April 28, 2008...12:03 am
Review: Absolute Power, by Ian Wishart — Innuendo, smut and conspiracy, but bestseller material nonetheless
This is another typical Ian Wishart book written in the breathless style of a 1950s American detective novel, but about current New Zealand events.
Wishart is a journalist who cut his teeth in the 1990s exposing the Winebox affair when he worked for TVNZ before setting up his own publishing house, Howling at the Moon, which published his first and most famous book, The Paradise Conspiracy, as well as many subsequent books by himself and others.
The basic hypothesis of Absolute Power will be well known to anyone who reads Wishart’s Investigate magazine. Prime Minister Helen Clark is, he claims, corrupt and is in a marriage of convenience. Many of the details he gives to support his thesis are unsubstantiated baloney and say far more about his own obsession with Helen Clark than about her.
There is a market for this kind of trash and Wishart mines it well.
Many sleazy people move through the pages of Absolute Power, but mostly they are his shadowy “informants,” not those his book sets out to destroy, who include not just Helen Clark, but also senior police officers such as commissioner Howard Broad and his offsider Rob Pope.
This is nonetheless a readable book despite the Mickey Spillane-style purple prose the author writes in. The target audience of anti-Labour diehards will enjoy it immensely, though the cast of characters in some chapters is so vast, and the detail so intricate, that it often becomes hard to keep track of who is allegedly doing what to whom.
Three whole chapters are devoted to Wishart’s obsession with the private lives of the prime minister and her husband. Other chapters are equally obsessed with attempting to destroy police commissioner Howard Broad, another Wishart target for some time now.
For some reason of Wishart’s mindset, it was allegedly disgraceful and also Clark’s fault that former commissioner Peter Doone lost his job when the car his partner was driving was stopped by a police patrol for having its lights off on election night in 1999, but Broad did not lose his job when he allegedly went through a police roadblock in 1992. Whether or not the Broad allegation happened, Labour was not the government in 1992, something Wishart overlooks. As he overlooks, exaggerates or fantasises about many things in this book’s 336 pages and 18 chapters.
Helen Clark is an elected politician and so has to live with a book like this. Wishart is on rather shakier ground in his pursuit of the personal lives of people like the police commissioner.
While Nicky Hager’s turgid, almost-as-conspiratorial Hollow Men helped to bring about the downfall of National leader Don Brash, Absolute Power is unlikely to cause similar problems for Helen Clark. Unless I missed it somewhere, it contains no smoking gun, just a restating at great length of material Wishart has canvassed before. The mainstream media’s only interest in it to date was over the 1992 claims about Howard Broad.
It is good that we live in a democracy where someone like Ian Wishart can write such conspiratorial innuendo and smut. If we lived in the kind of country Ian seems to believe we do live in, Ian would be the first in front of the firing squad. But we don’t.
Wishart has a naïveness which is somehow appealing in a journalist, all too many of whom are bitter and cynical. This doesn’t mean I believe every word he says, or even many of them. I think he lives in Fantasyland. The X Files was and may still be his favourite TV show. But this will have no effect on his blogosphere and talkbackland fans who want to believe his every conspiratorial word, and have already made Absolute Power a bestseller.
Absolute Power, The Helen Clark Years, by Ian Wishart, Howling At The Moon, $34.99. At all bookshops. **
160 Comments
April 28, 2008 at 8:18 am
Poneke it is you who live in “Fantasyland”. Helen Clark and her husband are both homosexuals and the New Zealand police are rotten to the core. When are deluded pious creeps going to accept NZ is bad need of cleansing and the disinfectant rays of sunlight?
According to the latest Police statistics violent crime has increased by 43.6 percent since Labour has been in office, rising from 39,688 recorded cases in 1999 to 56,983 last year.
We have a society blighted by inequality ONLY because we allow a self-appointed political and legal elite to undermine our seriously flawed democracy. Why does the media that promotes this flawed democracy and concentrate their time almost entirely on the limited group who get selected for political positions, also concentrate their venom on those at the bottom of the inequality ladder while allowing the massive disparities in wealth. Oh that’s right, Miss Clark said poverty in NZ is just”extrapolated from an anecdote” and the media stool pigeons never challenge her on anything as they’re gutless wind bags.
April 28, 2008 at 9:40 am
“Helen Clark and her husband are both homosexuals…”
So what?
April 28, 2008 at 9:41 am
dad4justice
Even if they are, what actually is wrong with being homosexual? Is it your bigotry that prevetns you from maintaining a rational view of the world you live in?
Please elaborate on how democracy is seriously flawed in NZ (emphasis on the “seriously” here). Considering NZ is consistently rated as one of the most democratic countries globally, what does that then say for the rest of the world? Or does your strongly negative attitude imply that the concept of democracy is to be decried? Your blantant homophobia would indeed be in keeping with this, so perhaps you are just sore that you don’t live in a country where only people who share your bigotries have respect?
Oh, and thanks for the review, Poneke. I respect and appreciate what you have to say on your blog and your typically clear and informative blog prose makes it easy to put your review into context. Hence it has just reinforced my opinion that this really is a book I do not need to spend any time on. At all.
April 28, 2008 at 9:42 am
By all accounts of those who know & knew Mr. Wishart he was a hard living investigative journalist who had a Damascean conversion to fervent and militant Christian evangelicism. His journalism style remains; But he is now an unshakeable religious fanatic who sees it as his Godly mission to bring down those who he imagines as opposing his version of the truth.
April 28, 2008 at 10:15 am
Toward the end of last year I wrote a research paper (I work in the media analysis industry and I’m doing postgrad research in symbolic politics at VUW) on the attack discourse against Helen Clark in The First Edition, the now-defunct Radio Pacific’s breakfast talkback show, hosted by John Banks and Lindsay Perigo. Most of the same discursive matter is par for the course in that anti-Labour die-hard end of the blogosphere from which dad4justice and his ilk occasionally emerge.
The discourse explicitly characterises Helen Clark as a communist lesbian dictator, and deploys all manner of symbolic hyperbole in support of this position, though precious little of it actually stands up to scrutiny in the cold light of day. The discourse is misogynistic and homophobic, deeply ethnocentric and essentially uses personal attacks to attack Clark’s political career, role and policies. In the absence of any genuine political basis from which to criticise Clark and by extension the government, her enemies dredge up whatever saucy matter they can, and pad it out with dodgy speculation and chicken licken warnings about the end of the world as we know it. The trouble is, people aren’t really listening. I wonder how many of John Key’s well-targeted professional female demographic would vote for him if they knew that he thinks the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is run by `man-hating lesbians’; yes, he said it on nationwide radio.
Ultimately, Poneke, the finding of your pre-review look at Absolute Power (which as far as I can tell without reading it, traverses almost identical ground) matches my analysis of The First Edition: that despite the howling about totalitarian control from the attack dogs of the political-media complex, democracy is alive and well in New Zealand in 2008.
L
April 28, 2008 at 10:49 am
A couple of points that I can’t leave unchallenged:
1: The reason for pursuing Broad and Pope is because they and Labour dug their heels in against the need for a Commission of Inquiry into the Police. Far from “shadowy” sources, I have affidavits, statements and witnesses prepared to stand up in an inquiry - serving and former officers - who will testify to widespread police corruption. The Prime Minister and King were both placed on notice about Broad last year, but chose to roll with a cover-up.
The PM and King also chose to defame me and others speaking up about police corruption, by using testimony of a corrupt former cop against us, a person recommended to King by Howard Broad.
The thesis of Absolute Power is that our system has become corrupted. In a functioning democracy law enforcement agencies work without fear or favour to uphold the law. There are a number of examples in the book (and in our files) where they do not. Exposing police corruption that this Government has failed to move against, and which it has been on notice about for up to eight years in some cases, is part of the role of the Fourth Estate.
When the same law enforcement agencies go soft on the Government, even when acknowledging they believe the Prime Minister and MP Chris Carter lied to to them during the official investigation, raises serious questions that, sadly, the rest of the media are either too dimwitted or too in thrall to acknowledge.
THAT is the reason for the inclusion, and the link between Broad and the Labour administration.
You write, “Whether or not the Broad allegation happened…” as if this was some kind of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. It happened. The SSC has confirmed it. Broad admits driving drunk, admits swerving across a lane, admits being forbidden to drive further, and admits he and a senior officer spoke to the junior cop who then “independently” exercised his “discretion” not to breath test a self-admitted drinking driver who happened to be one of his bosses.
What planet are you on? Which part of inappropriate behaviour by a senior officer escapes you? Which part of continuing relevance escapes you? Broad is now the most senior road traffic safety official in the country.
2. Secondly, this continuing liberal obsession with denying the flaming obvious. That Clark is in a “marriage of convenience” is not “unsubstantiated” as you suggest - she admits the point herself.
The issue is not her sexual orientation per se, which neither I nor you probably give a hoot about. The issue is about hypocrisy and dishonesty in an elected public figure who happens to be the country’s most powerful individual.
If Clark has lied to the public about her private life, this is not something “private” to her or Davis - it is directly relevant to the electorate as well. They married purely for political reasons, and have admitted this. However, in the mid-90s makeover of Clark at the hands of Edwards and co, the mythology was twisted to portray the relationship as “just like everyone else’s”. Yet in the book I have, in the words of one review over at No Minister, “eviscerated” some of these carefully crafted claims about Clark. They just are not true.
If you wish to challenge me on this then mount a coherent argument as to why the public have no right to know, rather than smearing it as innuendo.
BTW, it isn’t “innuendo”. Unlike the tone of your review, which doesn’t actually deal with a single factual problem in the book at all. Instead, you chastise me for daring to look into these areas, but offer no examples of any serious issue in there that is “unsubstantiated”.
Clark destroyed Doone by DELIBERATELY leaking FALSE information to the news media. Her own affidavit concedes the words used, and the public record shows those words and claims did not appear in either official report on her desk at the time.
Are you excusing this behaviour in a Prime Minister?
Get me on the facts, not on my opinions. Show me where a substantial error in the book exists, instead of whingeing.
The book professes to be a biography of the Helen Clark years and the political machine she built. By definition, coverage of Clark’s personal life was unavoidable, especially given that Clark had raised the issues herself in both the Myers and Edwards books. What kind of “biography” avoids biographical scrutiny? You might be on solid ground had this been unique coverage, but it wasn’t.
You don’t like my approach. Fine, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. But don’t leap from that to discrediting the book, unless you have some specific examples. Bear in mind the book is 150,000 words long…so taking a paragraph out of context is not a valid way of pinging me either.
I have yet to see a substantive review from my critics that actually deals with the facts, rather than simply trying to spin it.
April 28, 2008 at 11:59 am
Ian Wishart:
I think you have overestimated how much New Zealanders care for Clinton-type exposure of private sex lives. I don’t care if Helen Clark spun her marriage with Peter Davis, I really think that has nothing to do with her job as prime minister. I don’t care if she married for political reasons. I just do not care.
And I’m a traditional Roman Catholic Ian… I don’t even agree with homosexual relationships or even chosen childless marriages. But each individual must deal with their private life themselves and you have no right to go writing about Helen Clark’s or anyone else’s.
This isn’t America.
April 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm
There are serious allegations hanging over senior police, that will not go away until appropriate inquiries are formed.
(1) Howard Broad
Refer http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00041.htm 5 April 2006
Dr Lynley Hood writes: “Howard Broad’s press conference in October 1992 destroyed the careers and previously unblemished reputations of four well-qualified, experienced and dedicated child care workers” “With Howard Broad’s appointment as the country’s top police officer, there is a real risk that ongoing damage caused to the fabric of New Zealand society by sex abuse hysteria and false allegations will continue unabated.”
An inquiry into all aspects of the Peter Ellis case, as called for by over one hundred prominent New Zealanders is important for many reasons. Having our most senior police officer involved in this case is cause for concern, and is possibly one reason why justice is being delayed for Ellis..
(2) Rob Pope
http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/ and the book “Trial by Trickery”
Keith Hunter has established a solid case of professional misconduct against our second most senior police officer, Rob Pope, with regards to the Scott Watson case. Such serious allegations against any police officer, and especially a police officer who is now a Deputy Commissioner, cannot be swept under the carpet.
Restoring confidence in the police should be a priority. The police have shown a ready willingness to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct within their ranks. They have shown much less willingness to openly investigate allegations of professional incompetence or professional misconduct that do not involve issues of sex.
I do not see a conspiracy. I see possible human failing in some particular cases.
April 28, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Muerk, I appreciate your honesty in making your point. We just happen to disagree on the relevance.
Nor is the approach you disagree with confined to US politics. As those who read Absolute Power will confirm, I draw a lot on an ethics paper produced by a British law professor, who argues very stridently that these are matters that MUST be covered by the media in order to properly inform voters.
Sure, a large chunk of voters like yourself might say “so what?”. That’s fine and good. Another chunk might say, “we don’t like Politician X because of this”. That too is just as legitimate.
You cannot subdivide political coverage according to “right-think” and say that because we intellectuals find something about an elected official to be private, that therefore no-one else is entitled to the information. That is imposing YOUR moral perspective on the political process.
Clearly you speak for many on this thread who would agree with you - but the existence of disagreement on other blogs points to the fact that many others do find this information relevant. Who are you, or for that matter Poneke, to rule something out of bounds merely because it offends your own sensibilities.
Facts are facts are facts. Opinions on the other hand are diverse and freely held.
A small minority of the NZ public might decide that Clark’s orientation makes her unsuitable to be PM in their eyes. A much larger chunk, I suspect, might be more disturbed about the overall pattern of dishonesty. Either way, it is information voters are entitled to know.
April 28, 2008 at 1:18 pm
If Clark has lied to the public about her private life, this is not something “private” to her or Davis - it is directly relevant to the electorate as well. They married purely for political reasons, and have admitted this. However, in the mid-90s makeover of Clark at the hands of Edwards and co, the mythology was twisted to portray the relationship as “just like everyone else’s”. Yet in the book I have, in the words of one review over at No Minister, “eviscerated” some of these carefully crafted claims about Clark. They just are not true.
And yet oddly Ian, there they are, 27 years on, apparently perfectly comfortable with each other. It’s hardly unusual for senior politicians to get divorced now; you’ve done so yourself. And yet these two people have been together more than a quarter of a century. It seems a long time to carry on a fraud, doesn’t it?
April 28, 2008 at 1:20 pm
> Helen Clark is an elected politician and so has to live with a book like this.
What exactly does that mean? Howard Broad and Rob Pope are not elected politicians, so are you saying they don’t have to live with the book? The fact that Ms Clark is an MP seems to me to be irrelevant. What’s relevant is that she is in the public arena and is not averse to criticising others, sometimes unfairly. She therefore cannot expect to be free from criticism herself.
April 28, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Thank you for your reply Ian. I think it’s positive that you wrote your book because I think free speech is important. But you know my personal opinion and it’s the reason why I won’t be reading your book.
I realise that you and many others will disagree with my position that it’s not my business to delve into politician’s sexual business, but I think it’s important for both voices to be heard.
It’s not that coverage of private lives offends my sensibilities per se, it’s that I think every person is entitled to privacy provided they aren’t a moral example. Thus if a Catholic priest was having a sexual affair I think that would need to be dealt with by the Church. Likewise if an evangelical pastor was having an affair, that’s an issue.
But we didn’t elect Helen Clark to teach us about moral behavior. We elected her to be a politician. How can her legal sexual behavior in private matter to public policy?
April 28, 2008 at 2:00 pm
A small minority of the NZ public might decide that Clark’s orientation makes her unsuitable to be PM in their eyes. A much larger chunk, I suspect, might be more disturbed about the overall pattern of dishonesty. Either way, it is information voters are entitled to know.
One of the uncommented but creepiest aspects of Ian’s behaviour is his continued public hounding of Clark’s husband. You can I suppose, make the argument that anything can be revealed about public figures so long as someone might be interested.
Of course, this argument could be used to justify publishing pictures of John Key’s dick on the grounds that ‘a small minority’ might be influenced by information about the size of the leader’s genitals and thus ‘it is information voters are entitled to know’.
No doubt Ian justifies his fascination with the personal life of Peter Davis - a private citizen unaccountable to the public and media - by convincing himself that relation about Davis is directly related to Clark. Once again, however, this identical argument can be used to target the family member of any political or public figure imaginable.
You have to wonder about the caliber of people we’re going to get in New Zealand political life if people like Ian Wishart feel free to target not only them but their friends and family members.
April 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Muerk…if my book was complaining about her sexual behaviour, you would be correct in your analysis.
It is my critics who continually paint the straw man argument that I’m somehow obsessed with sexuality. As I point out in the book, I’ve lived in a gay household, worked alongside gay colleagues and for gay bosses, socialised with gay colleagues etc blah blah…IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVATE SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER THE POLITICIAN HAS MANIPULATED THE PUBLIC VIA DISHONESTY.
It would equally apply to a National politician. Any politician who lies to the electorate in order to gain votes deserves, at the very least, to have the lie examined and exposed. If voters decide to forgive because of other character strengths in the politician, then that’s their choice and good on them.
If Clark had lied about her private educational attainments, this would be relevant for discussion, even if she had an unblemished record actually performing the job as Prime Minister. Why should a lie about other aspects of your personal life be magically out of bounds?
I’m not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, but it needs to be remembered that elected public figures are different from Joe Bloggs being hired by a private company.
Politicians are seeking public office and a public mandate. They are seeking to be paid a salary by taxpayers, and even more significantly seeking control of your taxes and the power to make laws over you. Voters have a right (and according to the international ethicists an obligation) to dig deeper into the character of a politician than an ordinary person.
Professor Frederick Schauer, at Harvard, argues it this way in regard to your specific point about the Prime Minister’s job description:
“The claim that marital infidelity is irrelevant to the office of President of the United States presupposes that the role of President should not include the role of being an exemplar of marital fidelity. For many people it should not, but for many others it should, and debates about relevance to the job are commonly smokescreens for debates about just what it is that the job really entails.
“It is widely known that President Clinton cheats at golf. Although it is clear that playing golf is not part of the job description of President…many people believe that maintaining certain high standards of veracity are indeed part of that job description. And if that is the case, then the empirical question is presented whether evidence of cheating at golf is some evidence of (or relevant to) a likely failure to maintain high standards of veracity in public pronouncements.”
This of course, (I wrote in Absolute Power) “is precisely the credibility problem Helen Clark has during this election year: does she have a flawed character that, while it might be forgiven once, is now showing a clear pattern of behavior?”
Russell: if you had read Absolute Power you would know I address the precise point you make. The longevity of a marriage of convenience does not change its inherent nature. In fact, many couples who married out of a genuine love and romantic passion for each other would probably find it offensive that a marriage of political convenience is held up as an example. Friends can be friends for life. If there is no sexual tension and passion then the strains on the relationship are far lower than those on an ordinary marriage.
This is precisely one of the reasons that it is valid to examine. You are not the first to boast about how long the PM’s marriage has lasted - she herself has. She’s put this particular ball in play.
And Danyl…once again you manage to miss the point.
By her own admission, Clark “married” Davis for political reasons.
From Nov 6, 1981, Davis became a political pawn in his wife’s career. BY HER OWN ADMISSION.
He was wheeled out for photo opportunities, and woven into mythologies created by Clark’s spinmeisters.
His private life (some of it) was carefully laid out in Helen Clark’s official biography.
Since when does that qualify him to be some ingenue private citizen in your eyes?
Get some substance to your arguments, man!
April 28, 2008 at 2:49 pm
If Helen Clark was so scheming in regards to her personal life, why would she have made the public admissions that she did? It makes no sense.
I do admit that my criticism is based on what others have stated about your book, but I just don’t think I’m interested in knowing about either Helen Clark’s or Peter Davis’ private life.
April 28, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Yeah, Muerk…I’m not here to force anyone to change their mind…and it is entirely valid for you as a voter to determine that private lives are irrelevant to public duty as far as your vote is concerned.
As you’ve probably now guessed, the context of all of this, including Clark’s public statements and where they fit, is much more fully and carefully explored in the book.
Have a good afternoon.
April 28, 2008 at 3:06 pm
> The issue is not her sexual orientation per se, which neither I nor you probably give a hoot about.
Au contraire, you quite clearly give rather more than a hoot about it, to the point of obsession.
And for somebody who keeps talking about individuals’ “private lives”, you seem to invest an inordinate amount of effort into making them “public”.
April 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm
*Sigh*.
Trevor. Firstly, have you actually read the book or is your bald statement based on third-hand hearsay?
Secondly, assuming you have read it, where in the book am I obssessed with orientation of Clark and Davis per se, as opposed to presenting evidence that the public have been misled? Specific examples in context please.
April 28, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Ian, people get married for many reasons. Love may be one of many. However, there are many, many, many people who have entered into marriage for reasons other than love. Historically marriage was a matter of mutual benefit, where love was often not the motivating factor for marriage. Marriage motivated by love is a relatively new (and European) phenomenon. What makes you so arrogant to assume that a “marriage” is only a “marriage” when defined by your small-minded world view.
As for this:
…so taking a paragraph out of context is not a valid way of pinging me either
That is rich coming from you. Let’s take a look at “Eve’s Bite” (another Wishart spin-piece) in which you quote Karl Marx:
When Engels and I first joined the secret Communist Society we made it a condition that everything tending to encourage superstitious belief in authority was to be removed from the statutes. Law, morality, religion are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality.
But the full quote is actually:
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
Hang your head in shame, Ian.
April 28, 2008 at 3:49 pm
No, I haven’t read the book. I’m sure you’re surprised
However I have seen your magazine so I’m not completely in the dark when I speculate firstly that, in your opinion, the decision on whether subject matter qualifies as public or private is one which you believe is entirely up to you, and, secondly, that the basis of your decision is not objective but driven by your own “private” (sic) fundamentalist agenda.
[Poneke says: Trevor, I have read the book (and unlike the bloggers who bat for Ian, I actually bought my copy). I assure you that page after page after page after page obsesses in tendentious and intricate detail over what Ian is convinced are the sexual orientations of the prime minister and her husband.]
April 28, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Outstanding book Ian. I preordered my copy.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the who cares attitude of NZ’ers to this. Also, I find it extraordinary given the official documents you list that people still go on about anonymous sources.
I suspect that our media, who deliberately covered up such important issues as Doongate (BTW Poneke, this is NOT unsubstantiated. Fran O’Sullivan has admitted in print she had that story but did not have the “cajones to print it prior to the last election) will now face some rather pointed questions re what they have been doing for the last 8 years.
I still remember hearing Debra Hill Cone and the Herald report on Larry Williams when the media was getting stuck into Labour for stealing the 800K (forgot the Herald reporters name sorry). Debra said how surprised she was as she claimed the media was normally so complacent and in some instances had covered up problems with Labour.
What intrigued me was the Herald report, and Williams did not contradict her.
So Ian, you have done a great job. Unfortunately all voices that stand against the status quo however have to be shot at.
How far have we fallen. No wonder 1 in 10 families are thinking about going to Aus. You guys that think nothing of this corruption make me sick.
April 28, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Ian, you may say that you are not obsessed with sexual orientation or give two hoots about it, given you believe the PM has has manipulated the public via her dishonesty.
But, say she is gay. Why do you care so much she has hidden that? Aren’t other lies and manipulations a lot worse. Stuff you havent put in your book, particularly arould welfare - in that unemployment is lower than it has been since 1999 because one in five are on training benefits and a good majority of the rest are on other benfits or studying in lieu of being on a benefit.
April 28, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Andrew…I seem to recall having this debate on Ryan’s blog…and it was an error on my part in not delineating the quotes…the thrust of the argument remained valid however…I waded through Marx’s material to ensure I understood his argument.
Regardless, the point which you also glaringly avoid is that Clark’s was a “political” marriage. That’s all it was, right from day one, in her own words.
As a political marriage, for political vote-catching purposes, it is by definition within the purview of a political biography.
Dave…good points, but I’m not sure I can directly ping Clark for every trick Labour pulls. The book details a range of “hoist on your petard” topics like those you mention - some of which involved Clark directly.
Lying about your personal background goes to personal character, and thus is relevant to voters. And as I have said elsewhere, Clark was the first to raise it. All subsequent biographies, including mine, are forced to deal with it whether we like it or not.
Poneke…I’m glad you raised your interjection because it proves you were so blinkered in going after me that you didn’t see the wood for the trees.
If I make a statement: “I think the Prime Minister’s marriage is a political sham”, I actually have to back it up with reason and evidence. That is the ‘tendentious’ detail you complain of.
I’m not interested in her sexuality per se, but I’m very interested in public statements that don’t stack up. Exploring those areas takes space, and an attention to detail.
April 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I’m not “boasting” on someone else’s behalf, although I do find enduring relationships admirable. My partner and I have been together for nearly as long as Clark and Davis, and have known each other for longer. It’s entirely possible that, had I wanted to stand for Parliament in that era (or even get a mortgage from a bank) we’d have had to get married to meet the prevailing social norms.
I fail to see how such a circumstance justifies your panty-sniffing obsession.
Just like her mentioning in a biography that “lesbian” was one of the names she’d been called justified your unending public obsession with the idea? Didn’t Danyl completely take you to the cleaners on your own blog about that one?
April 28, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Regardless, the point which you also glaringly avoid is that Clark’s was a “political” marriage. That’s all it was, right from day one, in her own words.
I’m curious to know how you think Clark has been deceiving us all this time about her marriage being a political sham if - as you say - she has said in her own words that her marriage is a political sham.
The reality is that Clark and Davis were in a relationship and had been living together for several years and prior to the 1981 election Clark was told that she’d be more electable if she was married, and that was that. She’s said in retrospect that if she’d had the option she’d have had a civil union.
The only question here is whether Ian is so blinded by his hatred of Clark that he’s sold himself his own horseshit or if he’s aware of how dishonest his version of history is? I’m tending towards the latter.
April 28, 2008 at 5:47 pm
If I make a statement: “I think the Prime Minister’s marriage is a political sham”, I actually have to back it up with reason and evidence. That is the ‘tendentious’ detail you complain of.
Ian you misrepresent much about Clark and her marriage. In 1981, Clark was a political studies lecturer at Auckland University. She lived with Peter Davis. They were an item. “Living in sin” was not as acceptable then as it is today. In 1972, only nine years before, Brian Edwards failed to win the eminently winnable Miramar seat because, a week before the election, Truth ran a story saying he was living with a woman to whom he was not married. It scandalised enough people to cost Edwards the seat. Jim Anderton, who was Labour Party president in 1981, recalled this vividly when Clark was selected as candidate for Mt Albert, and he more or less ordered Clark to marry the man with whom she lived and with whom she openly stated she intended to spend the rest of her life.
It was as simple as that.
While some might could argue they were married for a “political convenience,” it was not a “marriage of convenience” in the sense you paint it. To this day they are a close couple who spend their weekends together despite working in different cities and who holiday together privately and undertake many other private activities together.
This is so far from how you paint their marriage, you are the one on a different planet.
April 28, 2008 at 5:51 pm
it was an error on my part
Yes, and I think it is important to point that out again, as it seriously questions your credibility. The error was a big error. So big in fact, that it might even be perceived by some as calculated. You rely heavily on misrepresentations and poorly presented (or poorly understood) science and statistics to push your case. I admit, I’ve only read Eve’s Bite (and the occasional snippet from that ironically titled rag of yours), which was just appalling and it convinces me that I should not take anything you write, seriously. Of course, you are fortunate that your writing does not have to pass the peer-review process, so your rancid tripe will make it to the shelves.
Regardless, the point which you also glaringly avoid is that Clark’s was a “political” marriage … for political vote-catching purposes
Ian, that is one hell of a stretch and really illustrates how you spin things. I doubt anyone gains votes because they are married. However, narrow-minded people might not vote for someone because they are not married (especially a woman 20-30 years ago). Ultimately it says more about the intolerances of society than about the ability of the person. Given that being married, or not married, is irrelevant to the ability of being an MP, it shouldn’t even be a factor. However, some thought it might be and Clark chose to nullify that (irrelevant) factor.
Interesting that Clark and Davis are still together though. Brash (for example) already has 2 failed marriages behind him. Which is the sham marriage?
ps, I also don’t think divorces are relevant to being an able MP or PM either.
April 28, 2008 at 5:52 pm
During the debate on civil unions Clark at one point admitted that she had had boyfriends (plural) before meeting Davis.
April 28, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Ian,
I don’t care much for politics. (Although policy is another matter.)
Helen and Peter’s marriage may have been brought forward in time or taken in a form that in hindsight they might not have chosen (marriage rather than civil union), but neither make the marriage a sham. A sham is when the event itself is false, this is clearly not the case here. No Las Vegas certificates here…
You talk about dishonesty in others. Do you mind while I hold a up mirror to see your face in while you say that?
April 28, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Russell…the day Danyl succeeds in taking me to “the cleaners” over anything is the day it’s my shout for drinks.
As a lowly Labour pamphlet boy, I’m not sure Russell how close you were to the centres of power in Labour. From my own discussions with people in Labour who are household names, and from those who have personally known and worked alongside Peter Davis in the distant past, long before his involvement with Clark, I have a pretty good picture of the two protagonists that is dissonant from the official version.
Again, do I care if they’re gay? No. Do I care if Clark has manipulated the public? Absolutely.
April 28, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Ian. The ad hominems are never far away, are they?
> As a lowly Labour pamphlet boy, *I’m* not sure..
But for a professional writer, your writing sure sucks!
April 28, 2008 at 6:15 pm
“…Russell…the day Danyl succeeds in taking me to “the cleaners” over anything is the day it’s my shout for drinks.”
Cheers. I’ll have a lemonade, thanks.
April 28, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Cute, Noelene…but Danyl failed. Just as he has on this thread. To marry for political reasons automatically puts your relationship in the justifiable public interest category.
If it is good enough to cynically sell out your principles to present a false picture to the electorate so they’ll vote for you, and then good enough to boast about it, then it is also good enough for the media to scrutinise.
Trevor: as for ad hominems, I’ve suffered plenty on this blog and Public Address. I’ll give as good as I get.
And here’s the ultimate irony. I’m being savaged for the most part by a bunch of people hiding behind pseudonyms…
Where’s the honesty in that?
April 28, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I’ll give as good as I get.
But admitting to being a lowly pamphlet boy is a bit much, even for you, surely
April 28, 2008 at 6:39 pm
It’s also worth mentioning that the ‘official’ version of Clark’s marriage with Davis - that she was bullied into it, loathed the institution, kept the ceremony a secret, cried on the day but went through with it in order to further her own political career - is not very complimentary to Clark but is certainly very weird, dramatic and interesting and sheds a lot more light on her personality than Ian’s torrid gibberish.
April 28, 2008 at 7:21 pm
In a week or so- when “Absolute Power” has ceased to’ve been bought by faithful Talkbacklanders- and no amount of self-promotion-via-attack-views has added to sales- Wishart will retire to the strange exclusive compound populated by fellow-xtianfundies and plot another *devastating* attack on - o heck, just about anything his USA fundamentalist xtian rightwing
bosses dictate.
Sad.
April 28, 2008 at 7:59 pm
None of you can refute Ians points without resorting to the squalid personal attacks you accuse him of using …..how about trying to debate the issues he raises guys?….they are damming.
April 28, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Give Ian a break and tell the truth for once. New Zealand deserves better than Clark’s regime of deception, lies and corruption. Kiwi’s shouldn’t have to be slaves of the corruption.
You lefty liars always attack using gutter tactics. Debate the issues raised in Ian’s books, as there seems to be a gap between perception and the factual reality in your malicious attack on his character.
In a rotten Helen Clark society, elites are the source of the rot !!
April 28, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Political fanatics are interesting creatures, though often intelligent they have no difficulty in putting aside rational objective thinking in their goal to advance their sides political agenda. Demonising those on the other side, (in their mind I’m sure “the enemy” is how they think of them) through innuendo, misrepresentation, or flat out lies, is all justified in their own minds because they know, or think they know, that their opponents are willing to do far worse, because they themselves have God and rightousness on their side, their opponents are Godless, worship the devil, or have corrupted the true faith.
In short, they see themselves as good fighting evil.
Even shorter, they think like children.
April 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm
In a week or so- when “Absolute Power” has ceased to’ve been bought by faithful Talkbacklanders- and no amount of self-promotion-via-attack-views has added to sales
According to Ian’s site he’s sold about 7000 copies in the first few days. Since researching and writing his book mostly consisted of cutting and pasting old Investigate articles I’d imagine he’s sitting pretty, financially speaking.
April 28, 2008 at 8:50 pm
While I doubt (for the reasons already elucidated above) that their marriage is a sham in the ‘love’ sense, so what if it was a marriage for political purposes? As Andrew and Russell have said, this is really a reflection of our conservative society, which is what should be challanged here, not the people feeling the need to get ‘married’ as society expects it. My partner and I have kids, have been living together for years and have our own personal agreement and understanding about our future that is far more significant than some abstract, externally dictated process. Yet we will probably get married PURELY for tax puposes, as we now live in a European country of catholic disposition that does not give equal recognition to us as to those who marry and divorce within months.
The strange thing is, I wonder if those who so highly value the institution of ‘marriage’ of their own limited worldview realise what hypocrisy they force others to make of it.
April 28, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Danyl- it is *extremely* unlikely Wishart has had that many sales given that ‘Absolute Power’ was sitting at the bottom of the best seller non-fiction list (at last NZSA mailout) but given his explanation -early Neilsen Bookscan result - it is possible. But you’re right - this is not a creative effort, this is rehash material and - o so timely! Election coming up and all that…
I just find the troubled person - pathetic. (His later books are the product of a fevered mind, and his early investigative promise smothered by xtian-fundamentalism…
Anybody antipathetical to ‘xtian fundamentalism’?
people who’ve never got their minds out of the bedrock-
These folk are neither Christian (as I understand the term - and I studied religion for over 30 years)
nor anything but (a tiny juvenile remanant wants to shout ‘Fundaments!’
April 28, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I know Ian Wishart has said that “it’s not about Goodger”, but he insists on putting me in the frame. My name appears several times in Chapter 15 of the book reviewed. As a public servant I have limited freedom to enter this discussion, but I’m not willing to put up with another couple of years of false accusations about me swirling around the Internet to bolster a pernicious conspiracy theory.
Wishart has yet to furnish evidence that I was the author (or even the co-author) of various quotes attributed to me, which have been recycled from a 2005 issue of Investigate. He omits the fact that the documents the quotes are selectively drawn from are the Socialist Action League’s 1973 conference resolution and the League’s submission to the 1973-1974 Select Committee on Women’s Rights, which were published in a booklet entitled “A Strategy for Women’s Liberation”. In the catalogue of the National Library of New Zealand, the author of the booklet is the Socialist Action League. That is perfectly clear from the description in the Introduction and on the back cover. He has said he has a copy of the booklet (which he refers to conspiratorially as “the documents”) so he must know what it actually contains.
His representation of what is in the booklet is not accurate in several other ways. For example, neither I nor the League ever called upon anyone to use their positions within government departments to promote anything, although both in his book and in the Investigate article he has me calling on people to do so.
Following the Herald’s June 4 2005 retraction and apology for similar claims made by columnist Sandra Paterson, who referenced the Investigate article, Wishart published a Clarification in the July issue of Investigate. As far as I know, he has yet to put it online. The gist of Investigate’s Clarification was to back down on some of the claims (without apology). Regarding the claim of my authorship, the best defence he could come up with is that I was one of the people presenting the submission, and that I referred to it in a speech as “our submission”. In other words, I belonged to the group at the time (more than 30 years ago!) and endorsed its ideas. He has insisted elsewhere that I wrote the stuff he quotes, and in this new book, he repeats the original claims all over again: “she said”, “wrote Goodger”. Moreover, the Socialist Action League’s 1973 conference resolution and submission to the Select Committee on Women’s Rights have been morphed into “the Goodger documents”. That’s inaccurate and unfair. There is no justification for dragging my name into this political debate, either in 2005 or now.
Either Wishart is ignorant about what really happened in the 1970s, or is relying on the fact that these historical documents and other contextual material about the 1970s feminist movement are relatively inaccessible and no-one is likely to do the digging required to check his claims. A couple of weekends ago, while cleaning out my roof space, I found a pile of stuff my sister had left me to mind when she went to the UK around 1980. Amongst the orange kitchenware and macramé patterns were two bound volumes of the League’s paper, Socialist Action, and almost a full set of Broadsheet, covering most of the 1970s. I’m now in a better position to check the veracity of the claims Wishart makes, and that he associates with my name, should that be necessary.
Suffice to say, the “Strategy” booklet was no clandestine document. Hundreds of copies were printed and distributed widely in the open market of ideas that flourished at the time, alongside the publications of the majority mainstream feminists, who strongly disagreed with the SAL’s Marxist theory. What Wishart refers to as the SAL’s “wish-list” of programmatic goals was pretty much the standard manifesto of the entire Second Wave women’s movement which emerged in most western countries from the late 1960s. Similar goals from a range of feminist groups are listed in Christine Dann’s 1985 history of the women’s liberation movement: Up From Under: Women and Liberation in New Zealand, 1970-1985.
April 28, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I’m just interested at how Wishart’s position has changed since he wrote this in July of 2000. He crucified Broad for being at a party where a pornographic film was aired yet he himself knew of drug taking amongst his professional colleagues but turned a blind eye. If Broad was guilty by association then by Wishart’s logic he is as well.
I note Wishart’s never done this story he claims to know regarding the National MP either.
(article from July 2000 edition of Investigate is below)
“Sex, drugs, a horse, and a teenager. IAN WISHART wants to know whether the media realise they’re in a glass house.
Sex sells. And nowhere more so than on the desk of some bored news editor whose own life is so tedious they have to get their titillation from writing about other people’s pecadilloes.
So what if Mark Todd uses cocaine? If the Sunday Mirror had revealed that his horse had snorted the Colombian marching dust I’d probably be more concerned, but I can’t just get excited about Todd’s personal habits, if any.
In my career as a radio/TV/print journalistI have seen so many of my colleagues stoned, drunk or both in varying stages of moral decay. I don’t need to name names. They know who they are.
Narcotics are not something I’ve ever wanted to indulge in - apart from a brief fling with marijuana as a 20 year old radio reporter, which I quit because I felt it was fuzzing my short term memory.
But my fellow journalists not only went with dope, they progressively got stuck into harder narcotics like speed, ecstasy, cocaine, and even heroin.
In some places I worked, the sight of manic reporters with horribly glazed eyes and sinus problems was one of the amusing highlights of my day.
Hell, at Radio Hauraki in 1984 I came to work one day only to find that half of my fellow employees had been picked up in a dawn raid by police investigating a cocaine ring - the same investigation that saw a National MP left untouched by police because arresting the MP would have upset the Muldoon Government’s one seat majority and caused a snap election.
Now in the latter case had I known of the the MP’s involvement at the time I would have run it as a news story for obvious reasons - but not simply because the MP was using cocaine. The only news value in the story for me was that police allowed political pressure to influence their judgement.
And so back to Mark Todd. I, and I’m sure most New Zealanders, don’t want to know what he does in his spare time or who he does it with. The only legitimate news value in the Mirror story was whether or not any alleged drug taking would affect Todd’s equestrian performance.
As for the Dover Samuels affair, spare me! Regardless of whether he showed stupidity in getting involved with a teenage girl, unless it is shown that she was underage then he has done nothing illegal, no matter how much any of us may find it repugnant.
For the Prime Minister to sack him, before all the evidence is in and without allowing due process to be followed, shows how hollow the Government’s words are on our employment law - any employment lawyer worth his salt would have a field day with this on a personal grievance/unjustified dismissal basis.
Given that some MPs have paid out sums of $90,000 or more to extortionists to cover up sexual misdeeds, one wonders how long before the lid blows on that one.
Again the news value is not the sex, it is the fact that some of our MPs have been compromised and could be blackmailed into committing treason or corruption.
It is time for the media to watch the ball, not the balls.”
April 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Hi Keri,
I like that word ‘Fundaments’
But I hope you mean the ‘buttocks’ meaning, not ‘basis/foundation’:
fundament |ˈfəndəmənt|
noun
1 the foundation or basis of something.
2 [humorous] a person’s buttocks.
And what do you mean ‘a tiny juvenile reminant’? Aren’t we all supposed to keep a great glob of the child in us?
April 28, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Mr Wishart is a conservative christian. His raison d’etre is to get rid of the folk that he considers antithetical to his beliefs.Which is reasonable.
What appears unreasonable is his naivety in believing that just Clark manipulates the public. Experience would indictate that ALL politicans would be guilty of this…and one wonders just who would be eligible for election. Certainly not Mr Wishart himself,if the comments on this blog are anything to go by.But then perhaps he isn’t as naive as he would have us believe. For a conservative christian who has lived among homosexuals…who has known defacto couples…who appreciates the subleties of the human condition perhaps he is just being disengenuous.Perhaps the means justify the ends.
Clearly divorce doesn’t come within the parameters Mr Wishart seeks to set…irrespective of what his God may have said, and perhaps it is this sort of selective biblical picking and choosing that creates such……confusion. Just who to believe? Ian or Helen? God?
When it comes to disingenuousness ,I’m not that sure I can tell Mr Wishart and those he targets as being all that different. I wonder if his God …and the more temporal Aesop had anything to say about that…
April 28, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I was looking forward to reading insightful commentary here, but what is so despairingly disappointing with the majority of comments posted on this thread, but not all, is the lack of factually relevant critique only to be displaced by the disparaging remarks devoid in the main of any real scholarly criticism. It would be advantageously relevant for those who have now read the book, and I haven’t, to tackle the pertinent points put forward by Ian Wishart on this thread and discuss them in an unemotional and logical way without resorting to ad-hominin attacks.
April 28, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Heraclides- I generally go by the New SOED and ‘fundament’ is either ‘base of a wall, building etc.’
or ‘action founding thereof; or ‘ground, basis, or principle on which anything is founded.’ 3rd def. (not humorous) “the buttocks, the anus.”
It was the latter def. I had in mind. And -’great glob of childhood’? If we’re talking primitive hominoid traits I’d agree . If we’re talking about longstanding personal childhood traits, mine died off about 700 years ago (when family learned to preserve writing and pass their experiences along-
April 28, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Keri,
I use the New SOED myself, for more formal things at least. Its on the next desk, and being too lazy late at night to bother getting off my butt, I used Apple’s Dictionary application instead… No idea what that’s based on.
My post was in jest (at Ian, not you), so don’t get too worried about me!
April 28, 2008 at 11:44 pm
(No worries Heraclides…ooo, the Mac has a dictionary application? Never looked for it. Pats my G5 in a worried fashion, while reassurring the 2 SOED vols. panting at my ankles…
April 28, 2008 at 11:57 pm
As some of you may know, I think it’s time for a change of government. However, I will defend the PM against the claim that she has misled the NZ public over her marriage. Rather, I think she has been exceptionally candid - in fact, on the topic of their own marriage, I cannot think of a more honest politician anywhere in the world than Helen Clark.
April 29, 2008 at 12:09 am
Its called ‘Dictionary’. (Whoop-dee-do
I always find it a little too straight-forward a name…
I use it when I’m in a hurry: its quicker to get to related words, etc., by clicking around. The OED gives better definitions and backgrounds for fussier things. Besides, I have fond memories of using the full OED years ago at university.
April 29, 2008 at 2:37 am
Serum…..I get the distinct impression that there just aren’t any pertinent points put foward by Mr Wishart. It would appear that there is nothing new, and his book is but a rehash put out prior to a general election.
A local cartoonist,Garrick Tremain wondered in a recent effort why the price of dairy products were no longer stated. It appears that if one needs to ask..one can’t afford.
There are bigger,more relevant fish to fry ( subject to price) than someones sexuality, their alleged manipulation of the populace…or if they had the temerity to sign their name to a secretary’s work on a piece of art to be autioned for charity.
As for the police…well we all know they are scum.
Don’t we?
But what really worries me is..are the police,Helen Clark,her secretary ,their sexual preferences and everyone’s marital status…the reason why petrol is so expensive?
April 29, 2008 at 6:55 am
It would be advantageously relevant for those who have now read the book, and I haven’t, to tackle the pertinent points put forward by Ian Wishart on this thread
I get the distinct impression that there just aren’t any pertinent points put foward by Mr Wishart
Wishart makes many points in his book and much of this thread has been about the validity of his points about Clarks marriage and sexuality.
I think Ian Wishart is a very dishonest man - but don’t take my word for it. Go into a bookstore and read through his material on Clarks marriage, in which he references Edwards biography of Clark. Then check the references in Edwards book. Then ask yourself if you’re willing to give Wishart the benefit of the doubt in regards to the other references and anonymous informers he cites.
April 29, 2008 at 7:06 am
I’m simply staggered that Wishart has rehashed the Kay Goodger “story” in this book. That he’s still trying to shop this reckless grab-bag of supposition and error is evidence of not just a journalistic failure but a moral one.
April 29, 2008 at 7:44 am
Keri, Heraclides:
REYNOLDS. ‘A printer’s devil, Sir! Why, I thought a printer’s devil was a creature with a black face and in rags.’ JOHNSON. ‘Yes, Sir. But I suppose, he had her face washed, and put clean clothes on her. (Then looking very serious, and very earnest.) And she did not disgrace him; the woman had a bottom of good sense.’ The word bottom thus introduced, was so ludicrous when contrasted with his gravity, that most of us could not forbear tittering and laughing; though I recollect that the Bishop of Killaloe kept his countenance with perfect steadiness, while Miss Hannah More slyly hid her face behind a lady’s back who sat on the same settee with her. His pride could not bear that any expression of his should excite ridicule, when he did not intend it; he therefore resolved to assume and exercise despotick power, glanced sternly around, and called out in a strong tone, ‘Where’s the merriment?’ Then collecting himself, and looking aweful, to make us feel how he could impose restraint, and as it were searching his mind for a still more ludicrous word, he slowly pronounced, ‘I say the WOMAN was FUNDAMENTALLY sensible;’ as if he had said, hear this now, and laugh if you dare. We all sat composed as at a funeral.
April 29, 2008 at 7:46 am
Russell…I used to think you had an intellect. Now you have convinced me otherwise. Read the extract on Goodger on the book and tell me specifically where you think it is wrong, then I will proceed to blow you out of the water… again
And OK Danyl…I’ll call you on that…name the references you think are taken out of context. Chapter and Verse. If you are going to sling defamatory allegations around…you need to put up or shut up.
[Poneke says: Everyone who posts here has an intellect. Nothing posted here is defamatory. Let's keep the debate above the level found elsewhere, please.]
April 29, 2008 at 9:04 am
Here’s some evidence that Wishart wrongly attributed quotes selected from the Socialist Action League’s submission to the 1973-1974 Select Committee on Women’s Rights to me, and subsequently insisted elsewhere that “Goodger wrote it”. The misattributions appear in Chapter 15, which is based on the May 2005 Investigate article.
1. Investigate/Absolute Power:
“Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution.”
2. Source used by Wishart: SAL submission to Select Committee on Women’s Rights, describing the League’s view:
“Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs which are currently met, however poorly, by the family. In this way we can ensure that personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not economic compulsion.”
3. Google search on quote published by Wishart:
“While the oppression of women is institutionalised through the family
system, the family as an economic unit cannot be “abolished.” It can only be replaced over time. Our goal is to create economic and social
alternatives that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs currently met, however poorly, by the family,
so that personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not of economic compulsion.”
Source: Australian Democratic Socialist Party, a group fraternal to the SAL in the 1970s:
4. Socialist Workers Party (US), resolution adopted at the 24th National Convention and published in International Socialist Review, November 1971, page 57:
“We counterpose such demands [for reforms benefitting women] to the ultraleft concept of abolishing or destroying the family. The family as an economic unit cannot be “abolished” by fiat. It can only be replaced over time. Our goal is to create economic and social alternatives which are
superior to the present family system, and better able to provide for the needs currently met, however poorly, by the family system, so that
personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not economic compulsion.”
In other words, these ideas and phrases were part of the political programme of several Marxist groups affiliated to the (Trotskyist) Fourth International in the 1970s. There are many other sections of the documents that are exact matches to the 1971 resolution published in International Socialist Reviw. I did not write them.
Wishart’s representation of what is in the booklet is not accurate in several other ways. For example, neither I nor the League ever called upon anyone to use their positions within government departments to promote anything, although both in his book and in the Investigate article he has me calling on people to do so.
The “Strategy” booklet was no clandestine document. Hundreds of copies were printed and distributed widely in the open market of ideas that flourished at the time, alongside the publications of the majority mainstream feminists, who strongly disagreed with the SAL’s Marxist theory.
… the link to the DSP quote
http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/dspfsoc.htm#Rise
Kay
April 29, 2008 at 9:19 am
Ian, I’m a Catholic who agrees with the teaching of the Church, so you and I probably agree on many things, especially of the moral persuasion.
There wasn’t some conspiracy to put feminists into positions of power and then create social engineering to further their aims. The women who were fervent feminists in the 70’s were students at universities, they were the academic strata of society. It’s logical that they would eventually pick up jobs that required an academic background.
The same people who showed leadership at student level are likely the same people with leadership skills that will propel them into high level jobs later on. And yes, they are going to take their values and morals with them. But that doesn’t make a conspiracy.
Think back to the Roman environment where the Gospels played out. What we’re dealing with is human nature after the Fall, not a well planned co-ordinated conspiracy to change our society.
These ideas go back to Enlightenment rationalism and philosophers such as Nietzsche. They’ve filtered through universities and down into their students and then out into the wide world and are now considered normative.
April 29, 2008 at 10:00 am
I do agree that Labour have a policy of social engineering, and that they didn’t campaign on it. In a sense it is a secret agenda. Except for one thing - what do you expect from a left wing party?
Also, Labour’s social agenda reflects the views of very many New Zealander’s across the political spectrum, overcomes institutional inertia and makes a genuine difference to people who have been institutionally oppressed.
The people who object the most seem to be the religious conservatives. Yet Christian parties have never got more than 5% of the vote. Why should we need the permission of this minority to choose how to live our lives?
I think the government has now lost the plot on the economy and on their move towards negative and controlled politics. But they got it right socially, and well done to them, I say.
April 29, 2008 at 10:06 am
Wow - Kay Goodger is a real person! All this time I thought you were one of Ian’s demons.
And OK Danyl…I’ll call you on that…name the references you think are taken out of context. Chapter and Verse. If you are going to sling defamatory allegations around…you need to put up or shut up.
I’ll try and find the time in my lunch hour to get to a bookstore and indulge you.
April 29, 2008 at 10:22 am
Russell…I used to think you had an intellect. Now you have convinced me otherwise. Read the extract on Goodger on the book and tell me specifically where you think it is wrong, then I will proceed to blow you out of the water… again
As usual, this is becoming ridiculous. We’ve been through the customary end stages of these arguments: abuse, followed by petty and unpleasant threats of legal action, so perhaps it’s easier to skip to a previous iteration of the discussion. Readers may choose to start here:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/04/surprise_surprise.html#comment-173140
Or simply skip to the summary of errors regarding Ms Goodger:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/04/surprise_surprise.html#comment-173150
Key points:
April 29, 2008 at 11:08 am
And Kay, were you present when these submissions were drafted and presented? Yes.
Did you have a hand in writing and editing some for NZ purposes (regardless of where they were originally sourced from)? Yes.
I have the documents in my little hot hands, and will set out a little later your precise connection to the events and quotes in question.
April 29, 2008 at 11:27 am
The problem, Ian, is that these are not your original claims.
April 29, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Thank you Poneke - both for an interesting post and the thread that has followed.
Ian, after you’ve got Noelene her Lemonade please grab me a Cranberry Juice….
April 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Guys, don’t indulge him. Can’t you see this is exactly what he wants? Just leave him to his childish conspiracy theories.
April 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Yes, except that it’s important for someone to speak on Kay Goodger’s behalf, given the constraints she faces in speaking out.
April 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm
And OK Danyl…I’ll call you on that…name the references you think are taken out of context. Chapter and Verse. If you are going to sling defamatory allegations around…you need to put up or shut up.
Well that was easy. On page 236 of ‘Absolute Power’ you have Helen Clark ‘boast [she] was forced into a sham marriage’ and you cite a 1995 Sunday Star Times article by Donna Chisolm as a source for this claim but the article - which is easily found in a NewzText search - contains absolutely no statement that even remotely resembles this.
But here’s something rather strange and coincidental; the opening graph for the article is:
Incidentally, Ian, kudos for the colorful nature of your citations. It’s not every political biography that references Wikipedia, previous articles written by the author and the comments section of Kiwiblog as authoritative sources.
April 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Poneke
I second terence - thanks for an interesting post.
One question - you state that the book is ‘a bestseller’. How do you know, it hasn’t exactly displaced the the romance novels, cookbooks and sports bios that dominate my local bookshop?
More broadly, how is it possibly to judge sales if a fair proportion are from a website?
(I am not questioning your judgement, but am curious as to how it was formed).
Deborah (or Kay, for that matter)
As a public servant, I am constrained in how I speak privately about things to do with my current position, and the activities of the department where I work.
I face no such constraints in dealing with allegations about things I did decades ago, prior to joining the public service. I have taken a quick look at the relevant SSC policies:
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?DocID=6369
and can see nothing that would prevent a very robust response to claims about things I said or wrote in past decades.
If you believe someone is smearing you, fire back with both barrels.
April 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Thanks to all for this post and comments - now I don’t even have to skim-read it at Bennetts…
(Hi Kay - very long time, no see! anyone who enrages Ian so much can’t be too bad)
April 29, 2008 at 6:16 pm
One question - you state that the book is ‘a bestseller’. How do you know, it hasn’t exactly displaced the the romance novels, cookbooks and sports bios that dominate my local bookshop?
Ian says he has moved 7000 copies through bookstores already and has ordered another print run because of the demand. I do not doubt this one bit. The bookshops I frequent in Lambton Quay have been selling Absolute Power in big numbers and have prominent displays of it, which they would not do for a book that was not selling well.
April 29, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Thanks Poneke.
I obviously need to get out of the suburbs and into town.
April 29, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Russell Brown accuses me of attacking Goodger unfairly, and claims the following “key points”
• Key points:
- We’ve retreated from the claim that she actually wrote the material.
- We’ve acknowledged that she is not in fact a “senior advisor” to the government (a key plank of the story’s allegations of malign influence on policy) but a research analyst.
- We have correspondents to a men’s rights forum refuting the idea that she is an anti-family feminist zealot and noting her helpfulness towards them.
-We’re agreed, are we not, that the claim that she “still mixes with Marxist organizations in Europe” is 100% baseless and reckless (even though you apparently had enough confidence in it to use it in large coloured type as a pull-quote).
- We have apologies and retractions from both the NZ Herald and Muriel Newman with respect to the same set of allegations.
I’m not going to discuss this any more, because it’s unfair to the person you have attacked, and who, as a civil servant cannot defend herself.
WISHART’S RESPONSE: POINT ONE
In answer, we have NOT retreated from the claim that Goodger authored or co-authored this stuff in the slightest. The “documents” that both the Investigate article and the book chapter are based on are actually four documents. Firstly, there is a two page introduction to the whole text, written by and directly attributed to Kay Goodger herself, and dated “December 1974”. The introduction provides an overview, and endorsement, of the contents of the whole text.
Goodger, incidentally Russell, is the only NZ feminist named in the documents at all that I can see in my skim through it again today. She plays an instrumental role, on the face of the documents, in publishing the entire booklet.
Secondly, the reader of the booklet is introduced to “The New Rise of Feminism”, which is “the text of a resolution adopted by the second national conference of the [Socialist Action] League, which was held in Wellington, January 7-10, 1973.”
I dunno, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing a national conference of the Socialist Action League could have been held in a phone booth, or at most a school classroom.
Thirdly, the document includes what it says is an excerpt from a speech by Kay Goodger, explaining the Socialist Action League’s submission to the parliamentary select committee on women’s rights. It was given at an International Women’s Day forum on March 8, 1974, at Victoria University.
Fourthly, and finally, Goodger writes in her introduction that the last document “in this pamphlet is the Socialist Action League’s submission to the Select Committee. It presents a socialist programme of demands, some of which call for far-reaching changes affecting the very structure of the present social system”.
Technically, documents three and four are merged into one. Either Goodger or the pamphlet’s editor (possibly the same person) have used Goodger’s Women Day speech explaining the Submission as a preface to the Submission itself.
Goodger was not some independent academic or journalist. She was a Socialist Action League member who appears to have been instrumental in helping work on the text of the resolution adopted in 1973, and helping draft the text of the Submission to Parliament as well.
How do I know Russell? Because in Kay’s admitted introduction she writes: “To those of us presenting the Submission…”, in regard to their appearance before the Select Committee and the frosty response they received.
So like I say Russell…I do not for a second accept your claim that Kay was not involved in writing these documents.
POINT TWO: SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR?
Kay Goodger, Researcher/Analyst
Social Policy Agency
Department of Social Welfare, Private Bag 21
As previously acknowledged by me in Investigate, I accept the distinction between Senior Analyst on social policy (which she was) and Senior Advisor on social policy. The reference to her in Absolute Power is entirely accurate. Russell Brown overstates the significance of the original mis-reference, however, suggesting it was a “key plank” to the story. Hardly. The story was not about one woman’s specific drafting of modern social policy (because I wasn’t looking at Goodger in that sense and wouldn’t have a clue what she had done later), but at the original list of demands and the incredible serendipity that all the wishes had come true over the years.
It was a glancing reference in the original article. No more, and suggestions to the contrary are nothing but Russell Brown spin to avoid the real issue. The substance was, and remains, the hostility towards the traditional family and the “demands” the Socialist Action League (later renamed Communist League) laid down in order to “smash” the family unit.
POINT THREE: We are agreed on this and I included a reference to this specific point in Absolute Power as an acknowledgement.
POINT FOUR: Goodger’s name appeared on a Marxist-linked petition, IIRC (the original source documents have long been archived), but I accepted at the time that the modern Marxism issue was irrelevant – that Goodger’s name on the document did not arise from Marxist links per se. Again, a glancing reference. She was, once, a communist. She cannot erase that from the public record, but if she says she no longer is I am happy to accept that, and I did at the time. This issue does not arise in Absolute Power, so again Russell you are displaying ignorance by not actually reading what I have written.
POINT FIVE: Investigate believed the Herald apologized for some things it did not need to – such as Goodger’s involvement in writing or helping to write the documents in question. For the reasons already outlined in Point One, it is patently obvious she played a key role, and certainly endorsed everything that was written at the time.
I now turn to Kay Goodger’s response to me:
• Kay Goodger
April 29, 2008 at 9:04 am
Here’s some evidence that Wishart wrongly attributed quotes selected from the Socialist Action League’s submission to the 1973-1974 Select Committee on Women’s Rights to me, and subsequently insisted elsewhere that “Goodger wrote it”. The misattributions appear in Chapter 15, which is based on the May 2005 Investigate article.
1. Investigate/Absolute Power:
“Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution.”
WISHART RESPONSE: WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SAY:
“The following is an excerpt from a speech by Kay Goodger, explaining the Socialist Action League’s submission to the parliamentary select committee on women’s rights. It was given at an International Women’s Day forum on March 8, 1974, at Victoria University: … ‘We say in our submission…our goal must be, we think, “to create economic and social alternatives that are superior to the present family institution…”
WISHART’S COMMENT:
Before some hopeless people have a crack at me for not getting the quote word-perfect, it appears again towards the end of the document in the text of the actual submission: “Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution…” (which is the quote Goodger refers to immediately below). Goodger presumably forgot her specific endorsement of the claim in her 1974 speech. And so did Russell Brown.
GOODGER 2. Source used by Wishart: SAL submission to Select Committee on Women’s Rights, describing the League’s view:
“Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs which are currently met, however poorly, by the family. In this way we can ensure that personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not economic compulsion.”
3. Google search on quote published by Wishart:
“While the oppression of women is institutionalised through the family
system, the family as an economic unit cannot be “abolished.” It can only be replaced over time. Our goal is to create economic and social
alternatives that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs currently met, however poorly, by the f