By Chris Trotter*
Crikey! Those Aussies are pissed-off.
To appreciate just how pissed-off they are it is instructive to look back at the last time Kiwis moved against their two major parties so aggressively. In 1996, National and Labour, between them, accounted for just 62% of the Party Votes cast. Taken together, NZ First, the Alliance, Act, United Future and the Christian Coalition accounted for 34.76%. The comparison with Saturday’s vote, of which the centre-right coalition of the Liberal and National parties attracted just 35.4%, Labor 32.8%, and their challengers 31.8% of the Primary Vote, is compelling.
The 1996 General Election in New Zealand was the first to be conducted under the new MMP electoral system, offering electors the novel opportunity to have their political choices much more accurately reflected in the final tally of seats. The 2022 Australian federal election, by contrast, was conducted under the well-established (if complex) Compulsory Preferential Vote system. The electoral havoc wrought across the Tasman is, therefore, even more telling. Angry Australians have dealt a massive blow to the two main political groupings, along with the political culture of bullshitters and boofheads in general.
These latter accretions to the Australian political system have multiplied alarmingly over the last 25 years – and not just in the Liberal and National parties. Some of the blame undoubtedly must be sheeted home to the One Nation Party, whose founding figurehead, Pauline Hanson, somehow succeeded in transforming ignorance into a political virtue. Like her fellow populist, Donald Trump, Hanson and her minders love the poorly educated – who reciprocate that love with unnerving passion.
The conservative coalition of Liberal Party toffs and National Party country bumpkins could not ignore Hanson’s vulgar intrusion into the hitherto settled politics of the Right. The Boofhead Vote was notoriously ill-disciplined, being as likely to award its second preferences to Labor as its more respectable conservative fellow-travellers. If Hanson couldn’t be beaten (and John Howard gave that option his best shot) then the only other alternative was to join her boofhead crusade.
But those second preferences came at a price. Yes, it was an unlooked-for blessing to witness the defection of that part of the Australian working-class which balked at embracing the socially-liberal supporters of feminism, multiculturalism, Aboriginal rights, sexual diversity and environmentalism who were becoming more-and-more entrenched in the Labor Party. But, how to transform Hanson’s party into a reliable electoral way-station for the Right? Part of the answer involved hitherto decent and responsible conservatives forcing themselves to pretend that these new recruits were not dyed-in-the-wool racists, sexists, homophobes and xenophobes who’d never met a lump of coal they didn’t like.
The ethical corrosion which these new electoral calculations inflicted on both the Centre-Right and the Centre-Left was devastating. By requiring their more sophisticated followers to hold their noses and adapt themselves to the needs of the Boofhead Vote, both parties had opened a pathway to power for their most ambitious and unscrupulous opportunists. Parliamentary politics, never all that refined in Australia, was coarsened still further.
Making matters worse, especially for the Liberals, was the vicious class politics at work on the Right. The upwardly-mobile working-class, and the middle-class suburban “battlers” who idolised “Little Johnny Howard”, felt keenly the lofty condescension bestowed upon them by the Liberal Party’s aristocratic grandees. Safe in their leafy, blue-ribbon redoubts (or sprawling squatter estates) these worthies felt more keenly than ever the pull of noblesse oblige. Boofhead votes were all very welcome, naturally. But, you couldn’t have boofheads running the party, or, God forbid! – occupying The Lodge!
To which the boofheads (Tony Abbot, Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison) responded: “Well see about that, mate. You just watch us.”
Morrison, this cruel and bilious man, now asks for a fourth term. He says he’s just getting started. He plans to be different. He looks out at the carnage behind him, all of it the result of his ineffectiveness and ineptitude, and says he is a bulldozer. There is no crisis that doesn’t begin and end with him imagining himself as a small boy playing with a toy truck.
The defeat of the boofheads is the victory Australia had to have.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
55 Comments
We have our own set of boofheads here ... bulldozing their way through our democracy , and forcing co-governance upon us ...
... let's pray our voters deal to Ardern in 2023 , as Aussie voters have dealt to ScoMo so decisively ... out with the arrogant tin eared boofheads !
A big part of the problem when Government is dominated by just two major parties is hidden agendas. Currently Labour have a majority which enables them to implement their hidden agenda without effective challenge (other than it will see them lose the next election). They did not campaign on Three Waters or He Pua Pua, but they are pushing these changes through.
But it's also a message to the public and other parties. Be credible, and realistic. NZF got dumped, but for all the disdain many hold Winston in, he is very good at calling out the Government on what it is doing, telling it how it is. Better, being Maori he willing calls things racist when they are anti-democratic and favour Maori over every one else. But Winston could do better as well. He sidelined Ron Marks, but pulled in Shane Jones, both big steps backwards. The Greens policies are not credible as they do appear to be able to see how they can save the planet without disinventing the wheel. There are many lessons to learn here, the question is will they get learnt?
The ALP has its own issues. Historically certainly. Whitlam’s government quickly lost any credibility. The Hawk government descended into vitriol between he and Keating. And Rudd’s lot descended into even worse self destruction. Really since WW2 only Menzies and Howard have maintained a secure and consistent seat of power. Mr Trotter in condemning the ousted leadership here should recall that Paul Keating was not at all dissimilar and in fact considerably more savage on the personal attacks. Mind you if something needed to be said he was unmatched in brevity, severity and outright insult. So here is the ALP’s 7th PM since WW2 (if you count Rudd twice) and of stark unknown quantity. Let’s just wait and see then, if he holds it together better than his predecessors.
Morrison was a religious fruitcake/bully who tolerated mysogeny and corruption and was MIA from pretty much all domestic crisis' during his term. A liberal parter staffer raped on her desk in Canberra and hushed up, the Australian of the year rape survivor wouldn't shake his hand, his Attorney General accused of rape by a young women who committed suicide. Flood victims prioritised over who they voted for etc etc
Are you aware of the prayer room?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10690853/Friendlyjordies-praye…
I think you'll find Australia is also moving towards co-governance GBH, and that will accelerate now.
An election isn't going to save you from what ever worries you have, it is enshrined in what is really our only constitutional document.
Have you noticed that nearly all Australian events, whether a concert or sporting event, now have a welcome to country and pay respect to the local clan for being on their land? The takeaway from the Australian election is that the younger generation are more progressive on issues such as climate and indigenous rights. Boomers look stale and irrelevant, you sound like you're one.
You're digging your own grave by promoting un-accountable parties taking control of taxpayer assets. It won't happen, but if it did, the results would have you wonder what you were thinking at the time. The treaty doesn't say it, I think we all know that, but it'll become clear before long.
The only tin eared ones in this argument are those who persist in refusing to acknowledge that treaty wrongs need to be put right
Co-governance is the right thing to do. What is everyone afraid of, maybe that pakeha might get dealt out a bit of what has been dealt to Maori since it was signed?
No, there is no basis for co-governance, and it's a constitutional change that is being done without mandate or reference to the electorate.
I mean we can't get a state house building program together, and our country's monetary policy is in the crapper and inflation is sprinting away, but the thing that's super important and that we must reform is the most absurd and reaching interpretation of the interpretation of the Treaty.
The Treaty is about property rights, and making good on broken promises around property rights. Using it to justify an ad-hoc constitutional framework that destroys the fundamental principles of the country that's apparently built on it seems like having your cake and eating it too.
Co-governance is anti-democratic and racist. The current Government has more Maori MPs per capita than any other ethnic group, why then do Maori need further representation?
The real issue is the quality of, and effect of economic policies that have been implemented for at least the last 30 years, and for some the last 100 or so. When our politicians are afraid to challenge big money, the international corporations and actively abet in our sovereignty being undermined, and sit by and do nothing when our national resilience is whittered away throwing crumbs to the masses is their was of trying to quell the howls of outrage.
Murray, you are all over the place. Raillng at poor economic policy, railling at Maori and co-governance, railling at international corporations.
Firstly, some form of co-governance is coming - regardless of what party is in power. You will just have to accept it. Even Gareth Morgan accepts and argues Maori have been generous in sharing resources. Maybe, just maybe, Maori having greater influence will actually benefit you as it doesn't sound like Pakeha and business have?
It's not anti-democratic to recognise Te Tiriti obligations and you cannot vote these obligations away.
Co-Governance is also against the treaty where it promises the rights and privileges of British citizens (one man one vote), so the two parts of the treaty as it is being interpreted today are in conflict. The the real problem as I indicated are generations of the impacts of poor economic policies.
As to Maori having greater benefit? I seriously doubt it as most Maori politicians have proven themselves to be just like politicians of any other origin, self-serving and arrogant, and not achieving much for the people. My point about Maori representation now is a case in point.
I would like to see solid policies designed to benefit the people, building economic resilience. Such policies would benefit Maori more as they are disproportionately disadvantaged now, but it is not a ethnicity problem it is an economic governance one that our politicians do not seem to be able to grasp, what ever colour they are red, blue or green.
Why is it so difficult to understand that a Maori politician (or any Maori for that matter) does not speak for all Maori? Do you think I look at Jacinda and think she speaks for all pakeha?? Winston Peters was more pakeha than your average pakeha, there is no way he get's to be deputy PM otherwise.
We vote for all political hues, have diverse views. What we do all agree on though is our rights under Te Tiriti (our version, not the pakeha one) and our culture.
You are putting a racial tint onto politics which I suggest is not needed. As I indicated politicians irrespective of ilk tend to be all the same, so to suggest Winston was "more pakeha" than some other is I suggest inappropriate. His race i suggest was not relevant, but his politics definitely were. Co-governance will in the end, be about politics not results irrespective of what we are told now. Such changes always are, national's privatisation of the electricity infrastructure is a case in point where we were all promised cheaper power through greater competition. Never happened. what we weren't told about was the legislated dividend paid to the government. Politics not race. Democracy is the key. Government should be more accountable to the people, all the people not just the rich few. Co-governance will not deliver that, but will entrench another group of political elites.
Democracy is the key, but will always sit beneath a constitution. I mean, how would you feel if 3 million Chinese arrived and voted out your land rights? M
My point about Winston is that he never represented Maori, which is fine. He had to walk away from his culture to get ahead. That's changing now though.
I don't agree that he had to walk away from his culture. You're imposing your values on his actions. What would you do if he said as much to you? Call him a traitor to Maori. You said it earlier, Maori vote for all parts of the political spectrum, which parts of that spectrum are not Maori culture?
Your Chinese analogy is inappropriate. European settlement in NZ occurred almost two hundred years ago, in a different time with vastly different cultures on both sides. Yes Maori were here when they arrived, but what of the people who were here when Maori arrived, where are they? We are talking about the here and now. There is not enough money to compensate people for the ills done to earlier generations. Many of the settlers were also fleeing the class system and it's impositions on them in the UK. What compensation for them? So perpetually bring those complaints up only fosters animosity and ill will, but offers no solution, were as I try to talk about solutions that benefit all going forward such as sound economic policies. I note in the NZ Herald an article today about the government panel which will likely recommend and increase in the electoral term. Will this be good for anyone other than politicians?
My Chinese analogy was a crude attempt to highlight the inconsistency in your arguement. What people were here before Maori? I think you are better than that. At the end of the day M, Maori and Pakeha signed a Treaty where Maori retained ownership of significant area's of our natural resources. That has to, and will be, honoured.
I really don't see the objection to co-governance, it's an emotive word that many seem to be building up an irrational fear of. You are driving a wedge between pakeha and Maori which is unnecessary. We are entwined as one nation, we should be moving forward together in partnership.
Kupe the great navigator is cited in many stories about seeing the smoke from the hearth fires of those who were here before him. And I have been told other accounts of people who Maori found here when they arrived. It is not politically popular for it to be acknowledged. The treaty breaches over lands occurred more than three generations ago (around 100 years). It cannot be undone unless you are prepared to create more animosity, and where will that end? Before the pakeha arrived Iwi were at war with each other, that is why some tribes signed the treaty, to gain the protection that it offered. Would you go back to that?
I am not driving the wedge, it is Maori who are by demanding it. My demand is for equality and democracy of which co-governance is neither.
Maybe a Maori minoritarian oligarchy will benefit me in some way. That's not really the point though. I don't want an oligarchy, I want a democracy. To be honest, I don't even particularly care if this kind of "partnership" is really the true principle behind the Treaty. If it is, then we should attempt to replace the Treaty with something else. And I'd hope that enough Maori would agree with that important principle: political equality.
You cannot "democracy" away Te Tiriti, it is as fundamental a founding document as we have and you don't get to replace it because you don't like it.
We are a democracy, but that sit's subservient to Te Tiriti.
We both know that we are beyond thae point of no return on co-governance. You cannot challenge it in public life, you will be cancelled. Any party that campaigns on it will be black-listed internationally. You think I'm joking, read about the banker who said he wasn't fearful of climate change...
https://www.ft.com/content/8e1a16ea-bf63-45f8-81af-dc41c0df4e06
It was not until after the Aussie election I "learnt" that it fought on climate change and other progressive issues, as NZ's MSM informed us of this (very much after the election result).
I thought it was about the narrative of cronyism, corruption and incompetence of the previous government competing against the Murdock press engine. Such as Scomo being absent during the bush fires and flooding. (Labour ran with a less ambitious climate policy than the election before.)
What it was fought on turned out out be irrelevant, the three main parties only got ~65% of the vote. Independent candidates took blue chip seats such as Wentworth - Australia's wealthiest electorate.
Labour only got in because of the priority voting system, they actually lost votes from the last election. They were "less bad". This result was all to do with climate, the treatment of women and Western Australia.
How is that anything other than having low confidence or moral with the two party system. Sure, you can read into the high number of Greens first votes (12% is very significant) but they have only got two seats so far with a few more possibles I guess. I'm not sure what to make of first votes in STV if the candidate has no real chance (I don't know the Aus mentality on this and compulsory voting), it could be a serious indication is it virtue signalling.
According to Albanese’s victory speech the mandate for climate spending depends on his ability to provide economically for the working class (which part of this does the electorate really want?). Aussie media are not focusing on climate change (Murdock bias?), WA had a number of reasons to dislike the previous government. I still think the election was won on lack of confidence in future crisis management and grievances from the previous crises.
I don't think people virtue signal in the polling booth, it would be the opposite if anything. I saw a few reports that climate change, female voting and WA were the swing factors. The LNP were nowhere on climate, in fact still applying a luxury car tax to EV's when most countries subsidise them.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-22/vote-compass-federal-election-is…
That's an ABC online poll but it does support the climate issue ("Government accountability and operations" is an difficult category to select for crisis management). If luxury car tax is an issue then I guess they really are doing much better than here. If they really are not concerned about the cost of living then politics might well be on the climate. There is more to politics than polices and I don't think "vote compasses" capture that very well at all.
WA is all about covid and McGowan vs the govt.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/22/western-australi…
cant see Albanese lasting a year -- be rolled by his own party before then - if not loosing a vote of No Confidence -- Short of a majority -- and only so long the blue/greens will allow him before starting to hack at his knees --
Wont take too long to see the profligate spending promised make an impact -- and how on earth can he balance the green agenda -- with digging resources out of the ground -- which is basically their entire economy ( mirrors NZ - Dairy and various Agriculture ) is Coal and other minerals
Cue Aud$$ drop -- inflation increasing - balance of payments dropping -- added to the already huge unrest and social disruption -- 1 year tops !
... under ScoMo the profligate spending has taking the Aussie debt load to over $A 1 trillion ... can't see Albanese being able to top that largesse ...
Mirrored here in NZ by Robbo pushing our government debt out to $NZ 140 billion ... another $ 37 billion to be added over the next 4 years from last weeks budget ...
Please Gummy - are you saying a Labour led government anywhere in the world will cut spending and borrowing ? Yeah Right !
And totally agree -- i dont mind increased spending or borrowing -- if its for a long term sustainable gain -- but food parcels, emergency housing, and one of $350 freebies -- is not investing in the long term -- which i would expect should be a key criteria for any government borrowing!
Trotter uses the term Boofheads 20 times in a derogatory way and clearly sees them as a nuisance. Reminds me of Hilarys Deplorables. But ill-informed people come from all colours of the political spectrum. A democratic society is made up of all types and everyone deserves one vote that is equal to all other votes. Ignore that fact and we will become more divided.
That Carlos reminds me of my cadet army training. The normal red faced RSM bawled at our platoon “don’t put it out if you can’t take it in.” That mystified all us then, but some way down the track, having made my fair share of presumptuous blunders, I got it onboard alright.
One Winning Candidate - Kate Chaney independent for WA seat Curtin- has some close links with a former NZ Prime Minister.
Kate Chaney is the daughter of Michael Chaney who is chairman of the Wesfarmers Board (own Bunnings). Our own former PM Bill English has been a board member on the Wesfarmers board since 2018.
Poor old CT, still trundling out his left leaning learnings & what's more, gets paid for them by this august publication, so he must be good right? His point about none of the political choices on offer doing particularly well is a good one, but this has been happening in the West, especially European West, for many years already. The Aussies are just catching up. The Yanks are worse. It would be so here as well, if it weren't for a masterful display by JA in 2020 before she started getting everything wrong very shortly thereafter. Which is exactly what one poster has already suggested may be the path for Albo over the coming months. Certainly Labour Party history pretty much everywhere [since 1945] suggests this too will be an interesting period for a government with a little over a third of the first choice vote.
The real problem perhaps is that no one on any side has the answers any more.
I am somewhat surprised that this article made the cut given previous censorship of personally insulting or personal attacks made by commentators in these columns. While not having any love for some of the liberal national leaders in Australia to see them insulted like this is surprising in this forum , I don't believe this would have been published if the same description was given of our existing leaders here .
Absolutely right FF. Trotter's essays, in this site at least are usually elegant and worth a read even if one doesn't share his political philosophies. It seems increasingly common that our intelligentsia treat the common herd with lofty disdain. In past times through army service and (in this country at least) through family links to farmer cousins/uncles etc., we all came to realise that even the most lowly have their stories and skills which can be respected.
The NZ Labour Party itself shows increasingly a bigger and bigger gulf between "the worker" (once a term of great pride) and "his betters", from academic or civil servant background. Little wonder the scorned turn to "boofheads", as Trotter so refers?
CT loves raking over the tea leaves, to summarise, and to find simple explanations, but like most seers he gets it wrong as many times as he is right.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.