Just prior to going on holiday last year I was fascinated by the Heralds weak attempt to try and set the civic Auckland agenda with a silly poll on possible contenders for the Auckland mayoralty. It showed Len Brown as marginally ahead of Phil Goff and mentioned the likes of John Banks making a return, Michael Barnett and Penny Hulse. Of interest to me is the way this so-called political reporting, coupled with their biased polls suggests that Brown’s days are numbered and its time for yet another white male to lead the city with the exception of Penny Hulse.
The Herald is obviously out of touch with the community, but does a great job at feeding the unintelligent stereotypes that pervade popular, mainstream discourse. Underpinning the ideas of these kinds of stories is the notion that Auckland needs a male from a particular background to offer the leadership and direction that the city needs. And whilst a palagi male may well be the best person for the job at present, the issue for me is the way in which news agencies persist with this idea, making little attempt to be self critical, thus deconstructing their own ideas and ultimately, their own privilege.
Auckland is a diverse city with people of multiple ethnicities, leanings and traditions. Decisions for the city are best made by diverse views and backgrounds at the table because they make provision for different experiences and expectations. It’s for the basic good of an evolving city to have people of different backgrounds contributing to the future and direction of the city. I’m still pleasantly amused by the people in this city who think that more roads, single occupant cars and quarter acre properties is the way of the future. But perhaps such thinking remains the terrain of those holding fast to a city that was monocultural and now, historic.
Nurturing new leadership and talent takes compassion, hard work, time and humility. It forces us as a society to reflect on a sense of entitlement that really only exists in our imaginations. Encouraging those from backgrounds other than our own to participate in our society and have a sense of voice is a really challenging activity (for some). I look forward to the day our great city will be led by an indigenous Maori, a woman, an Asian, Pasifika… anyone who’s committed to making this city an even fairer, inclusive and greater place to live, work, study and play in. Because unless we seek wider participation and inclusion, we neglect the very soul of a developing city – diversity.
The heady smell of contact adhesive still hung in the air, despite the air-conditioning in Whangarei’s palatial Hatea Chambers. Aside from some new furniture and perhaps the whiff of fresh paint, there were no other signs of refurbishment after the fire.
I sternly repressed my smile as I remember the run up to the hasty retreat from the office. The client had been sitting in a chair on the old carpet as I explained to him the depth of his troubles and the likelihood of his falling.
It was bad enough that the complainant had made the allegation. And, yes indeed, it was only her word against his. But how good was his word? I asked. Would he be believed when he said that she was out for revenge after he’d declined her repeated advances? In front of a jury, where virtue is very important, how would he fare?
The Facebook messages and texts from his phone could only have been the work of sophisticated hackers if he maintained he’d not sent them. For these messages to have been seamlessly inserted into the conversation without him being able to see, the hackers were probably part of some very serious intelligence agency. He nodded sagely. Perhaps it was MI6, the CIA and Mossad working in conjunction with each other. We could tell the jury that he was an international spy who, rather than simply being iced, was being subjected to some kind of ongoing torment.
He was stony-faced. I told him that it was time to come up with a better story to explain away the evidence against him. He stuck his resolute chin out and said he didn’t do it.
Fire fell from the sky and landed on his arm. He screamed and sprang from the chair as molten drips of burning plastic descended from the lighting panel above him. Within it, a fire could be seen burning. The drips turned into a rain as the building was evacuated. After a last check, I snatched my laptop and court gown and was about to shut the door on what surely must have been the last time I would see this office. The burning plastic panel then fell from the fitting and I smothered it with the gown and beat out the flame on the chair and floor. A small fire remained in the ceiling which I swatted out with the heavy black gown, spraying molten plastic around the room.
The client, scarred emotionally and physically, soon rang back and said he wanted to plead guilty. He went to jail, clutching The Bible.
Now a new client sat in a new chair on new carpet under a new light. But the story was the same as many others and so was the advice. The children were exhibiting a curious blend of vindictiveness and easy malleability. The ex-wife was behind it. The jilted meth freak mentally unstable ex-wife was after the money he had earned. If she couldn’t have [a catch] like him, then she wanted no one to have him. Except, perhaps, Dirty Jim in D-Block.
The kids loved him, of course, but they were just children and were caught in their mother’s evil spell. It was so powerful that they were able to tell her lies in a cool, calculated and consistent fashion. The internal and external consistencies of these narratives reflected her hate. She must be, he agreed, a genius psychopath.
Indeed this would have to be put to each of the children and his wife during cross-examination I told him. We would have to tell the jury that their tears were crocodiles’. I met his gaze with a long unblinking stare. He swallowed and loosened his tie as the burn within overwhelmed the crisp air-conditioning. He raised the issue of name suppression. I paused and before I could explain, he talked about his importance and his position. He was a role model and a pillar of the community. He’d taken a strong stand on morality and law and order. It was important that his name never saw the light of day. I let him go on about other role models who had escaped publicity. Even sex attackers would have their details suppressed so long as they were a good enough footy player. As he got worked up, I raised a hand and told him he need not worry. The identities of the complainants was automatically suppressed. His identification would lead to theirs. He need not advance his own reputation and importance but could hide behind the skirts of his ex-wife and children.
The look of relief indicated that the irony was lost on him. Or, perhaps, the realisation of where he was going and that the humiliation of using his victims to hide his name was small change given the price he was ultimately going to pay.
I looked at him and he looked at me. He searched my eyes, looking for some expression. But my corneas, scarred by the sight of thousands of broken victims, let nothing show. I wondered if the protection of victims’ identities really did protect the people. While it might make some more inclined to come forward in the knowledge their names won’t be disclosed, it meant that perpetrators could trade on this advantage, allowing their unsullied reputations to get close enough to their victims to stick their tongues down their throats. Or worse. I looked at his now sweaty mouth and concluded the protection of victims’ identities is of greater advantage to the predators than to the prey.
He looked away. I thought he’d been close to coming clean, but today was not the day for him to let go of his denials and I elected not to push further, for now at least. I saw him out the door and, forgetting my role as a fearless defender for a moment, I wondered how much money and grief we would all be saved if I had a hidden button which triggered fire from the light panel.
Through it all, she’s maintained an interestingly intensive scrutiny on my beloved New Zealand First.
Considering the caustic role of one Winston Peters in exposing Vance’s source for some of the more *ahem* confidential elements in her GCSB coverage, you can perhaps understand (if not necessarily forgive) her for holding a bit of a grudge in our direction…
It was therefore no great surprise when I checked the bottom of a recent Sunday Star article that began with “NZ First MPs […]” and ended with a snidely critical tone, to find Vance’s name attached to it.
Now let’s get one thing clear. New Zealand First MPs are *paid* to act as a trenchant and tireless critic of bone-headed governmental policies. One of our chief roles as the *leading* Opposition party is to ask questions, call to account, and generally shine a spotlight of scrutiny on *whatever* latest iniquity the government is trying to pull.
While we can all agree that things have gotten pretty average when the fourth estate decides to take a month off in order to let one occasionally Quixotic political party and a somewhat arcane author at an Indian literary festival temporarily take over its proffered role speaking truth to power at the government’s expense …
… you’d still expect at least a *little* gratitude from the Parliamentary Press Gallery’s quarter – and some positive affirmation of the fact that NZF MPs have kept working at improving our Nation all through the summer, while others have been either at the beach or all at sea.
Unfortunately, no such luck from Vance. She starts off by declaring we were merely “shouting into [the] void”; then bizarrely starts criticizing Ron Mark for *doing his job properly* and tapping into righteously rancorous public sentiment against the manifestly ridiculous Zero Tolerance speeding policy pursued by the police.
Seriously. She *literally* attempts to criticize Mark for giving voice to popular public sentiment against the government; and then finds fault with attempting to hold the relevant Minister responsible to account! Both things that are, I’m pretty sure, entries number 1 and 2 on the List Of Things Opposition MPs Are Supposed To Do With Their Time.
It’s almost as if the thing that’s *actually* annoyed Vance here is the idea that NZF MPs are capable of taking demonstrably sensible positions that resonate with the electorate … and acting independently and outside of her tired cliche that we all must inexorably exist within Winston’s shadow.
Just what, one wonders, would Vance have had our Navy do to uphold our international obligations under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, or when encountering *other* instances of illegally flagged rogue vessels rampaging through a marine sanctuary under our watch – especially, for that matter, when the ships in question penetrate our own territorial waters.
Is she one of those people who feels, for instance, that the Japanese ought to have free range to go a-whaling in our territory..? How does she think that piracy off Somalia ought to be dealt with..? What does she make of the Australian Navy’s no-nonsense approach to same? Does she even understand the point Mark was making about manifestly potentially deficient Rules of Engagement?
Matters then proceeded from the super-silly to the supercilious when Vance attempted to take Prosser to task for his remarks on the ecological impacts of 1080 poison drops.
There are legitimate positions to be taken on either side of the 1080 debate, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the litany of previous *personal* disagreements as applies environmental policy I’ve had with the man on everything from climate change to fracking (thankfully, none of which appears to be reflected in Party policy) … but on the matter of mass aerial poison-drops causing flow-on effects *well* beyond what’s intended when it comes to our native birdlife populations, the man’s reasoning is *rock solid*.
1080 is *designed* to be taken in by various introduced rodent and marsupial critters. It’s well renowned for taking awhile to kill, and reducing the ingestor to an agonizing and drawn out termination. During this time a slow-moving and impaired prey-animal is going to be a much more obvious – and thus, edible – target for the languid and lazy talons of our famously less-febrile birds of prey. The idea that a dead rodent or possum might be feasted on by a native bird of carrion is, similarly, entirely self-evident. And you can imagine what happens once the poisoned-meat enters their system… (a narrative chain of causation I had confirmed in the course of researching this article by chatting with a conservation expert specializing in the preservation of our hawk populations)
In light of this, Vance’s demand that the MP produce a “rock wren corpse” as evidence that 1080 can have undesirable impacts on native bird populations makes a turkey not out of Prosser…
In any case, the most revealing bit of Vance’s “expose” isn’t any of her stabs at our party’s press releases.
Instead, it’s the rather telling line about how “desperately bored journalists” attempt to “drown out other voices”.
Oh and, as applies her last line … while I’m sure she’s relishing the thought of going back to Winston-centric coverage, rather than paying attention to the output of a half-dozen competent NZF MPs … No, Andrea – calling to account the journalistic output of an import such as yourself is *not* the same thing as Xenophobia 🙂
The second reason it doesn’t matter much that Key has been caught out lying again is that most rump National Party voters don’t care if Key is lying.
This is the real issue at heart here, NZers are allowing Key to get away with this. Even if the mainstream media were actually doing their job and holding the corporate liar to account, National voters still wouldn’t care. They loath Maori rights, women’s rights and beneficiary rights so anything Key does to harm those interests is worth putting up with any level of lying.
Key’s office instigated and co-ordinated a smear of a political opponent using the State spies months out from the 2011 election, if National voters are happy to allow an abuse of power that extreme, they will openly tolerate Key lying on any issue.
There are 2 types of National Party voter – millionaires and suckers.
So yesterday, the NBR broke a story claiming they knew Key had lied about when he was told about Mike Sabin. Key claims early December, the NBR claims Key was told in APRIL of last year, not December…
NBR understands the PM was first made aware of the assault complaint in April last year, months before the September 20 ballot – and that the National Party knew before the 2011 election.
…so here is the largest openly right wing cheerleader of a Newspaper contradicting Key, so where are all the other news outlets on this astounding turn of events?
Here’s Stuff…
…and here’s NZ Herald
…what you say, how can this be? The NBR have caught and called Key out lying, yet NOT ONE MENTION of this in Fairfax or APN? Welcome to the tiny and spiteful news media culture of NZ. With independent news squeezed out between two Goliath’s the market have ended up creating, this duopoly of news refuses point blank to mention a competitor in the news market if the scoop isn’t generated by their side. What this culture leads to in NZ is that if any small news organisation gets a scoop, the big two completely ignore it, that’s why NBRs scoop hasn’t been run by any of the two largest media duopolies.
Welcome to the free market of news in NZ where profit trumps obligations to hold the powerful to account. Most TV news last night focused on a couple having sex in Christchurch than the fact the Prime Minister has been caught out lying about when he knew an MP was in trouble and went to the Polls without telling the country.
The Prime Minister began his National Press Club address looking wooden and stiff. But that’s not surprising; as a human being he always comes across on television as wooden and stiff. Perhaps he’s like that in real life too.
I’m not sure about that because we were both 35 years younger when I was doing political battle with him at Sydney University in the late 1970s. Thus, we were both more supple, lithe and in our manly prime. Then Abbott was a “rugger bugger” and a “John’s boy”, which meant that we regarded him as wooden and stiff and best avoided in the Quad after dark. Today, I’ve got more hair, but also more padding; so let’s not go there, or at least no further.
But, to be fair, Tony Abbott loosened up a little towards the end. Not during the speech, but after when facing questions from the Canberra media pack. I have some experience of this too.
But some viewers thought the journos didn’t do a very good job.
My take it was, as always, a mixed performance. Some bring their A game and some are not fit to be in the team.
Wooden and stiff Abbott right at home in the NPC
I was a Press Gallery journalist in the early 1990s and witnessed many performances at the National Press Club. Most of them involved wooden and stiff politicians, or visiting dignitaries. Perhaps its the environment inside the Press Club itself, which is wooden and stiff. So too, from memory, is the food; served ‘A-B roll’ style. ‘A’ gets the lamb or chicken, ‘B’ gets the beef and everyone gets the vegatables, which may have begun life wooden and stiff, but which were boiled into submission at the hands of the club chefs.
Maybe the food’s better today, but the set piece performances and badly crafted speeches don’t seem to have improved. So, maybe, the lack of emotion, movement and conviction in the PM’s recycled speech notes was not his fault.
a) blaming Credlin for what is clearly Abbott’s own fault, or
b) not blaming Credlin, thus revealing my sexism by discounting the fact that just because she’s a woman doesn’t mean she can’t also be a domineering bitch whose royally fucked up an entire government single-handedly.
Women can do anything a man can do and somethings a woman can do better than any man.
But today was all about Tony. In fact, I didn’t see Peta Credlin in the audience cut-away shots. Lots of mugging ministers with oily smiles tightly painted on their grim visages; a few of Margie looking pretty much as wooden as Tony and a couple of David Speers sitting next to Matthais Cormann.
I’m sure there’s some subtle message in that about the closeness of Sky News presenters to the Abbott cabinet, perhaps it was the luck of the draw, or perhaps it signals that Cormann is Speers’ deepthroat on leadership bickering around the Cabinet table.
Pure speculation I know, but the papers are full of it today, so why shouldn’t I, an inveterate electronic graffitist, have my own little moment of “What if?”
The speech itself was predictable, dull, full of self-congratulation, replete with blaming “Rudd-Gillard-Rudd”, talking up the terror threat, beating the national security drum and repeated protestations that “only this government” can deliver economic miracles.
And, no, it won’t save Abbott’s arse. If anything it is likely to make the backbenchers even more nervous and the ministers more pissed off.
The public it seems, shares this sentiment.
I don’t like it, we can use it scare so, so I’ll ban it
We were treated to scare tactics over Hizb ut-Tahir, an Islamic organisation that Abbott wants to ban, but for which he has not yet found a sufficiently compelling official excuse to justify it.
But don’t worry. Abbott’s crack team will be on it and soon enough there will be reason aplenty to outlaw the Islamic “party of liberation”.
The audience was also treated to some fairly ludicrous economic theorising from the Prime Minister such as:
…every dollar the government spends is a dollar you don’t spend now or in the future.
Really, but isn’t the point of spending on education so that we will have more money to spend when we grow up to be adults like Tony and co?
And isn’t the point of spending on health so that we are well enough to work until we’re 70 or older?
The economic gibberish continued with homilies such as every big business starts out as a small business and the almost religious commitment to budget surplus, which is another idea that most sensible economists think is ideology, not science.
Abbott also played the “race card”, saying that the government will crackdown on Chinese homebuyers. That’s just playing to the remaining few dozen Hansonites, it does not make policy sense at all.
However, I digress, the point of this piece is to discuss the questions casually tossed onto the lectern by humble scribes hoping to score the story of the afternoon by either:
a) delivering the PM a lollygagger to bash out of the park, thus ensuring the front page / bulletin lead, or
b) chucking a hard full toss cherry straight into the Prime Ministerial budgie smugglers, thus ensuring the front page / bulletin lead
So who were the winners and losers?
There were 14 questions spread evenly among the mainstream media outlets; it is worth noting that no electronic graffiti artists were given a shot. Perhaps, at $80 for non-members, the cost of tickets is prohibitive, or maybe we’re not that welcome in the enclave of the political establishment.
The first interrogator was the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann, who, in my view, gets a bad rep as a Liberal stooge. Maybe he is, but his question was pretty good, drawing on Abbott’s Jesuit training to put him on the spot:
In good conscience are you the best person to lead this government and prosecute its agenda, and have you considered resigning? [C Uhlmann]
Well, this one turned into a lollygagger and only required a simple “Yes, and no. Yes and no, Chris” from the PM. The longer answer involved the “rejection of KAOS”, at the last election, but I wasn’t even aware that the secretive cold war spy agency was even standing.
More seriously though, Abbott attempted to rewrite history here — remember him calling on Gillard to resign? No, neither does Tony. He said that only the electors could toss out a government and sitting Prime Minister.
The second question could also have been a beauty. Steven Scott of the Brisbane Courier-Mail:
You didn’t mention the Queensland election in your speech, and I’m just wondering, why do you think the Queensland electorate turned against the LNP so dramatically and how will you convince your colleagues they don’t face the same threat under you? [S Scott, Courier-Mail]
Abbott’s response dodged most of the question and focused on the PM’s “deeply” felt sorrow for Campbell Newman and his colleagues. The central message was that the selling of the “difficult reform” in Queensland was not done well. On the implications for himself, all Abbott could offer was that the coalition needed to make a “bigger effort” to convince the Senate cross-benches to support it.
There will be more consultation with the back bench too, said Abbott, clearly pitching to the party room not to ditch him.
My take out is look out for more bribes to the PUP senators and the other independents.
He scored a two off this medium pace delivery.
At this point the PM got all Eat, Pray, Love with a ramble about how all of us are on the journey together.
Seriously, taking new age mantras from a loopy self-help book? Is that all you’ve got. Certainly for the electronic graffitists working from home, it was a special highlight.
“It’s the only journey worth coming on,” the PM solemnly intoned, waving his arms in the air (seriously).
Laura Tingle (Australian Financial Review) brought us all down to earth with her question about the economy and unemployment. Bummer, Laura!
You focused on a stronger economy in your speech and on the need for jobs, but just noting that there are an extra 63,400 people who became unemployed since you were elected, can you spell out for us how you’re going to address that. And I reference your G20 economic plan which was built heavily on investment in infrastructure, which you also mentioned in your speech. How is that affected by the changing balance of asset programs in the states and will that have a material impact on the economic forecasts? (L Tingle, AFR)
Phew, we finally got there.
Abbott repeated his infrastructure and growth comments and his legacy as an “infrastructure Prime Minister”. He then lambasted the Victorian Labor government to great applause and laughter from his nervous supporters in the audience.
That was a lollygagger in the end and Abbott thumped it for six and more.
Could Malcolm Farr–perhaps once (if not still) the most interesting and leftwing journalist in the NewsCorpse stable–do better?
Staying with jobs, a number of workplace matters will be reported on by the Productivity Commission later in the year, but if I could go to your current thinking: Are you aware of or have you read any credible study or research that says that lowering or removing the minimum wage creates more jobs? [M Farr, news.com.au]
I like this question because it is something that the NewCorpse tabloid readers in working class suburbs would want to know about it.
Abbott’s answer was noncommital, and the PM padded up to deflect it into the covers; but it could be a sleeper question that comes back to bite him.
Abbott said he would respect the umpire’s decision, but clearly that only applies if the decision is “Not out.”
Malcolm’s deceptive spin was followed up by SBS TV’s Catherine McGrath.
In terms of economic debate, do you think that as Prime Minister you need to bring the political debate forward in Australia, and do you concede in any way that the skills that brought you to government– successfully tearing down Labor–are not necessarily the skills you need now and there might be some rebooting needed.
Abbott let this one go through to the keeper by suggesting that he would not “speculate upon myself”. But clearly that is what this whole Press Club thing is all about.
So good delivery Catherine, even though it didn’t take a wicket.
Next up, Andrew Probyn from The West Australian was given the ball. He has the look of a fiery quick and the run up was pretty good.
Prime Minister, dare I say it, but you have appeared to contradict your mentor John Howard today, when you said that voters had the right to hire and fire prime ministers. Mr Howard used to say that leadership was the gift of the party room.
Do you still have the confidence of the party room?
And secondly a “Yes or no” question: If you were offered a Knighthood would you take it?
Shit, these double-barrel questions, too easy to dodge, so not a great delivery in the end.
Abbott’s pause and this his second “Well, yes and no,” answer got a laugh.
Then it got weird. Abbott ignored the “party room” aspect of the question (no surprise) and told a long and possibly apocryphal story about visiting a pub in Colac to pour beers for friendly and appreciative locals.
The in-house cheer squad lapped it up, but the response from the armchair critics was less warm.
This punter was even blunter:
Yep, apparently Colac is hometown to Liberal Party chief Brian Loughnane who is also married to Peta Credlin. Perhaps the Abbotts and the Loughnane/Credlins share a caravan there.
Probyn had to interject at this point to get Abbott to answer is party room question and the PM wasn’t happy. All he could say (several times) is “We’ve had a rough couple of months.”
Probyn’s delivery sconned the PM, but the helmet of dodging the question saved him on this occasion.
To be honest, I suspect that like me you are losing interest at this point in what is really a pretty pointless match; so let’s skip straight to the highlights reel.
Channel Seven’s Mark Riley has form bowling to the Prime Minister; who could forget that wonderful long stoney silence–Tony Abbott’s infamous “shit happens” moment.Here’s a reminder, it’s that good.
Given their history, Riley’s question was always going to be difficult for the PM to fend away.
It was long, it was detailed and it was a beauty. Riley took Abbott through a series of quotes about being collegiate and working with his colleagues, going right back to 2009.
Abbott was not happy and it showed on his face and his aggressive stance at the crease; the rictus grin was back and in full force.
Then the fast ball:
Why have you not kept any of those promises delivered 12 or 15 times to your party thus far, and why should your backbench and your cabinet have any faith that you’ll keep it this time. [M Riley, Ch7]
Now the nub. That delivery shook Abbott up and he gave a long and contradictory answer about the now infamous series of “Captain’s calls” he has made over the past 18 months. This could be another sleeper that bites Abbott on the bum some time soon or later. Abbott’s answer was full of contradictions and wobbles. A potential series winner from Mark Riley
The rest of the line up was pretty tame and some, like the dear Michelle Grattan should really retire. But I want to mention Kieran Gilbert from Sky News.
He asked what I thought was the question of the day:
G’day Prime Minister, Kieran Gilbert from Sky News. I understand that yesterday you had consultations with some of your closest supporters and in it [sic] you recognised that you do have a serious threat to your leadership underway and you said, and I quote “In these circumstances you can either panic or you hold your ground.” you’ll be holding your ground. Is that a recognition that you are facing a serious threat to your leadership.
And the second question [oh no Kieran, don’t spoil it] You met with Julie Bishop last night; did you ask her for a commitment she would not challenge you? And, if so, what did she say?
That’s technically three questions Kieran and I did try for three years to teach you not to do that, but anyway, good effort.
While all this was going on Abbott was furiously drinking his water and the death stare was back. If looks could kill, Gilbert would be dead, buried and cremated. It obviously got under the PM’s skin.
The answer was pretty weak. All that Abbott could do was play a defensive shot — back to the whole “difficult patch” for the government drivel.
“As for Julie,” the PM went on, “Julie’s a friend of mine. Julie’s my deputy, she’s been a terrific deputy, she’s been a terrific minister. I believe I have her full support and I certainly look forward to having her continued support.”
That was the question that nearly got past the PM’s protector. he got just enough bat on ball to prevent serious injury.
But I still want to know what was said in those meetings and who is the insider whose talking to Sky News and briefing them on what should be private discussions.
The gallery is a mixed bunch and the bowlers don’t always come into the match with form and fitness. Today was no exception, but then, giving journalists food and wine at lunch time is a surefire way to put them off their game.
Most would rather sleep it off than have to go back and file another boring yarn about Abbott speaking at the Press Club and not really saying anything.
For a full rundown of the questions check this live blog from the AFR
Let’s hope there’s a return match before too long.
Last week the right-wing in Aotearoa descended into hysteria over Man Booker winning author, Eleanor Catton’s public criticisms of our National government. I hate to break it to so many of our right-wing pundits who know so little about so much, but Catton has been pointing out the failings of our current government for a while now. So why the right is so put-out by her remarks is beyond me. This is what Catton said at the ‘Jaipur Literature Festival in India that got so many on the right red in the face:
“New Zealand, like Australia and Canada, [is dominated by] these neoliberal, profit-obsessed, very shallow, very money-hungry politicians who do not care about culture. They care about short-term gains. They would destroy the planet in order to be able to have the life they want. I feel very angry with my government.”
Catton’s words were met with a vicious response with many on the right seeking to silence and isolate her, as shown by right-wing columnist Mathew Hooton who tweeted:
John Key our Prime Minster said he was disappointed with the lack of ‘respect‘ Catton showed for his government (as if she owed his Tory government anything?) and suggested she stop ‘mixing politics with some of the other things that she’s better-known for’. More recently when Key appeared on TVNZ’s Breakfast show he completely dismissed and belittled what Catton had said against his government:
“She has no particular great insights into politics, she is a fictional writer. I have great respect for her as a fictional writer [sic].” Key said.
This is not the first time John Key has dismissed a public intellectual (whose very job is to critique society and challenge those in power) and prize winning writer.
Last year John Key tried to discredit & minimize the words of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, who released the Snowden files. When Greenwald spoke out against our government and informed us Key had performed mass surveillance against his citizenry and lied about it. Key, in response called Greenwald “Kim Dotcom’s little henchman” and a “loser” and dismissed his claims.
If you cannot fault the message, attack the messenger.
But it was right-wing Radio host Sean Plunket who caused the most controversy when he called Catton an ‘ungrateful hua’, which sounds a lot like the widely and internationally used slang for whore: ‘huer’. Plunket, after he was done using vicious and sexist name calling to shut-down Catton, declared on national radio she was a ‘traitor’ to Aotearoa – as if calling into account those who hold the power was a crime against crown and country. I have not heard such a hyperbolic and jingoist claim in a long, long time.
What Catton said was not an act of treachery against Aotearoa,
It was an act of truth speaking.
Since National took office in 2008 homelessness has grown across the board and one of the biggest areas of growth is youth homelessness. Paula Bennett’s punitive and brutal welfare reforms targeted youth benefits; when young people who live in unstable and often unsafe homes are denied welfare where the fuck does National think they are going to end up? This act of targeting youth benefits sends a clear message to our struggling and vulnerable youth:
Our government does not care if you starve to death on the streets. But hey, all in the name of saving a buck… even if it is at the expense of our most desperate and vulnerable.
While so many of our politicians are hungry for more money and power, so many people living below and just above the poverty line are hungry for three meals a day and a livable basic wage – you can’t live off minimum wage in this country, any low-paid worker will tell you. I hate to break it to John Key but poverty is not a work of fiction.
With all that extra public money saved thanks to denying or forcing people off benefits and the gutting of our social safety nets, National can afford things like limousines and flag referendums, but apparently there is no money to feed the 280,000 kids living in poverty. Money well spent.
National’s unspoken but not so secret neoliberal capitalist mantra for governance for the last seven years has been: profit before people.
Catton also pointed out during her interview in India that our current government does not care about culture, and she is right.
I did five years of art school at AUT and I was a practicing artist for many years until I moved into political writing a year ago. It is nearly impossible to find any other form of government funding in the arts in Aotearoa if you don’t make the cut for Creative New Zealand. Generally, to even be considered for this funding you need to have an established practice. If you are not lucky enough to get government funding for your craft you are left (unless you parents can support you) working a minimum wage job (if you can even find a job in a global unemployment crisis) to support your vocation – what you love doing.
University of Canterbury senior English lecturer Dr Christina Stachurski agreed with Catton’s comment about the Government’s under-valuing of the arts;
“A recent action speaks for itself. National made a massive injection of funding for science and engineering at the University of Canterbury, and none for arts.”
National may show the value they place on fields such as science through massive cash injections into University science departments, but this does not stop them from denying scientific proof of massive global ecological catastrophes such as Climate Change. When I spoke to Christopher Smith, a Microbiologist who has recently graduated from Auckland University he told me,
“The truth is the science community has no doubt about climate change. We have no doubt this is happening right now. And the consequences of denying this are going to be, and have been, devastating.”
Yet, the National government continue to support and promote dangerously unregulated and unsafe practices such as Fracking to extricate natural resources from the planet. In 2012 US fracking generated 1,060 billion litres of toxic wastewater, much of which was dumped back into American waterways. But John Key insists fracking is safe, despite overwhelming evidence that it contributes to climate change and pollutes the planet. As Catton said,
“They care about short-term gains. They would destroy the planet in order to be able to have the life they want. I feel very angry with my government.”
It is John Key and his government who are the real traitors to our country, not Eleanor Catton.
Eleanor is a Hero.
Catton spoke for the silenced majority – that is: the disenfranchised, poor, working poor and those who are marginalized by the dominant culture. This political underclass are the most brutally affected by Nationals’ money hungry attitudes, welfare reforms and neoliberal policies. The backlash against her serves as a strong warning to other people, particularly women, that if you speak out against those who hold the power in a public space you will pay a harsh penalty for your bravery.
“Courage inspires communities: the courage of an example — for courage is as contagious as fear.” Wrote the theorist and dissident Susan Sontag, “But courage, certain kinds of courage, can also isolate the brave.”
Catton’s example of principled action will always terrify those who hold the power, namely those who are part of the 1% and the super wealthy who benefit from massive wealth inequality, and self-serving politicians. John Key who is part of the elite 1% and stands to lose too much if cultural values begin to shift in favor of the 99% – in favor of the silenced majority.
Internationally regarded writers and intellectuals such as Catton have a legitimized power to disrupt the mainstream Medias’ narrative that panders to the right-wing and serves corporate interests – and in the process inspire others to do the same. This has sent the right in Aotearoa running scared, and this is why the backlash against her by political pundits and our own PM has been so swift and so vicious.
6.00 – 8.00pm Wednesday 11 February 2015
Onehunga Community Centre, 83 Church St, Onehunga
Presentation followed by questions and discussion.
Guy Standing is a development studies professor at London University, co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network and author of the inspiring book A precariat charter: from denizens to citizens.
UBI is an idea that has been around for a long time, and is widely supported in many left wing and green networks internationally, but has never got much traction here in Aotearoa.
This is a chance to hear about UBI from one of the world’s most knowledgeable and respected advocates.
For more information, contact us here at AAAP.
All welcome – please feel free to let people in your networks know about this meeting if you think they’ll be interested.
A gold coin ( or larger ) donation is appreciated.
aucklandactionagainstpoverty@gmail.com
