Espiner On National

Guyon Espiner has a good piece in this month’s North&South, taking a look at what a National government may look like if they are successful in this year’s general election. Espiner quite rightly points out that National still has a large number of MPs who were part of the 1990s National administration that pushed through many far right policies:

“Say these names aloud: Nick Smith, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, Tony Ryall, Tau Henare, Georgina te Heuheu, Clem Simich, David Carter, Bill English and Murray McCully. If those names sound eerily familiar it’s because they were all ministers in the 1990s National-led government that New Zealanders were thoroughly sick of by the end of that decade.”

It is hard to imagine a National government in which these MPs would not play a significant part, and that should be worrying given their role in National’s policy agenda during the 1990s. Indeed, Espiner makes exactly that point when he says:

“The trouble for National is that many of those with ministerial experience are the same ones who were pushing for the far right agenda which found the party so off-side with middle New Zealand last time they occupied the Beehive”.

I am very sceptical that, given such personalities still being present in the National Party caucus, National can really pursue a more centrist agenda post-election. Espiner mentions two such personalities. Of Lockwood Smith, Espiner says:

“Lockwood Smith, if he had his way, would end nuclear free policy by morning tea time”

This would appear impossible given Key’s emphatic affirmation of New Zealand’s current nuclear free policy and his assurances that the status quo will continue under any National government he leads, but that may change once National is in power.  

Then on Tony Ryall, Espiner states:

“Jenny Shipley used to joke that she had to check daily with State Owned Enterprise Minister Tony Ryall to see which assets he’d sold”

National has been trying to stay clear of any policy announcements on privatisation, but their slow response to the Government’s moves to block the sale of Auckland Airport indicates that their 1990’s agenda is still alive and well. Although this is unlikely to be a portfolio managed by Ryall, his deceitfulness over National’s plans to remove the cap on doctor’s fees shows he is not to be trusted.

All in all, a supposedly fresh, new National government would still contain many of the worn, old faces of the 90s, and New Zealanders need to decide whether they want to keep moving forward with Labour, or return to the 1990s with National.

 

Powered by Qumana

Where Is National’s “Personal Responsibility”?

The Herald on Sunday makes a good point on National’s opposition to the Public Health Bill currently progressing through the House. In its editorial, the paper states:

“Tony Ryall proved up to the task of concocting the obvious soundbite when he said this was “Helen Clark getting into your pantry”. It plugged neatly into a widespread public perception of this administration as too ready to interfere in private lives, but it quite avoids the issue.”

It is certainly saddening when opposition to what is a pressing health concern is reduced to unintelligent catch phrases, instead of the in-depth discussion and critique that such an issue demands. National’s framing of its opposition to the Bill as a matter of “personal responsibility” cuts straight to its core belief that a little “responsibility” on the part of the individual will solve all of society’s ills. But, as The Herald indicates, this quite avoids the wider issues at stake, including the responsibility that business must carry if a genuine attempt to fix the obesity problem is to be mounted.

National’s “Bluelibs” policy advisory group have also picked up the “personal responsibility” line in their statement on the Bill, which said:  

“The basic message is that it’s not your fault that you’re sick or soon going to be; rather it’s the fault of the fast food chains and liquor companies.“

This kind of thinking just defies all logic and commonsense. It suggests that any onus for responsibility rests solely on the individual, while fast food chains are completely blameless. As a qualified nutritionist, I know only too well that the reality, however, is quite the opposite. There is certainly much more to obesity than simple “personal choice”. Genetics, socio-economic status, food costs, and the way foods are marketed and advertised all play a part in the obesity epidemic. Any approach to tackling obesity must target all of these factors if it is to be successful.

In all of this “personal responsibility” rhetoric, National seem to be saying that advertising and marketing has no effect on the choices one makes; this despite a whole field in academia dedicated to studying purchasing trends and developing ways to increase sales through advertising. The fact that Coca-Cola alone spends in excess of $4,000,000,000 annually in advertising its products adds huge weight to the argument that advertising works.

But advertising and marketing in itself is not the problem, rather the socially irresponsible way in which it is carried out. It is no coincidence that New Zealand’s most deprived and most vulnerable are often targeted by this advertising, and it is certainly no coincidence that the deprived feature more prominently in all negative health indicators. Why is it then that there are liquor and fast food outlets on what seems like every corner in South Auckland, yet scarcely any in New Zealand’s wealthier suburbs? And why does the Right persist in deriding these areas and their residents for their lack of “responsibility”, yet continue to totally oppose any attempt to hold business accountable for their socially irresponsible practices? If the Right’s idea of “responsibility” does not extend to all facets of society, including business, then New Zealand should be very concerned.

It is high time business was held accountable for their role in the obesity epidemic, and Labour should be applauded for taking such a stand. It is very hard to see how National’s approach of placing all onus of responsibility on the individual would make any difference in New Zealand’s obesity statistics when business is free to continue targeting its products in such an irresponsible way. How can we, in all fairness, expect people to make the more “responsible” choice when we allow that choice to be one of the hardest to make? More importantly, how can we, as “responsible” adults, expect our children to know what the more “responsible” choice is when we continue to send them mixed-messages through food advertising and marketing?

 

Powered by Qumana