Table of Contents
The cross-over voters who joined diehard Labour voters in giving Jacinda Ardern’s incoming Labour Government the first-ever single-party majority since we saddled ourselves with MMP in 1996 may live to regret their short-sighted impetuosity. They may well get more than they bargained for.
The 9-year Labour Government under Helen Clark, 1999-2008, was led by someone who came to the 9th-floor office of the Beehive with years of practical experience in Parliament, both in previous Government and in Opposition and had the backroom support of the canny Heather Simpson.
In contrast, Ms Ardern returns as PM after a relatively brief stint on both sides of Parliament, catapulted into Labour leadership by the realisation of Andrew Little that he wasn’t up to the task. Soon after, she was installed as Prime Minister by the utu-driven Winston Peters, whose NZ First party went on to act as a brake on any changes of policy and administrative practices that might have been in Ardern’s socialist-inclined mind.
Now, as a result of Election 2020, and the patronising arrangement with the further left-leaning Greens, it seems that it could be open season for Ardern to indulge whatever whims she has been harbouring since her time as president of International Socialist Youth. Any doubts on this score would seem to have been removed by her pre-emption of the traditional right of a Labour caucus to elect those who are to become Ministers, leaving it to the PM to allocate portfolios. Ardern’s exercise of both rights this year points to her self-confidence in her level of control of her party and its policy directions.
So what can we expect? Will it be “wokery” – a word we have coined at BFD, derived from the adjective “woke” and defined as “active awareness of imagined systemic injustices and prejudices, especially those related to civil and human rights”?
The first example of wokery has already been signalled by out-going Justice Minister Andrew Little. Back in June, Stuff told us:
A proposal that could make hate speech a criminal offence, as it is in the United Kingdom, has been stalled and is unlikely to pass before the election.
The Government fast-tracked a review of hate speech legislation in the wake of the March 15 Christchurch terror attack last year. Justice Minister Andrew Little declared existing legislation on the issue “woefully inadequate”.
Following the review, the Justice Ministry and Human Rights Commission presented Little with options. In March, he said these were “working their way through” the cabinet process, and that he expected an announcement within weeks.
But on Tuesday, he told Stuff Labour was still in talks with its government partners and confirmed the legislation would likely not go to Cabinet until after the election. However, some NZ First MPs claim the party is yet to see any policy and indicated it was unlikely to support the law.
With NZ First no longer in Parliament, and the Human Rights (HR) Commission having published a report in which Paul Hunt, the Chief HR Commissioner, says, inter alia: “Getting the balance right between freedom of speech and the right to be safe,” the path to the amendment of the law applying to freedom of speech would appear to have been cleared.
Click to access Ko_O_Tika_ko_To_Reo_FINAL.pdf
A warning of what we can expect has been issued by free-lance commentator Karl Du Fresne, in the most recent issue of Dr Muriel Newman’s NZ Centre for Political Research.
Especially this extract:
Expect much more under a re-invigorated and unrestrained Ardern government, starting with laws to curb so-called “hate speech”. The putative justification – that the Human Rights Act doesn’t protect people from attacks on the basis of their religion (for which read Islam) – can be easily fixed by a simple amendment adding religion to the existing protections against discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, nationality and ethnicity.
But don’t expect the government to stop there. Using the Christchurch mosque massacres as a pretext (a false one, since the absence of restrictive speech laws didn’t cause the shootings and the introduction of tough new ones wouldn’t prevent a similar occurrence), the government is likely to crack down on any speech regarded as offensive by members of supposedly vulnerable minority groups.
Egged on by provocateurs in the media, an Ardern government might decide not only to lower the threshold at which speech is considered harmful, but to extend protection to other groups demanding special treatment – for example, trans-gender people and other supposedly victimised minorities. Don’t be surprised if even fat-shaming becomes a breach of human rights.
Equally pointedly, Stephen Franks at the Free Speech Coalition says:
New Zealand doesn’t have a “hate speech law” so the origin of this definition is quite mysterious. The Human Rights Act 1993 outlaws racial disharmony (s61), racial harassment (s63), and incitement of racial disharmony (s131), along with the prohibitions on discrimination and the other common law restrictions on free speech.
But nowhere in New Zealand’s statute books will you find a “hate speech law.” In fact, the Human Rights Commission’s own report from last year states “No definition of hate speech exists under international law and definitions under national laws vary.” Seeing as Mr Hunt signed off on this report, it is surprising to see him suddenly arrive at a definition, seemingly out of nowhere.
BFD commenters on this article are invited to suggest other forms of wokery they fear from this untrammelled new Labour Government.
Meanwhile, what does this entail for the Opposition parties, National and the resurgent ACT? The obvious answer is constant vigilance for even the slightest signs of wokery to which they must respond with immediate and repeated rebuttal. What National and ACT may lack in numbers in Parliament, they must more than balance with force of argument, backed with policy alternatives that restore order, common sense and fiscal integrity. Their opposition must be more than critical: it must be constructive and detailed enough to persuade the electorate of their readiness and ability to re-grasp the reins of political power in 2023.
Between them, Judith Collins for National, and David Seymour for ACT, have demonstrated the qualities of leadership necessary to inspire their respective caucus colleagues to hold Labour to account and to sweep up any loose crumbs that the Greens may be permitted to drop.
It promises to be an intriguing next three years! Hopefully, with the coronavirus pandemic behind us, we can return to making New Zealand once again Godzone!
If you enjoyed this BFD article please share it.
