The Labour Party’s constitutional changes have given more say, and power to the members.
It has, they say, made the party more democratic. Although quite how allowing organisations more power than individuals can be described as democratic is debatable.
Regardless of that, members are having more say and unfortunately for the party’s PR machine, that is what is getting the publicity from this weekend’s conference.
Yesterday Stuff published some of the more radical proposals including one that would force the candidate selection committee to consider a range of factors, including sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, disability and age, to ensure they are “fairly” represented in the party.
. . . But there are a raft of other controversial remits to be debated at the conference that will turn the focus on Labour’s social agenda.
They include a radical change to abortion laws that seems to take doctors out of decision-making and give a pregnant woman “the opportunity and freedom to make the best decision for her own circumstances”. . .
Other proposals are:
* Maori language made compulsory in state schools and teachers required to be competent in te reo
* Privatised state assets renationalised with compensation based on “proven need”
* The Government’s roads of national significance project dumped and the funds put into public transport
* Teaching of civics and democracy mandatory for all schoolchildren
* Laws to discourage excessive alcohol consumption, a review of the purchasing age, alcohol availability and an increase in the price of booze
* Prisoners again getting the right to vote
* A national sex and sexuality education programme dealing with sexual diseases, contraception methods, consent, sexual orientation and gender identity
* New Zealand becoming a republic
* An apology for the Foreshore and Seabed Act passed in 2004
* A prohibition on school boards of trustees restricting same-sex partners from attending school balls
* A Pasifika television station
* A Maori language newspaper
Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson agrees the apology should be issued:
“I am glad that almost a decade after passing this shameful piece of legislation, which denied access to the courts to people based on race, the Labour Party is ready to discuss an apology,” Mr Finlayson said.
The National government repealed the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2011 with the support of the Māori Party and United Future, and restored the right of Māori to go to court through the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act.
“I would suggest that the Labour leadership also apologise for their the party’s abysmal treatment of Tariana Turia because of her principled stand over the issue,” he said.
“While they are at it, they should apologise for the way Helen Clark called Dr Pita Sharples, a man who has devoted his life to improving Māori educational achievement, a ‘hater and a wrecker’.”
“They should apologise that Ms Clark deliberately snubbed the 35,000 New Zealanders who made a hikoi to Parliament to protest that discriminatory legislation, preferring to pose for a photo opportunity with Shrek the sheep.”
“At the same time, Labour may wish to say sorry for the way Treaty of Waitangi settlements stalled almost completely during their nine years in power – averaging 1.6 settlements per year, and needlessly delaying the resolution of these grievances for the good of the country. Last year, the government signed 15 deeds of settlement with iwi, only one fewer than Labour’s total for nine years in office.”
This has brought out several helpful suggestions in social media about other apologies Labour should make, including one to Shrek, although as he’s dead just now that’s a bit late.
Back to the conference.
What members in any party want isn’t always consistent with the party’s philosophy and principles.
People join parties for a range of reasons among which is the desire to push a particular barrow and the party is just a vehicle for doing that.
The trouble for the party is that some of these barrows are more interesting and newsworthy than what else might be going on at the conference and therefore get attention.
The selection criteria proposal has already been watered down but not sufficiently to wash from voters’ minds the conviction that Labour is still focussed on social engineering.
It also leaves questions about what the party thinks is important and how different that is to what matters to voters.
John Armstrong writes on the conference:
. . . You could be excused thinking this might also be an opportunity for the caucus spokesmen and women in key portfolios to give some indication of their thinking even though they may not have been in those roles for very long.
Instead the conference will devote several hours to wrangling over the wording of a “policy platform” document setting out Labour’s values, vision and priorities which has already been months in the drafting.
The platform is supposed to answer that perennial question: what does Labour stand for.
You can safely bet that 99.9 per cent of all voters will never set eyes upon it, let alone read it.
This is the kind of navel-gazing exercise a party undertakes and completes in the year after an election – not a year out from the next one.
It all reinforces the impression of a party focused inwards rather than outwards.
That is underlined by the series of policy remits which deal with such pressing matters as compulsory Maori language classes in schools, apologising to Maori over the foreshore and seabed farrago, state funding of political parties (a hardy annual) and entrenching the Bill of Rights (whatever difference that would make).
Many of the items amount to wish-list policies produced by the party’s sector groups. The words “out of touch” spring to mind.
While all this navel gazing was going on, the government was getting on with what matters, including announcements on a replacement for the Teachers’ Council and the decision to not allow the damming of the Nevis River.
Even on a matter of moment – state asset sales – Labour seems to be living in the past. One proposal up for debate at yesterday’s workshops would have had a Labour government reviewing the state-owned enterprises model so that it was no longer “pro-capitalist” and enabled “workers’ participation, control and management of industry”.
The “policy proposal” would have also required Labour to “re-nationalise” every state asset privatised by the current National Government, with compensation being paid only to shareholders with “proven need”.
That is a blunt retort to Bill English’s jibe that if Labour opposes asset sales so much, why doesn’t the party commit itself to borrowing the money to buy them back.
Exactly where the line would have drawn on compensation is not clear. But there would be some mighty unhappy investors in Mighty River Power if told they were not going to get their money back. That would amount to theft – and would have seriously dented New Zealand’s credibility as a haven for foreign investment, as well as sending all the wrong messages about saving.
The proposal was voted down by delegates. The question is how it managed to make it onto the conference agenda – and why something better was not put up in its place. Sometimes political parties need protecting from themselves.
Labour’s membership may feel liberated by recent changes in the party’s rules. But more influence brings the need to act more responsibly. At some point, however, Cunliffe is going to have to lurch back to the right. It won’t happen today. But it will happen. Watch for some real fireworks within Labour when it does.
Cunliffe won the leadership on votes from members and unions and he’s been feeding them left-wing rhetoric.
Whether or not he believes what he says is difficult to fathom because he varies his message to suit his audience.
However, the impression that remains is that he and his party are lurching to the left.
That might appeal to some of those who didn’t bother to vote last time. But it will repel some who did vote for the more moderate policies promoted by Labour under Phil Goff and won’t give their votes to support a more radical left agenda.
Gains on the left flank could be lost from the centre and go to the right.
While the party is focussing on what doesn’t matter, voters are worried about what does – the economy, education, health and security.
That’s National’s focus too and it’s making a positive difference to the country as the series of good news stories grows.
Meanwhile #gigatownoamaru is focussed on becoming the Southern Hemisphere’s sharpest town,