Throwing light on the trivial undoes Labour

FIRST READING - VERNON SMALL

It reminds you of that most memorable opening line in New Zealand literature from Ronald Hugh Morrieson's The Scarecrow: "The same week our fowls were stolen, Daphne Moran had her throat cut."

The same week David Parker took a box of light bulbs to caucus, our biggest Treaty settlement was celebrated.

Events in Parliament this week had that mix of the sublime and the ridiculous, the trivial and the profound. From the hundreds gathered to celebrate settlements with Te Arawa and the Central North Island iwi, to arguments about rules for more energy-efficient lights and the wisdom of health and safety plans for hairdressers.

They represent together the best and the worst that Parliament and politics can deliver; an agreement with the broadest possible backing that redresses past wrongs and helps point the country toward the future . . . versus fact-light wrangling.

The Treaty deals had Parliament's corridors and halls packed with more than 1200 iwi representatives, celebrating a tradition of bipartisan support, from the Sir Douglas Graham era to Michael Cullen's tenure, that will augment existing landmark deals: Sealord, Ngai Tahu and Tainui.

Meanwhile in the House, National's attempts to brand the Government as a "nanny state" – abetted by some lax political management from Labour – continued with the "ban" on traditional incandescent bulbs.

The truth is not so black and white. But it spoke volumes that Mr Parker had to take a box of energy-efficient, climate- friendly bulbs to his caucus to arm his colleagues in the public relations war.

As National leader John Key is fond of saying: Explaining is losing. In the current environment – an unpopular Government and an Opposition keeping its policy platform well out of sight – much of what fills the headlines are Government announcements and Government explanations. Attack and defence. If the first is not handled well, defensiveness permeates everything.

In that regard, the light bulb issue has been a slow burner.

Mr Parker and the Government's spokeswoman on energy efficiency and conservation, Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, issued their first press release on June 17 (perhaps unwisely sporting the triumphant headline, "Lights out for the incandescent bulb"). But it was a week before it really gained legs as National realised the opportunities it offered to run its favourite "nanny-state" lines. Its spokesman, Gerry Brownlee, switched between the aesthetics of the bulbs, the practicalities of dimming and, finally, to the substantive issue of disposal.

It is what has become known as "the cats in dairies" syndrome. Never mind that Sir Robert Muldoon eventually regulated everything within an inch of its life, including wages and prices.

It was Labour's attempt to ban cats from dairies on health and safety grounds that is often credited with tipping power his way in 1975.

The truth is that there are problems with disposal of some – but not all – of the more efficient bulbs. However, they are not all cork-screw-shaped monstrosities, they do fit many odd-shaped fittings (even chandeliers) and they do not all emit a deathly blue-white light that turns middle-aged faces into death masks.

But the public's visceral reaction – and that of many commentators – was to jump to conclusions, including that the rule was unnecessary and went too far.

It is a moot point why the public is prepared to accept import restrictions on energy-inefficient items as big and expensive as refrigerators, but switches off over a light bulb.

Is it the relative triviality of interference over a common household item? The one-off cost? The aesthetics of the familiar bulb versus tortured alternatives? The (erroneous) impression they would be compelled to replace them before they wear out?

A frustrated Mr Parker provided his best market-day patter to the House: "As members can see here, we have efficient down-light bulbs, we have efficient ordinary-light bulbs, we have screw-in light bulbs, we have bayonet-fitting light bulbs, we even have light bulbs for chandelier fittings, which are efficient for members of the National Party. We have small ones, we have big ones, we have dimmable ones."

Get them while they're hot!

National's shoot-the-nanny hootenanney reached near absurd levels on Tuesday as backbencher Jo Goodhew rose to ask about the health and safety regulation of hairdressers. (Remember, the Opposition is yet to ask an oral question on the Budget.)

Now, a cursory hunt through the wires suggests there are real issues here.

The dyes and other chemicals used in the profession can be of danger to hairdressers and clients alike.

Last month, Consumer NZ called for action on the compulsory labelling of hair dyes, after fears of allergic reactions. Studies have identified a heightened risk of some cancers among hairdressers.

But Ms Goodhew wanted to know "if the minister has no evidence that hairdressers are the new public health menace", why would they be required to prepare a public health risk management plan, which must then be assessed and reported to the director-general of health.

Is this bureaucracy gone mad?

No, it is a focus on trivia taken to silly lengths. And it is working. Labour's problem is that voters often shoot first and ask questions later when they sense a government is past its use-by date. When that time arrives anything can become a symbol for inappropriate intervention from a group of ministers that had control over their lives for too long.

It may not be the level of control, as much as who is in control. Another way of saying the same thing? When you can't fend off the sucker punches, it is time for a change.