Their are only two rational reasons to filibuster. The first is to protest a bill when there is no other effective means of protesting it’s passage. This is normally the province of small parties who wish to make their point clear. The filibustering is usually short, usually enough to delay rather than obstruct. The second reason is to try and delay a bill passed the end of parliament. National attempted this with the ETS, knowing that, if they won the election, they would certainly have to completely revise or scrap the bill.

Apparently Labour is simply using the filibuster to protest urgency. They are down on record as supporting the concept of an Auckland Supercity, so they are not really rejecting the bill – just it’s speed through parliament. They could have made their point with a half a dozen amendments (preferably the sensible ones they really wished to debate). Unfortunately they chose to be childish instead.

So why is National using urgency again? My theory is that there are certain laws (90-day probation and this one) that are likely to generate a great deal of political opposition (rather than grass roots opposition like the anti-smacking bill). National strategy for these seems to be to push them through as early and fast as possible so that, by the time of the 2011 elections, the memory of their passage is distant. This tactic will only work if the bills do not have large negative unintended consequences. It is a risky strategy because it could come back to bite them nastily in 2011. It could also be a big win if it works. Sounds very John Key to me.

Of course, if it works well, then National can point to Labour’s filibustering and show them up to be the silly fools they are.

Related posts:

1. The First Day of Christmas
2. Strategy or Stupidity?
3. White Noise