Oh, Lucky Man! Phil Goff’s “dispensation” is as ill-considered as it is ill-deserved
PHIL GOFF IS A LUCKY MAN. Had Andrew Little extended to him the same measure of tolerance that he extended to Jim Anderton, 28 years ago, he’d no longer be a member of Labour’s caucus.
Goff was among those Rogernomes who, on 4 August 1988, passed the following resolution:
“This Caucus declares that the following understanding governs the relationship of Caucus members with each other: Members shall vote in Parliament in accordance with decisions of the Caucus. Where a member deliberately abstains from voting, or votes against a Government measure in the House which has been passed by Caucus, such action automatically removes the member from membership of the Caucus unless express permission to take that action has been given by Caucus.”
Referred to at the time as the “loaded gun” resolution, it was intended to block any member (but most particularly, Anderton) from either voting against, or abstaining from voting for, legislation setting in motion the privatisation of state assets. Anderton’s colleagues were well aware that the Labour Party’s official stance was one of opposition to privatisation, and that, strictly speaking they were all bound – as Labour MPs – to uphold Labour Party policy. They simply didn’t care.
By December of 1988, the circumstances anticipated in the Loaded Gun Resolution had come to pass. A bill enabling the government to partially privatise the BNZ was on the floor of the House. In spite of the Labour Party’s New Zealand Council informing the Caucus that privatisation would directly contravene the party’s 1987 manifesto, and contradict the expressed will of the Labour Party Conference, the David Lange-led Labour Government pressed ahead with the legislation.
On Saturday, 10 December 1988, Jim Anderton told a hushed House of Representatives:
“I cannot give my support to this enabling legislation. If we are not going to sell the Bank of New Zealand, we do not need this legislation. If we are going to sell it, then I am opposed to it and must show my opposition here, at this time, because there will be no other parliamentary opportunity to protest at or prevent the Government having the power to sell the Bank. As I said at the Committee Stages, I will not vote with the Opposition National Party. Their anxiety to sell the Bank of New Zealand and other state assets is well known. I will, therefore, record my opposition by formally abstaining when the vote is taken on this Third Reading.”
On Tuesday, 13 December 1988, the Senior Government Whip, Margaret Austin, wrote to Anderton informing him that he would receive no further Caucus communications and was stripped of his membership of Caucus committees. The Whip had been withdrawn; Jim Anderton was out of the Labour Caucus.
Not for Anderton the dispensation granted to Goff by his Caucus colleagues. Regardless of the fact that he was attempting, in good conscience, to uphold Labour Party policy (as required of him, and all of his colleagues, by the Labour Party constitution) permission for Anderton to abstain on the enabling legislation was denied.
Twenty-eight years later, the same Phil Goff who had voted to expel anyone who defied the will of Caucus has not only been extended the privilege of abstaining from voting against the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s enabling legislation, but also of actually crossing the floor of the House of Representatives and voting in favour of it.
The relevant Labour Party media release of 28 January 2016 sates: “Opposition Leader Andrew Little has given dispensation to MP Phil Goff to take his own position on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement due to his historic involvement in negotiating its predecessor, the P4.” According to Little: “Phil has had a longstanding involvement and public commitment to this agreement which differs with the Labour Caucus’ decision that it cannot support the deal in its current form due to its compromise of New Zealand’s sovereignty.”
But the 2005 P4 free-trade initiative, which the Helen Clark-led Labour Government had set in motion, and which Goff played a key role in negotiating, is in no way comparable to the TPPA. The P4 was a modest and mutually beneficial free trade agreement involving New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei and Chile. The TPPA, in sharp contrast, is a freedom charter for US transnational corporations. Granting Goff a dispensation on the grounds that he had a hand in negotiating P4 is, therefore, a political non-sequitur.
Moreover, in dissenting from his Caucus colleagues’ view that support for the TPPA compromises New Zealand’s sovereignty, Goff is actually asserting that what Labour is presenting to the electorate as the truth is, in fact, a lie. Which means that Little has given Goff a dispensation to declare that up is down, black is white, and the TPPA is a good thing. And why would a party leader anxious to enhance his own, and his party’s, credibility do that!
What’s more, the irrelevance of the P4 argument makes Little’s treatment of David Shearer’s dissidence utterly inconsistent and unfair. If Goff is entitled to deny the truth of Labour’s position, then why isn’t Shearer also being granted a pass from the reality-based community? Or, for that matter, any other Caucus member not yet convinced that the TPPA represents a dangerous corporate assault on what’s left of New Zealand’s democracy and independence.
What Little and his colleagues all need to find – and quickly – is a measure of the clarity and courage demonstrated by Jim Anderton on 10 December 1988. If the TPPA is a bad thing, then allowing a Labour MP to vote in favour of it cannot be ethically, or politically, justified. It follows, therefore, that those Labour parliamentarians who do not believe the TPPA is a bad thing; and who are unwilling to abide by the contrary judgement of their colleagues; have only one morally consistent course of action to take. They must resign, forthwith, from both the Labour Caucus and the Labour Party.
“But the 2005 P4 free-trade initiative, which the Helen Clark-led Labour Government had set in motion, and which Goff played a key role in negotiating, is in no way comparable to the TPPA. The P4 was a modest and mutually beneficial free trade agreement involving New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei and Chile. The TPPA, in sharp contrast, is a freedom charter for US transnational corporations. Granting Goff a dispensation on the grounds that he had a hand in negotiating P4 is, therefore, a political non-sequitur.”
Yes, I totally agree, and there was no reason for allowing Goff to get his own way, which rather seems designed to cover his own backside in the upcoming Auckland Mayoral elections. He wants to be on good terms with the business sector, that includes of course the big business players based in Auckland, who seem rather keen on the TPPA, no matter what.
And as many of the better off middle class professionals in Auckland also work for or at least with business, these tending neoliberals have the votes also that Goff is keen on (that magic “centre” again, ignoring “the missing million” at national scale).
This has given Hooton and others the best opportunity to lash out against Labour and particularly its present leader, Andrew Little.
Perhaps the solution is to let Goff resign from Parliament now, as some do anyway demand, given his mayoral aspirations, and run a good by-election in Mt Roskill with a good, capable candidate that may win it for Labour?
There is even more damage done by David Shearer, openly taking his own position, possibly that of a few others as well, who chose to stay silent. It may be an opportunity to bring a bit of fresh blood into the game to stand for Mt Albert, once Shearer is seen off to take up another UN post or so.
Both are “matured” and seem a bit lame and out of touch now, it is time for them to move on and leave the party for new, committed and progressive talent to take their place.
This is just my thought on this.
Thank God revaluation, NESARA, BRICS and the ethics demanded by the Chinese architects of the AIIB are all in the wings (revaluation is underway) waiting for this charade to end and installation of new ethical governance. Roll on the changes.
Thank you Chris – historically informing and cogent. Labour has never had my party vote – I never forgave the Lange-Douglas-led betrayal of Labour principles. And unless Labour returns to the pre-Lange form it used to have, I never will. Anderton had ten times the principles and political nous that anyone in the current Labour Party seems to possess.
@ In Vino – Hear hear. I absolutely concur with your sentiments here. Well summed up and concisely put. Couldn’t have put it better.
Yes , well we know Mr Bradbury is thinking of the Auckland Mayoralty , however …. weighed in the balance and in contrast of what you have outlined ,… there is definitely a double standard and a kind of ‘old times sake’ favoritism going on here.
Shearer gets the chop and Goff gets the velvet sock.
It matters not what previous history Goff has had – he was a bloody minded neo liberal that has hung around like a bad smell for 32 long years – and precisely the sort of character that has along with others of his ilk dragged that party down as to be totally unrecognizable from its former origins and what it originally stood for.
Its time for the purge – and that means shut up and put up or get out.
Can anyone imagine for one moment the Key led govt tolerating that sort of dissension ? They would be out on their ear so fast it would make their heads spin.
There is only one other conceivable ( but very very slim chance of …) scenario to this : the Goff/Shearer thing is a litmus test for public opinion… of which both could conveniently recant on their opinions at a later date …
But as outlined …. the gall of the neo liberal who gave no choice to Anderton yet gets treated with kid gloves now simply because of his prior ‘involvements’…. with the fact remaining that this man is totally unrepentant of the destruction the Lange / Douglas era govt had on this country , and his part in that … as well as opening the door for successive govt’s both Labour and National to maintain that destruction to various degrees …for 32 years!!!!
And as written …what Goff is effectively saying is that Labour is lying about the TTPA.
If that isn’t fifth column subversion ,…then what is.
On the eve of this signing of the TTPA – despite their still being a process – this is no time for kid gloves or sentimentality or lame excuses about someones ‘ passion ‘ for a trade agreement that compromises our national sovereignty severely .
Out with the mockers and restore peace to the house and in one accord!!!
“Its time for the purge – and that means shut up and put up or get out.
Can anyone imagine for one moment the Key led govt tolerating that sort of dissension ? They would be out on their ear so fast it would make their heads spin.”
If this does not happen, and if we do this year not get a clear, determined progressive revival of Labour, with fresh blood, new minds and a commitment to true social democratic values and policies, then it is going to be all over for traditional Labour, and time to swiftly form a new centre left party with wider appeal before this year ends.
All else will mean that Key will be handed a fourth term on a silver platter, unless he himself stuffs up something massively while running the show, which no-one can predict at this time.
What a great article. I fully concur. It is better that the dissenters who can not abide by the collective caucus decision resign and leave than be inside polluting and damaging the party.
Fully concur – and more than that – for Christ’s sake Andrew L – get your frikken shit together pronto if you want that large number of former Labour supporters now disillusioned with your (careerist seat warming neo-libs) kaka to ever return. The clock is ticking, and to the extent that such namby pamby decisions re Goff will eventually render Labour irrelevant.
I also fully concur and have emailed as such to every Labour MP, so far only 4 have responded and 1 indicted agreement
There is one Party that is unanimous in it’s opposition the the TPPA in it’s current form, and shows it’s antipathy to the secrecy of the ” deal”.
Perhaps NZ Labour needs to shake itself up, and demonstrate some unified determination soon, more than just the recent heartening stand by the Leader of the Opposition.
Well said.
Labour -the workers’ party with no credibility.
Labour will never get any traction, and does not deserve to get any traction, until it expels the fascist elements that pollute the party and apologies for the criminal behaviour and betrayal that have characterised Labour from 1984 till now.
Andrew Little, a product of the system, and having demonstrated spinelessness and duplicity since becoming leader, is clearly not the man to undertake such an assignment.
Labour circling the drain will therefore continue to be Labour circling the drain.
Why is anyone surprised? Mr Goff has been a Tory for an eon.
The way the labour movement works is debate is followed by a vote and then all support the decision made…. or you decamp if not in agreement.
So in short he now rats out the people he ostensibly represents as Labour MP and gets the tick from on high to do so and support theTories
Plainly this reinforces the coments of Chris Trotter which were on the money in late 2015- in his opinion in his blog ore Christmas he opined that the Labour party has past its use by date.
+100 – BTW – we don’t need Goff as Auckland Mayor – we have had enough of the right wingers disguised as left wing mayoral candidates who lust after power and money from lobbyists and business and treat rate payers like ‘breathless children’, to be ignored, while they vote to strip our city of waterfront, trees and liveability for some ideology of crap.
Goff shows his true colours on TPP and this is a warning also to the Labour party – if they want people to vote for them, they need to get rid of rogernomics and those still supporting it and start listening to what Kiwis on the street really want.
Big Boo to Phil Goff and Boo to Shearer too!
Yes we do indeed want Phil Goff as mayor. Not only is he by far the better contender for the role out of the motley rwnj’s that have put their hands up, he will be out of Labour too.
I’ll be voting tactically on the mayoralty.
If there is no credible RW alternative then no need to vote for Goff. If there is, I’ll hold my nose and vote Goff.
isn’t there an alternative to Goff for Auckland Mayor…if I were in Auckland I would have trouble voting for him!…I would probably vote for Penny Bright
he is a FOOL if he expects the Left to vote for him for Auckland mayoralty after his stance supporting the TPPA
Good for you. I’m sure Penny Bright is a good person, but unfortunately she won’t get the numbers she needs. Pretty sure Goff’s TPPA stance has a lot to do with the mayoralty, and judging from the lineup of contenders Goff will get votes from the right and the left. Goff is a better bet than National’s buddies Victoria Crone et al.
“…in dissenting from his Caucus colleagues’ view that support for the TPPA compromises New Zealand’s sovereignty, Goff is actually asserting that what Labour is presenting to the electorate as the truth is, in fact, a lie.”
Not directly. He could just as easily be asserting that, yes, it will come at the cost of sovereignty, but for the people in his own socio-economic bracket, it’s well worth the loss. Obviously, such an assertion could not be made out loud, but I suspect it informs the view of a number of TPPA supporters. Highly placed administrators and the like will not lose out under it, just local businesses, waged workers and the environment.
I think that you are being much too hard on Andrew Little, who in my eyes has managed to bring about a change of focus that has been resisted for almost eight years now by Goff and his ilk. He has cleared a path for acting in concert with other parties of the left, and has established a rallying point for his party, in the face, so it seems, of strong internal opposition.
Yes, agree with you there, Andrew Little doesn’t deserve such ridicule, Labour has now publicly stated they oppose the TPPA. That is a giant step forward in my humble opinion. Goff is leaving Labour, and think this is more to do about Goff’s bid for the mayoralty.
Yes, agree with you there, Andrew Little doesn’t deserve such ridicule, Labour has now publicly stated they oppose the TPPA. That is a giant step forward in my humble opinion. Goff is leaving Labour, and think this is more to do about Goff’s bid for the mayoralty.
@ IN VINO.
Totally agree,your thoughts and actions mirror mine since the betrayal.
Yup. Labour doesn’t have room for cuckoos anymore.
Let ’em join ACT and see how many votes they get.
Personally, I look at that photo and it shows so much that is wrong.
Get rid of the grinning idiot on the left. There is no strategic value having him there.
Little needs to get rid of the suit. It is simply not necessary in this day and age. It makes him look outdated and uncool. And the lapel badges are stupid and serve no purpose.
But what he needs to do more than anything, is get angry. That is the mood of the country right now, get rid of the false smile and talk the truth.
You will be amazed how much support there is for those prepared to cut the BS.
Thanks Chris. Well said.