A different reality
Jacinda Ardern’s decision to take a walk down the steps of Parliament on Monday was well intentioned, but is symbolic of the Government’s confusion around managing an economy.
In what may be a first, the prime minister personally went to greet representatives of Greenpeace and receive a petition calling for the end of oil exploration.
Few seriously doubt that oil and gas is a sunset industry. But there still is genuine debate about whether New Zealand has the gas reserves in operational fields to manage the transition away from fossil fuels.
Much of New Zealand’s industry relies on gas, as does the electricity sector. Most of our electricity generation is renewable, but it is gas that gives the system security.
Few would rather see their granny sitting in the cold than burn gas if parts of the transmission network fell over.
But Ardern has created problems of precedent (how to decide which other groups deserve such a greeting) as well as expectation.
The symbolism of the Greenpeace rally was the type of theatre many groups try to manufacture at Parliament, but few manage.
Standing in front of posters of Norman Kirk, David Lange and Helen Clark, who had all made historic environmental moves, as well as a poster of herself, Ardern volunteered that she had delayed attending a state lunch to deliver such an important message.
‘‘We’re working hard on this issue and we know that it’s one that we can’t afford to spend much time on.’’
Ardern gave an air of immediacy, but the Government is clearly not in a position to comment.
Hours after Ardern accepted the petition she gave a much more ‘business as usual’ message to Parliament’s Press Gallery, even distancing herself from what may have been seen as a snub to the Indonesian president.
Unlike the other controversies of recent weeks, where Ardern has been justifying the positions of her colleagues, this was a storm entirely of her own making.
The prime minister, who labelled climate change as her generation’s nuclear free moment, is now in an almost impossible position, for little political gain.
She has to either call a permanent end to oil exploration in New Zealand, whether the economy is ready or not, or face accusations of hypocrisy.
Pressure from Greenpeace will only mount. Cancelling the 2018 block offer, under which exploration space is offered to oil companies, will not be enough if the door is opened to future exploration.
Instead, we may not know the Government’s plans, for weeks or months.
For the industry this creates major uncertainty, the significance of which Labour seems to struggle to appreciate.
Businesses, by and large, are better at coping with bad news than they are at coping with uncertainty. You cannot plan for it or adapt to it.
Cameron Madgwick, the chief executive of lobby group Pepanz, seemed more concerned about the lack of clarity, pointing out that whatever one took from the Greenpeace meeting, Labour’s stated policy suggested an ongoing role for exploration.
It was not even the only time this week that a major part of the economy was put on notice that the operating conditions are much less certain now than they were under National.
What began with Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones berating a mid-level Air New Zealand employee at Kerikeri Airport on Friday escalated to the airline’s chief executive being told to keep out of politics and a suggestion the chairman should be removed.
Jones carries no actual power in respect of Air New Zealand, but he is a highly influential character.
In criticising the airline for cutting back regional services, he is delivering an opinion shared by many people in regional New Zealand.
But that delivery is the problem. Perhaps Air New Zealand should be pressured to improve its regional connections. Perhaps such pressure could be partly subsidised by cash from the $1 billion a year provincial development fund which Jones manages. If regional connectivity is really as important as many people think, it may not be the worst use of the money.
Instead, though, the Government gives symbolic gestures and name calling.
Ardern ruled that Jones had gone a ‘‘step too far’’ in calling for the sacking of Air New Zealand’s chairman, but that is hardly a full rebuke.
Other industries may be getting nervous, at a time when business confidence is already low.
The electricity sector, where the Government has a controlling share in three of the four biggest players, may wonder what influence ministers will wield. How long before the hugely profitable banking sector gets a serve from a Cabinet minister?
The Government has every right to take action against any part of the economy it chooses. But in a series of recent episodes it has delivered nothing.
If Ardern’s Government is going to be more interventionist, as it has promised it will, then it should spend a little more time working on its plans and warning the industry, rather than making political statement with no back-up.
Have we calmed down after the unfortunate event at the Young Labour youth camp, or are we still trembling at its implications?
I have woken to a world in which nobody commenting on the unfortunate event was ever young and stupid, or had ever been drunk, least of all been drunk and made an ass of themselves. No, this has been something new and terrifying, as opposed to predictable.
This was sex, is the news here, or an intimation of. Among young people who’d been tenderly sheltered since birth from its undignified reality. From a frank look at an orchid. From the infuriating small flies of summer blatantly having it off on a kitchen bench. From life without fly spray if you will.
They have been warned of much peril by theoretical sex education from a young age, and free contraception should they wish to do the practical – but why would they bother?
They have lived in a world free of pornography of the most graphic kind, and curiosity has not led one of them into Internet sites with strange names. Though brothels may be in the centre of town, they have been told they are boarding schools for older girls with caring uncles.
Not one movie they have seen has included a hint of people getting their clothes off, or into bed other than to sleep. Their hormones have been squashed flat by vegan diets. Hip hop lyrics are incomprehensible to them. They are as pure as tap water.
And along came a boy from God knows where, a few years older than four young people, who, after too many drinks, or so we gather, shoved his hand down some of their pants. Nobody filmed the series of events on their mobile phone and downloaded it on to the Internet, which would be a first in one reality I’m aware of.
It would have been annoying and a shock to be so pawed by a youth. It would have been equally infuriating to be pawed with finesse. But what seems evident is that the young male was as gauche and foolish as any anxious mother could wish. The series of unfortunate events were unlikely to lead to further, voluntary intimacy, because they were laughable. They were a child’s idea of sexual activity. He should be deeply embarrassed. He may cringe at the memory for the rest of his life.
Should police have been involved? Do they have nothing more urgent to do than monitor the inept exploratory behaviour of the young while hapless dairy owners are harassed and beaten by louts looking to steal fags? Or should the series of events have been dealt with quietly, so as not to inflate their seriousness and magnify any possible harm?
I’m with Crusher Collins on this. She has criticised Labour for not advising the parents of all the young people involved. That would have led to a curtailing of freedom for all of them, probably, a wise move since they should be protected from groping, which, remember, was never known to happen among young people until that youth camp.
Not even at the Bible Class Camps that Christian girls I was at school with whispered about in hushed tones and with much giggling. No, there was an absence of that among these young people’s parents, Crusher’s friends, and mine. In our youth we were far too busy china painting.
The young male should be pilloried, charged with criminal offences, targeted by every interfering agency we can throw at him. He should be publicly named and shamed. Jail wouldn’t be out of the question. Meanwhile, the young women should be counselled for trauma, which they may have come to believe they have experienced. You can’t make too big a thing of this.
The camp could have been better run. Eagle-eyed adults could have watched the young people in shifts, 24 hours a day. There could (should) have been no alcohol at all. Males and females could have been kept apart at all times, for decorum’s sake, other than to play healthy, supervised games of noughts and crosses.
Nobody would have been groped, stupid, drunk, or annoyed. And nobody would have attended in the first place. In our more usual reality, what would we make of that?
Unlike the other controversies of recent weeks, where Ardern has been justifying the positions of her colleagues, this was a storm entirely of her own making.
It would have been annoying and a shock to be so pawed by a youth.