I can understand why members of the current government might fall over themselves to express their repugnance for his crass definition of women.
It’s easy to say they have too much respect for women to ever refer to them thus. They can decry it as distasteful and lowering the tone of discussion. Who could possibly disagree?
But not using crass terms about women and truly caring about them are two vastly different things.
Am I the only person who laughs hollowly at any suggestion the people sitting on the government benches really give two hoots about women?
Where was their enthusiasm for us when they stood shoulder to shoulder to scupper pay equity law in May, passing it with urgency and without any attempt to afford it proper scrutiny?
They offered no real arguments to justify their position (other than not being prepared to pay), inferred some claims were not genuine and since have continued to misrepresent the comparator process even though their simplistic soundbites have been repeatedly debunked.
The crudeness and crassness they exhibited and continue to display on this is way beyond Mr Nash’s puerile outburst.
Mr Nash, who is married, with four children, including two daughters, later said his comment was crude, disrespectful and unacceptable, and took full responsibility for his actions.
He says he has immense respect for all women and ‘‘this is not who I am or what I believe, and I have let myself, my family and my friends down. I will work hard to rectify this’’.
Perhaps he could demonstrate his immense respect for all women by campaigning for a commitment to a real pay equity scheme rather than the ‘‘let’s pretend we care’’ system we have ended up with.
Yeah, nah. That wouldn’t go down well with the man likely to be his new boss, Winston Peters. He, and his fellow New Zealand First members of Parliament, blithely toed the line and voted for the changes to pay equity law.
It’s much more convenient for party members to seek headlines and spurious support by peddling faux controversy about what toilets people can use. Pretending to care about important issues has become a way of life for many of our politicians, locally and nationally. Climate change is a case in point.
As we count down to local government elections, Dunedin will not be the only place where some candidates will be claiming to care about climate change but pushing for the provision of extra carparks and stopping spending on cycleways rather than anything which might encourage carbon emission reduction.
Last week there was excitement about more domestic and international flights, but is this really a good thing? How much plane travel is too much for the environment, and how much of it is necessary? You won’t find that covered in the breathless reporting of it.
It is worth remembering emissions from international shipping and aviation are excluded from our 2050 emissions target, even though they make up about 9% of New Zealand’s net domestic greenhouse gas emissions.
Last November, after consultation, the Climate Change Commission recommended the 2050 emissions target be amended to require the inclusion of emissions from international shipping and aviation.
Including them would align New Zealand with trading partners and international industry efforts to reduce these emissions, it said.
For aviation, this would involve calculating emissions from refuelling in New Zealand based on bunker fuel use by international operators. For shipping, it would mean an estimate of 50% of emissions to/from the next overseas port by all international operators and 100% of their emissions travelling between ports in Aotearoa, and while docked.
Accepting these recommendations would not necessarily mean those sectors were included in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. That would need to be decided by the government.
As far as I can tell, the government, which is required to make a response to the commission’s report by the end of the year, has not yet given any indication of its thinking on this. I am not holding my breath for anything sensible.
Nor can we expect cohesion on climate adaptation if last week’s Newsroom reporting on the squabbling politicians from various parties at the Climate Change and Business Conference in Auckland is any indication.
Former Climate Change Commissioner Dr Rod Carr described the politicians participating in a panel discussion on the topic as acting like 2-year-olds playing peek-a-boo and failing to look the issue in the eye.
It might be encouraging to read his comments were greeted with laughter and applause, but these preschoolers with their peek-a-boo, let’s pretend behaviour are supposed to be representing us on this and many other important questions. Heaven help us.
• Elspeth McLean is a Dunedin writer.
