(First published in The Dominion Post, October 19.)
IT’S A LONG TIME since the
New Zealand trade union movement had a leader as forceful and articulate as Council
of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly.
Like her late father Pat, a fiery
Irish Marxist from Liverpool, she’s a fighter who gives the impression of never
taking a backward step. She would have been brought up to regard compromise as the
dirtiest word in the English lexicon.
It may not always be the wisest
approach politically, but no one would ever die wondering which side she’s on –
which is not something that could be said of all her predecessors.
Fintan Patrick Walsh, the
power behind the Federation of Labour in the 1950s and 60s, was a bully and a
tyrant who didn’t hesitate to crush fellow unionists if they got in his way or
dared to defy him.
The wily Sir Tom Skinner was viewed
with distrust by many of his union brethren, who suspected him of making secret
late-night trips to Parliament to do deals with the Tory enemy over a bottle of
whisky.
Jim Knox was well-liked and well-meaning
but out of his depth. A man of limited education, he had a simplistic view of
industrial relations that was inadequate for the turbulent times.
Ken Douglas, a Soviet-aligned
communist, inherited a union movement in upheaval following the economic
reforms of the 1980s. For his attempts to hold a splintering movement together,
he was branded a traitor to the working class – a label that dogs him to this
day among some old-school unionists.
Ross Wilson was the first CTU
president of a new breed: university-educated, quietly spoken and almost
bookish. He did a conscientious job, but it was hard to imagine him storming
the barricades.
Kelly combines the best
attributes of some of her predecessors. Like Wilson she has a law degree, but
she doesn’t hesitate to wade into a brawl, as was evident during the 2010
dispute over The Hobbit.
But she will almost certainly
never see unions regain the strength they enjoyed (and abused) in the 1970s,
the era she recently said she would most like to go back to. * * *
IT MAY be happening largely
out of the public gaze, but that doesn’t mean the review of New Zealand’s
constitutional arrangements isn’t being closely watched.
Critics of the constitutional
review accuse it of working towards a predetermined outcome that will see the
Treaty of Waitangi entrenched as supreme law and judges given powers to strike
down any law deemed to be in breach of Treaty “principles”.
The National Party agreed to
the review as part of its deal with the Maori Party after the last election. As
New Zealand First Party leader Winston Peters pointed out, there was no public demand
for it; it arose out of opportunistic political horse-trading. Such are the
flaws of the MMP system.
Critics are also suspicious
of the review panel’s composition. Although it’s co-chaired by respected law
academic John Burrows, it appears disproportionately weighted toward Maori. Sir
Tipene O’Regan is the other co-chair and Dr Ranginui Walker is one of the four
other Maori members.
Mr Peters is not alone in
expressing misgivings. In fact alarm bells are being rung right across the
political spectrum.
Former Act MP Muriel Newman
is campaigning against the review and left-wing political commentator Chris
Trotter wrote a scathing column in this paper pointing out that the supremacy
of parliament – a central tenet of our constitutional arrangements – was under
threat.
The fact that the review
panel has so far operated largely out of the public view has done little to
allay the critics’ suspicions, but the panel’s website now lists a range of
organisations that it has been having “conversations” with. Openness is surely
the best approach if it wants to reassure people there’s nothing to be afraid
of.
Well, that’s one way of
looking at it. An alternative view is that we should never be allowed to forget
them; that it would, in fact, dishonour their memory if we allowed ourselves to
push their hideous deaths out of our collective conscience.
I have no doubt Ms Turia is sincerely
committed to ending violence toward Maori kids, but you have to wonder whether
her commitment is shared by everyone in Maoridom.
Many Maori leaders are quick
to demand redress for supposed Pakeha wickedness but are strangely mute when it
comes to denouncing appalling behaviour by their own people. If it discomforts them to be
confronted constantly with evidence of the outrages perpetrated on Maori
children, surely that’s no bad thing.
I find the current constitutional review to one of the most disturbing aspects of the current political scene. It's deeply disturbing that such an unbalanced panel is considering such an important aspect of our future and the secrecy with which this is happening points yet again to how poor our media is at following anything of any long term nature. I expect the resulting recomendations with be almost entirely exclusive instead of inclusive as they should be. With the Waitangi Tribunal we have already set the stage for parlaiment to be superseded by the courts. The coming battle over water will surely point the direction here.
ReplyDelete