? It should be obvious to Labour and the Greens that they need to have a consistent messenger; a consistent voice; and to stay On Message at all times.

Jonesy’s comments achieved none of this. God knows what Joe Public thought of it all. (By the way, I noticed that most of the txt-message (which Q+A run after each interview)  were anti-Labour and pro-Nats. Mine wasn’t published. Bias?)

It was a Big Effing Fail for Jonesy.

See:  Shane Jones on Labour’s power plan

But, not all was lost…

Interesting, it was Ex-National President, Michelle Boag, who probably did the most damage to the government by shooting  herself in the foot with several of her comments.

For example, her scare-mongering about the Greens,

“What has happened is they’ve finally realised  that the only way that they’re going to get into government is to give ground to the Greens and I think that’s very scary for New Zealanders…”

What’s ironic about that statement is how much ground National has given to ACT with massive policy-changes such as Charter Schools.

“National giving  ground to one ACT MP –  is probably more scary for New Zealanders…” ?

This bit probably didn’t help her cause much either,

“…All that talk about industries investing with cheaper power, if you look at the graphs that David Parker showed, the cost of commercial power has gone down over that long  period…”

Reallllly, Michelle? So power costs have dropped for commercial-users – whilst electricity prices have doubled  over the last 30 years ago, in real terms? No wonder Victoria University researcher, Geoff Bertram, was quoted in the NZ Herald on 3 February 2013,

But while consumer prices have soared, industrial power prices have remained stable and commercial prices have dropped.

Bertram said it was because residential customers didn’t have the power of big business.

“It’s open season to screw anyone who can’t fight back.”

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – The 30-year power price hike

Michelle Boag – unwittingly scoring  own-goals for the incoming  Labour-Green government, despite Shane Jones fumbling that one.

Next up, the Constitutional Review that is currently in progress. Only thing is, most people either haven’t heard of it, or aren’t too fussed.

Susan Wood interviewed Maori Party MP,  Te Ururoa Flavell, and someone called David  Round. It was an eye-opener discussion.

Flavell spoke in measured, disciplined, reasoned  language. He made his points and he delivered them with a calm tone.

David Round…

Who the hell is David Round? Never heard of the guy.

When Round started responding to Susan Wood’s questions, the voluminous quantity of  racist fear-mongering that came from his mouth was gob-smacking. It was like re-visting the 1950s all over again.

Some examples,

“… And yet we find ourselves constantly now being subject to more and more extreme claims, of which this one is just the latest…”

“… The principles as given by the courts are simply a list of platitudes…”

“… Simply because the Treaty is misinterpreted now to mean that Maori have special privileges in our constitution…”

“… Well, yes, but the trouble is I think the terms of the discussion are indeed stacked, as Professor Joseph pointed out. The terms of reference of this panel themselves are set, and indeed a large number of New Zealanders have never even heard of this, and I’m afraid that the people who are going to make their views known to the panel are mostly going to be the vocal extremists – Mr Flavell’s friends…”

“… Well, that’s right. As in the United States – the United States Supreme Court can actually strike down legislation, and indeed already our Chief Justice – fortunately not from the bench – has actually said that she considers herself entitled right now to strike down democratically made acts of Parliament. Now, if that happens, that would be tyranny. That would be as much a coup d’état as if armed men entered Parliament and drove the members out at gunpoint. And of course, from the decisions of the judges, there is simply no appeal. We would be subject forever to judges’ possibly radical interpretation of Treaty principles. “

“That’s very frightening. That would be an end to democracy and the rule of law.”

“… the Maori Party isn’t concerned about the number of MPs in Parliament or any of these other things. The Maori Party is concerned about just one thing. This is the big push, and if they succeed in this big push, then our country will be stuffed forever.”

” No, I think that for the last generation, we have actually been heading in the direction of increasing separatism in this country, and this strapping and snarling is actually leading us further towards an apartheid state, which is where we’re going to end up if we’re not really careful. We seem to assume that whatever we do, everything is always going to be fine. But countries can ruin themselves through their own folly, and that is actually a possibility for our own poor country here.”

Read:  Q+A: Transcript of Te Ururoa Flavell and David Round interview

See:  Q+A: David Round, Te Ururoa Flavell on the constitution exercise

Up til now, I’ve never heard of this guy, but a quick Google search soon revealed who he is;

• “David Round teaches constitutional law at the University of Canterbury and is author of “Truth or Treaty? Commonsense Questions about the Treaty of Waitangi”. – Source
• And he’s part of a group, the so-called “Independent Constitutional Review Panel”, which is racist from beginning to end. ( See:  NZCPR) The  far right would approve.

He teaches constitutional law ?!?!

Once again; gobsmacked.

Unfortunately, in presenting David Round as a guest on the programme, Q+A’s producer and Host did not make it clear that Round was representing an extreme right-wing view on Constitutional reforms and the Treaty. In their defence, though, the viewer would’ve picked it up pretty quickly.

No wonder that in the following programme, Marae Investigates, Willie Jackson referred to David Round as “a nut”.

Unfair on nuts, perhaps, but otherwise an apt description.

Last points.

1.

Someone obviously has had a quiet chat with Susan Wood. She actually gave guests ample opportunity to respond to her questions – without constant interuptions and talking over people.  Yes, we learned a few things – including that racist extremism still thrives in this country. That’s what current affairs shows should be about.

2.

Someone at TVNZ forgot the host’s name for Q+A,

.

Acknowledgement: Q+A This week’s episode (28 April 2013)

.

It’s Susan Wood, of course.

But it’s nice to know that I’m not the only one can make embarrassing gaffes with people’s names (which some of my readers on my own blog helpfully point out to me).

.

.

I’m becoming as real fan of Native Affairs and Marae Investigates. Both are excellent current affairs shows which focus on the stories; the interviews; and the issues – with minimal showmanship and egos.

Marae Investigates this morning (28 April, 10.00am) featured more discussion on the Constitutional Review. Host, Scotty Morrison spoke with  Constitutional Review Panel members Dr Ranginui Walker and Hinurewa Poutu.

There was talk of holdingf a referendum to implement any new Constitution.

I have to admit a certain unease at such a prospect. Having a Majority  determine the  rights of a minority, by referenda, is fraught with danger. The example set by Californians voting on Proposition 8, in 2008, was a clear example of what can happen when a Majority decides what rights a Minority can/can’t have. (See: California Proposition 8)

Binding referenda is society’s polite way to exercise mob rule.

Scotty made this very point to Dr Walker,

.

.

.

Source: Screen caps from Marae Investigates – 28 April 2013, 10.00am

.

Scotty’s on the ball with this one.  Because Dr Walker’s response failed to reassure me,

.

.

.

Source: Screen caps from Marae Investigates – 28 April 2013, 10.00am

.

If a government – whether it be National-led or Labour-led – put a draft Constitution to the country for ratification by referendum, and said proposed-Constitution  upheld the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document (which it clearly is) – it would be doomed to fail.

I would be highly surprised if 51% of Pakeha shared a progressive  view about Te Tiriti.

But hey, prove me wrong on this, New Zealand.  Show me that I’m hopelessly cynical on this issue…

Next up, co-host, Miriama Kamo spoke with one of the organisors of Aotearoa is Not For Sale (ANFS), Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati;

.

.

Ariana is one of the leading lights in the anti-asset sale movement in Wellington. Describing her as quiet-spoken and tenacious might sound like a cliche – but it is Ariana to the last atom of her being.

This blogger has been privileged to cover and report on many of the actions that she, and her comrades  in the ANFS movement, have undertaken.

.

Source: Screen caps from Marae Investigates – 28 April 2013, 10.00am

.

When asked how the Constitutional Review impacted on state asset sales,  Ariana stated that the Review should be used to include the protection of state owned assets from being privatised,

“It’s to protect, ironically,  from successive governments from committing acts of treachery and to safeguard our children’s future.”

When prompted to clarify what she meant by “statutory theft” – a term which ANFS has used previously  – Ariana said,

“Statutory theft? The definition of theft is to deprive the owners permanently of their property and that’s effectively what this is doing. It’s disenfranchising the masses, the population, [of] assets that belong to us and our children. And their future children. So effectively, it’s theft.There’s no other words to describe it.”

When pressed by Miriama Kamo that National had a majority and a mandate, and that this was democracy in action, Ariana replied,

“‘Democracy in action’? No, it’s a failure of democracy actually. We’ve just collected  over 392,000 signatures  from  people who  want a referendum held on this issue so their voices will be heard. They’ve been ignored by the government. A one vote Parliamentary majority is not a people’s mandate to sell what belongs to us. It’s treacherous act.”

At the end of the interview, Ariana managed to squeak in one final message to viewers,

“On behalf of the people;  John Key, don’t sell our assets, they belong to us. You don’t have a mandate.”

It’s refreshing to see and hear ‘ordinary’ New Zealanders (if the word ‘ordinary’ applies to  courageous citizens like Ariana and the rest of the ANFS Team) in the media.

And that was current affairs on 28 April, 2013. Something for everyone!

.

*

.

Related blogposts

27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Tahi)

27 April in Wellington – A Protest Against State Asset Theft (Part Rua)

.

.

= fs =