Filibuster

I was going to talk about their coverage of the Napier tragedy. Then I thought about their coverage of Rankin's appointment or the Melissa Lee fiasco. But the filibuster happened first and this TV3 story got my gander up.

The filibuster has a long history going back to ancient Rome - although it seems the Yanks were the first to use the term. While it's often seen as a form of grandstanding - a way of making a point - it is also a tool to try and force the hand of the majority in the house. The tactic has a long history in New Zealand and National used it in the last parliament to make their point about the Electoral Finance Bill.

It would seem that the Opposition's main purpose in Parliament this weekend is to slow down the bills setting up the new Auckland city council structure. They're also using it to make their points. There is no doubt that we know a lot more about the content of these bills because of Labour's decision to filibuster but there is so much more we could know. We won't find out by watching TV3.

I think this sort of reporting is a bloody insult. New Zealanders are woefully ill informed about their own democratic process. A sort of "bloody politicians" syndrome is endemic. This concerns me because I think this sort of apathy works against constructive and active participation in the democratic process and I can't see the point in a democratic process if not everyone participates. I think it's bred of ignorance and is actively reinforced by commercial media because there's so much entertainment value in reducing the activities of the legislature to some sort of game.

TV3 (and most of the other news outlets, actually) have a wonderful opportunity in this current debate to inform people about the Parliamentary process. About the history of filibustering and it's uses in New Zealand. About the select committee process. About the REASONS for the current situation. Instead they turn it into a sort of jokey, reality TV report.

If TV3 had used even a fraction of the resources on this subject that they did rushing TV stars to be "at the scene" of the Napier tragedy( even though they couldn't add anything more to our knowledge of the situation than the usual 20 year old reporters) we could have had some interesting coverage. But they didn't. Shame, really.

P.S.
Interestingly, one of the most famous and longest running filibusters in history was also over a local body amalgamation and the parallels between that process and ours (and Mike Harris and Rodney Hide) are illuminating.

So, I'll start with some context. I write this in my lounge in a small cottage in a quiet country road near Richmond. Autumnal fruit trees cut silhouettes from the glare of a low afternoon sun. Fantails gorge themselves on midges in the shade of my porch. Shags and herons circle the paddocks outside as they return from the estuary to their roost in the huge oak trees that line our dead end lane. Marty is interviewing The Dead C on our ancient (but pretty cool) radiogram. A batch of green tomato chutney bubbles on the stove.

And me? If you care - I'm middle aged, under-educated and I work in the non-profit sector. I don't get to hang out on the aforementioned porch as much as I'd like and I work harder than I want to. I grow veges, go fishing on the local beach occassionally and drink at my local on rugby nights. I don't bother with pets. I don't believe in any gods but I am in awe of the universe. I enjoy a bit of sport on the telly, books about stuff (currently and belatedly, Salt), good theatre (not that there's much in this neck of the woods), a bit of alt. country, dumb old seventies and eighties albums, stupid American crime programmes, sci-fi films, playing music with friends and - what's it called? neo-expressionism? Euan McDougall - that sort of thing. I suppose I'm a social democrat.

I "suppose" because I don't really know. Not because I don't know what I believe politically but because I don't know how it fits into the current political milieu.I know what I'm not. I'm not a Torie. I'm not a Socialist. I'm not a neo-conservative.

In a different time I would probably have been a Labour man. But many the decisions of the last couple of Labour governments have infuriated me in the way they pandered to a socially conservative electorate and the current imperialist tendencies of the international community.

So politically I believe in individual freedom. I believe in social justice - not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality. I believe everyone has the right to equal opportunity. I don't believe the "market" delivers all of the freedoms, justice and equality to which all citizens are entitled. I believe governments have a role to play in this process. I also believe that governments (countries - nations) have right to sovereignty over how they deliver these fundamentals to their citizens. So, I believe in paying taxes. I believe in solidarity. I believe all citizens have a role to play and a responsibility to carry a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.

So, that's the context. That's the filter through which I will try to view our society. I'll rant a bit. I'll write about stuff I find interesting. I'll try to be entertaining.

A penguin walks into a bar. He says "Have you seen my brother?". The barman says "I don't know. What does he look like?"