Last week’s adjournment debate in Parliament was mostly pretty predictable stuff. No one should have been surprised at the attempts to rewrite history in the PM’s speech, for example.
The techniques used by our Communicator-in-Chief are worth looking at closely, though, as it’s always good to peek behind the curtain. Seeing how the ‘magic’ really happens is key to keeping authorities at least somewhat honest.
First, consider how in Ardern’s final Parliamentary speech she told her coalition’s founding tale:
“This Government was formed because we believed that New Zealand could be and should be better and kinder”.
Actually, that government was formed because Labour was selected to lead it. Yes, “selected”. We don’t need to agree on the virtues and vices of MMP to know that that’s exactly what happened following the last election. Apart from the usual kindness schtick, what’s going on here is that Ardern is muddying the waters of collective intention (“we believed”) with individual action (Winston Peters’s post-election selection).
Another convenient lapse of memory could be seen in Ardern recounting that “from the moment that we emerged from negotiations with our confidence and supply agreement and our coalition agreement, it was clear to New Zealand where those issues were, where the consensus was, for this Government”. The points of consensus may or may not have been clear at that time but soon enough they became very unclear. BFD readers will recall enough examples of dissent and disagreement to be sceptical about how much consensus existed in the first place. Again, though, the lesson can be learned: you might tell the truth but it needn’t be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Next, consider Ardern’s use of euphemism:
“Despite being one of the purest forms of MMP Government that New Zealand has seen for some time, we have made landmark decisions.”
How interesting that it was despite – not because of – the government’s form that it was supposedly so decisive. Purity is a concept that’s usually laden with positive connotations but it’s harder to govern when parties have relatively similar numbers of MPs. Ardern wants to have her cake and eat it too, of course, so claims on the one hand that her government is “pure” but then, on the other hand, seeks credit for being decisive despite that disadvantage.
The other obvious obfuscation was her grab bag of climate change gestures. It’s worth quoting at length:
“We passed the zero carbon Act and set up a framework for the future, carbon budgets that I know will make a difference for generations to come. Early on, we made a decision to look forward, to set a path around fossil fuel extraction in New Zealand that said there would be no further offshore oil and gas exploration. We invested in Taranaki and their transition plan, opening a new energy research centre and investing in a hydrogen roadmap for the future of New Zealand. We came to a landmark agreement with primary producers over dealing with some of the biggest contributors to our emissions profile in New Zealand.”
These are almost entirely plans to make plans. For all the talk of an urgent climate crisis, this Green-girded government has achieved little more than frameworks, budgets, paths, roadmaps and agreements.
Because all this reflects the liberal-left love of big government, it could be classified as self-deception as much as propaganda designed to mislead the masses. Still, it’s worth knowing that such a long list of apparent actions will persuade plenty of potential Labour and Green supporters.
After all, it will only be when enough Kiwis peek behind the curtain of this government that we’ll see curtains for them.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please share it.
