Politicians V. Media (Press, 13 May 1985)

On 11 May 1985, the Broadbank Festival Debate took place at the James Hay Theatre, featuring a lively discussion on the motion “that all politicians are philosophical deviants.” Organised by the Christchurch branch of the New Zealand Speaking Society, this debate aimed to become an annual event and showcased a contest between two sides: the affirmative team of news media representatives and the negative team of politicians. The affirmative team, led by Jim Hopkins, argued assertively in favour of the motion, asserting it was true that politicians are, by nature, philosophical deviants. They claimed that the public’s expectations compel politicians to shift their policies to secure votes, thereby questioning the integrity of political philosophy. Hopkins highlighted the current Labour Government’s record as evidence, insinuating that changes in political direction betray original ideals. He cleverly played on the word “deviant,” linking it to the ongoing Homosexual Law Reform Bill and suggesting that opposition to it could be seen as a deviance of its own, particularly referencing “born-again” Christians. Simon Walker, another speaker for the affirmative, endorsed the notion that some level of philosophical deviation in politics is not only acceptable but essential. He humourously suggested that if there were a party that truly adhered to a philosophical stance, it would be a fictional one—Monty Python's Silly Party, which whimsically advocates for rising unemployment and debt. The third affirmative speaker, David Round, offered a more irreverent take by drawing parallels between the nature of political parties and septic tanks, positing that political philosophies are often non-existent or avoided by politicians. He mockingly observed that the National Party's best attempt at a consistent philosophy was the “think big” approach. On the opposing side, the politicians had to defend their integrity against the affirmative's sharp critiques. Fran Wilde, the leader for the negative team, claimed that politicians are not inherently deviant, as their primary philosophy revolves around self-advancement. She suggested that her presence at the debate on a Saturday night was evidence of a politician's dedication to their mission. Jim Anderton, nicknamed the “Prime Minister of Sydenham,” argued against the notion of universal political deviance, pointing out that some politicians, such as former Minister of Education Merv Wellington, have steadfastly adhered to their policies despite opposition. He provocatively contrasted politicians’ loyalties to those of journalists, claiming that when politicians are bought, they remain loyal. Philip Burden, another negative speaker, admitted that while politicians may be seen as "totally deviant," he argued that they operate without a guiding philosophy, instead functioning as pragmatists who promise electoral support before elections and take contrary actions afterward. Overall, the debate was not just a battle of arguments but a display of wit and humour, with the audience's applause seemingly determining the "winner" of the contest, as noted by chairman Mike Moore. The evening highlighted the ongoing tensions and relationships between the media and politicians, described playfully as akin to “the relationship between a lamp-post and a dog.”

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand