I think Key, Hide & Co are beginning to feel the heat. After a week and a half of submissions on the third super city bill it is clear Aucklanders are as opposed to this assault on democracy as they were when the Nats did their last impression of listening to the public halfway through last year.
But when the Herald gets stuck into them. And all the mayors. And the Employers and Manufacturers Association. And the Chamber of Commerce. Surely it gets a little harder to write off the critics as rent-a-mob? Perhaps not. Rodney Hide was on the radio this morning criticising yesterday’s rally outside the select committee hearings which was attended by Labour and Green MPs, and calling the 150 Aucklanders who protested ‘sad’.
They are sad alright but not in the sense Hide means. They are really sad about what this Government is doing to our democracy.
Hide accused me of politicising the select committee process by organising the rally. He is joined by ACT supporter Michael Bassett, himself a former Minister of Local Government, who has written about all this, kindly sending me a copy, in which he says it is a constitutional outrage that an MP on the select committee should be taking part in a public protest outside the committee’s hearings. He is also unhappy with the Herald’s coverage.
My first response is that it is rich beyond belief for Hide to accuse anyone else of politicising the super city process. Hello Rodney? Aren’t you the guy who denied Aucklanders a referendum on the super city? Who invited them to make submissions on Maori representation when your threat to resign had already convinced John Key to drop Maori seats as an option? Who rammed the first two bills through under urgency? Who gets the power under this third bill to hand pick the directors of the powerful commercial structures who will run 90% of Council operations?
Secondly, I have always considered it an MP’s job to fight for what the people want. The select committee is not a court, and I am not a judge. When a Government blocks its ears to the public, I think it is perfectly in order for MPs and citizens to take up the right to peaceful protest.
What do you think?
Click this next link to see Michael Bassett’s comments in full.
The Herald and Constitutional Propriety
Has anyone else noticed that the New Zealand Herald seems to have thrown constitutional propriety to the winds? In today1s paper on page A7 there is a photo of Labour’s Auckland affairs spokesman, Phil Twyford, standing outside the meeting of the select committee hearing submissions yesterday on the latest bill dealing with the Super City. In the audience is the same small group of the usual suspects who have been tracking around the city for years opposing everything that any government, Labour or National, has planned for the city. The reporter covering the story – you guessed it – is Bernard Orsman. He is the one who was censured last year by the Press Council for a serious misdemeanour. This time Orsman reports that yesterday’s demo was ‘organized by Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford, who accused the Government of blocking its ears to cries for a different kind of Super City’.
Let’s leave aside the fact that most of the submissions opposing the super city are from the same small group who last year broke up public meetings called by MPs to discuss the super city. I witnessed them at work with my own eyes. Yesterday they were lending themselves (temporarily) to Twyford.
Also on hand, of course, was the crusading Orsman, who is just as determined as they are to deny due process to the legislation. Believe it or not, Orsman just happened to have a photographer alongside him too. And the Herald was happy to carry the beat-up. Twyford must have thought all his birthdays had come at once!
The real issue in this case is not this disgraceful journalism. Neither Orsman nor the Herald’s editor seems to realize that a constitutional outrage was being perpetrated. Twyford who was trying his hand at rabble-rousing is a member of the parliamentary select committee who were meant to be meeting inside to hear the submissions, and then to deliberate on them. Popping outside during lunch or afternoon tea to stir up a rag tail and bob tail army is completely inappropriate in such a situation. Just imagine if a judge hearing a court case decided to duck out during the break, megaphone in hand, to stir up supporters of the defendant appearing before him/her. Even the Herald just might realize this to be constitutionally improper? Possibly even Bernard Orsman?
Today’s story for the Herald should not have been about the views of the tiny number of crusaders who are permanently in opposition mode to change. Instead, the Herald should have concentrated on the need to remind legislators that they must not engage in behaviour like Twyford’s. At the very least, Labour leader Phil Goff should remove him from the select committee. He has demonstrated an inability to understand his role as an MP and to act appropriately. His responsibility is to listen to submissions, act fairly, and not to pre-judge anything.
Michael Bassett
Formerly Labour’s Minister of Local Government
@ Jennifer – I think Whaleoils reply in this thread has shown him to have more class than Banksie already.
“Just imagine if a judge hearing a court case decided to duck out during the break”
Bassett, do you mean like if in a Court Case the Judge got up and left while a witness was giving evidence? Abhorrent? I agree.
John Carter did that to a citizen who could be bothered being heard on this matter, just left the room. Just more evidence from Mr Bassett and his ilk that they tuly believe only they know what is good for this country from ther rarified air of their University seats and MP retirement perks.
His generalisations about the people who were at the rally ill behoove him and is a transparent PR ploy to discredit the whole by painting them as loopy or obsessed.
I was advised some years ago that when Television recieved a single complaint they attributed it tot he equivalent of about 5000 people. I guess the apathetic nature of folks means that if one actually stands up and complains many more share the view but can’t be bothered. Politicians, or their supporters who believe they can BUY their seats and power be warned, it will get you a single term, maybe more, but the people are not the idiots you giggle about them being.
George
“What you really mean is that you’ll fight for what people want as long as it coincides with your own agenda. And if it doesn’t you’ll at best patronise the people by telling them they’re misguided, and at worst accuse them of being rednecks.” That sounds like a good description of Mr Bassett’s attitude to the naysayers.
Whaleoil – did you notice the tie and day of the protest? The location? Realistically how many people could get there? I take your points, on the whole, but that one was somewhat obtuse.
Some things bear repeating for their insight and summary Kudos to
this poster from me. IF Bassett truly gave a toss about constituitional issues rather than political point scoring, he would have made these comments himself. Instead it has been left to a member of the great unwashed, those pesky little irritants known as citizens.
“Michael Wood says:
March 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm
The thing to be considered here is that the Supercity legislation is in fact major constitutional change. The way in which we are governed, and the way in which laws will made in Auckland are being fundamentally changed by the legislation.
Usually change of a constitutional nature would be accompanied by more public consultation. In this case however the public have demonstrably been locked out of having a meaningful say. The earlier Bill that set up the overall structure was rammed through parliament under urgency, the submission period for this Bill “co-incided” with the Christmas/New Year holiday period, and decsions about the powers of the Local Boards have been outsourced to the unelected ATA.
Given all of this, people have no option other than peaceful protest to have their say. Legitimate avenues have been closed off, and the alternative of just lying down and accepting this theft of democracy is frankly, cowardly. Good on everyone who turned up yesterday.”
George you bring up a very good point, and it is one that needs to be talked about more however there are a few things you need to consider first.
The Democracy we have is the people voting on who gets to make all the decisions, there isn’t actually any voting on any decisions themselves, which is what you are saying put simply. The thing is if we let every decision be made democratically alot of problems would come up.
First theres the obvious one that some people actually don’t care about politics and you would get only a portion of the population voting. This portion might come together to form a group to further fight for their common ideas – you have a party again.
Secondly there would be a huge problem between local and national government. An example I like to use when expressing the need for centralised management is electric power lines. If the people voted on decisions the government made, farmers could easily vote away the power lines our Government is currently building on their land. Then what of the people in the city needing electricity? This would bring up two big problems, one competition and dispute between local governments and two when the people vote democratically on the governments decision, what comes first local or national government? The local governemnt is, after all, more directly related to the people and effects their lives as individuals more, and people would vote in favour of local governments all the time. It could tear the country apart.
Thirdly theres the costs, alot of money would have to go into ballot’s, more time spent in town meeting’s, money spent educating people on the decision they are making and helping them make a choice. It would impact our standard of living with greater taxes.
My favourite quote is Winston Churchill saying ‘Democracy [He meant the type we have now] is the worst system except for all the others’, it is absolutely ridden with all sorts of problems, however it is truley the lesser of evils. If you remove Democracy you get corruption, it’s not necasserily power that corrupts but unquestionable power and we can see that lesson all throughout history. If you give too much Democracy you get the problems above.
And that’s why people vote for parties rather than decisions and trust the party to do what they believe most. And why you shouldn’t personally attack Phil when essentially you are out to attack an idea.
Dylan – I don’t think I was being unkind to Phil, and I don’t think he took it that way.
In many ways what I’ve been saying was a backhanded complement to politicians.
As I said, I work in IT. I do it for the money. Provided it’s legal and not immoral I’d probably do whatever an employer / client asked me to do in a professional sense.
All I was saying is that politicians are different. They’re in it because of their beliefs and as a result it’s core to them to follow these instincts regardless of what the people want. I wasn’t dissing them or discriminating against them in anyway by suggesting this. Or at least I didn’t think I was.
You quote Churchill. I agree entirely with those words, but don’t see a) where anything I’ve written suggested otherwise or b) why it’s relevant to this discussion.
And on the subject of discrimination I fail to see why you consider that justifiable discrimination is wrong. Discriminating on the basis of something that has no bearing (skin colour, gender, height etc) is both illogical and wrong. Discriminating on something that does have a bearing isn’t. If politicians are unusual in having a personal mission that they seek to follow then pointing this vice/virtue out is either acceptable discrimination or not discrimination at all. I believe it’s the latter. It’s merely stating the obvious.
@Dylan – agreed, would add that politicians and the like are better informed on a lot of issues that the general public and are paid to worry about these things to take the burden off Joe Worksalot.
sigh* George I looked over you posts and your changing your words now so I am going to stop
Dylan – sorry you feel like that. I’ll go back over and review what I’ve written when I get time (won’t be today unfortunately) and either explain or apologise. Ok?
@sean “I am concerned about this because Auckland’s reforms could be used as a model for the rest of the country.”
I agree. I’m not an aucklander either, but I do think what happens in our biggest city will have an impact on the rest of our cities and in rural areas – in that respect we should all take a vested interest in what is happening. Eroding democracy here will erode it across the country. This is a massive red flag being waved in front of us – take heed everyone.
Tracey, you raise an interesting point about whether Michael Bassett uses his ex-MP travel perks. Maybe as taxpayers we have a right to know? I’m sure he would agree with that, being a big ACT supporter and believer in transparency in the public accounts.
Ah Dylan, the principle of utlilitarianism runs through our democracy.
There are two sayings I’d like to add
The people aren’t always right
Politicians might believe people are stupid and act accordingly, that doesn’t mean the people are stupid.
Andrew Geddis at Pundit says It’s the job of MPs to push the policies they believe in. It would be constitutionally outrageous if they didn’t. http://tinyurl.com/y9dftsu
Deleted. Clare
@Tracey
Yah I know and it has to be that way
Mr Twyford. Can you honestly stand up with hand on heart and say you or your party when in Government listened to what the public wanted. I think not as there were a few in your parties last term. No Party can do it no matter how clever you are at spin doctoring.
Dylan – I’ve just been back over the comments I’ve made on this blog and I can’t see anywhere where I’ve ‘changed my words’ as you put it.
If you care to suggest specific examples I’ll do my best to explain why I think this is the case, but I can’t imagine that anyone else would be interested in this discussion.