The People's Choice: The contemporary conservative voters’ faith in the policies of their Prime Minister is no more susceptible to being undermined by dissident journalism than their predecessors’ was by militant unionism. New Zealanders, it seems, will forgive many sins in the name of maintaining stability and preserving prosperity.
A HOT WAR in Korea. Record prices for New Zealand’s
agricultural exports. Overseas shipping companies waxing wrathful over
restrictive practices and unneedful delays. A belligerent trade union unwilling
to back down. A National Government slowly recovering the use of its political
muscles after 14 years on the Opposition benches. Mix all these factors
together and something’s bound to happen.
And something did.
The Waterfront Dispute of 1951 is remembered now (when it is
remembered at all) as a mighty industrial stoush. The Watersiders and their
allies squaring-off against the ship-owners and the first National Government
under Sid Holland – a man every bit as belligerent as the watersiders’ leader,
Jock Barnes.
Not surprisingly, Sid Holland won.
But that was then and this is now. Sixty-three years on, who
cares? In 2014, “organised labour” is a fading historical memory. Today, outside
the public sector, barely one worker in ten carries a union card. For young, twenty-first
century Kiwis, the tales of ’51 might just as well be the tales of Ancient
Greece.
Except it’s not the tale of the Watersiders’ heroic defeat
that I want to tell. That’s an old story and Dick Scott told it much better
than I ever could in his book 151 Days.
No, the story I’m interested in is the story of how New Zealanders reacted to
the events of 1951. And that is a story with some very distinct contemporary
echoes.
This is how the veteran broadcaster, Gordon Dryden,
remembered 1951 in his memoir Out of the
Red:
“In my view the emergency regulations introduced on 26
February 1951 slashed at everything I believed in about journalism. It became
against the law to report both sides of the story of the biggest industrial
dispute in New Zealand history. It became against the law to make donations to
help feed the families of workers who were on strike. It became unlawful for
opponents of the Government to hold meetings.”
Dryden, in 1951, “was much more concerned with the issue of
press freedom and democracy.”
But these were not the concerns of a clear majority of New
Zealanders: 54 percent of whom delivered a resounding endorsement of Sid
Holland’s draconian regulations by casting their votes for the National Party
in the Snap Election of 1 September 1951.
And it wasn’t only the ordinary voters who declined to be
outraged by the National Government’s sudden and unprecedented curtailment of
civil liberties. In 1951, New Zealand boasted dozens of daily newspapers, but
not one editor or proprietor prepared to put his freedom on the line for the
freedom of the press. Nor was there a single judge willing to tender his
resignation rather than enforce a law which would not have been out of place in
Stalin’s Russia.
But, that was then.
In August 2014, the investigative journalist, Nicky Hager,
published a book exposing the manner in which a person employed in the office
of the Prime Minister, and Judith Collins, the Minister of Justice, colluded
with a prominent right-wing blogger and a slew of working journalists to
undermine, discredit and attack opponents of John Key’s National Government.
The many thousands of New Zealanders who read Mr Hager’s Dirty Politics were convinced that its revelations
could not fail to erode the voters’ support for Mr Key and his colleagues. Like
Gordon Dryden, their concerns were about “the issue of press freedom and
democracy”.
But, they were wrong.
The contemporary conservative voters’ faith in the policies
of their Prime Minister is no more susceptible to being undermined by dissident
journalism than their predecessors’ was by militant unionism. New Zealanders,
it seems, will forgive many sins in the name of maintaining stability and preserving
prosperity.
Not even the news that, just twelve days after the 2014
election, Mr Hager’s house was subjected to a 10-hour search by five police
officers, responding to the complaint of the right-wing blogger whose hacked
e-mails constitute the core of the Dirty
Politics exposé, is likely to impair the celebratory temper of the
conservative Kiwi voter.
In his celebrated essay, Fretful
Sleepers, written in the months following the 1951 confrontation, the New
Zealand writer, Bill Pearson, observed:
“The New Zealander delegates authority, then forgets it ...
There is no one more docile in the face of authority.”
If that was true then, is it still true now?
This essay was originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 10 October 2014.
Niemoller springs to mind....
ReplyDelete“we may not be able to defeat them, but WE don’t have to join them” Bob Dylan is reported saying to writer Hunter Thompson about US politicians.
ReplyDeleteMany New Zealanders would agree with him. And hundreds able to do so have put action before rhetoric and have donated to Mr Hager’s legal fund–$45,000 as of today.
Even Fran O’Sullivan, while late to the party, has noted that the plods have targeted Nicky Hager while keeping their attention off the alleged cuprits of an SFO ‘fit up’ revealed in “Dirty Politics”. In admissions of her personal stake in this she possibly avoids charges of duplicity.
Yes, there is a huge recalcitrant lump of willfully boneheaded kiwis, and there are smaller numbers made of sterner more enquiring stuff, determined the truth will out. The dirty tricks revelations I predicted before the election would be a slow burner, the shell fish placed in the PMs car door panel so to speak.
Key did not do what a decent Prime Minister would do so must be held to account by all available other means.