If a modern-day Churchill sought an argument against democracy, he could easily find one in New Zealand’s election campaigns.
Civics classes (If they still exist) traditionally teach students that elections are the apex of democracy, an open contest for the best ideas.
The truth, however, differs greatly. Election campaigns often disillusion people, and the current New Zealand election illustrates this well.
New Zealanders had much to discuss with their politicians this year. After six turbulent years under a Labour government, many policy topics are demanding serious debate. These include education, law and order, housing, government spending, public debt, civil service, and even road quality.
Yet, New Zealand’s election campaign has, once again, been derailed by distractions.
It is not that the pressing issues failed to appear in the campaign. Rather, they received scant serious attention.
Consider education. The falling standards among New Zealand students should cause national concern.
A recent pilot study by the Ministry of Education showed that over 40% of students failed the writing and maths parts of new literacy and numeracy tests—tests that are not even particularly challenging. This worrying trend has implications for New Zealand’s future workforce and economy.
Additionally, school attendance has declined significantly since the Covid-19 outbreak. In the first term of this year, just 59.5% of students attended school more than 90% of the time.
Further concerns arise from proposed changes to the curriculum. A draft of the new science curriculum lacks fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology. Instead, it aims to teach science solely through the contexts of climate change, biodiversity, the food-energy-water nexus, and infectious diseases.
Given these developments, education should have been a focal point in the election. Although major opposition parties did offer some meaningful policy solutions, these were primarily overlooked in public debates.
In their place, trivial policy ideas captured the spotlight. For example, the National Party’s pledge to ban mobile phones in schools became a talking point, even though most schools already enforce such bans without government intervention.
The National Party also suggested dedicating an hour a day to core subjects like reading, writing, and maths in primary schools. But instead of focusing on the merits of this straightforward proposal, public debates were sidetracked into whether this education policy was old-fashioned.
Missing from the discourse were key questions: How should we assess school performance? What is the best way to revise the curriculum? How can we improve teacher training, particularly using evidence-based approaches?
In economic policy, the conversation similarly fell short, barely touching on New Zealand’s chronic productivity issue.
To be clear, New Zealand is poor compared to other developed countries. Although it remains in the group of first-world nations, it has slipped in global wealth rankings over the past few decades. Once among the world’s richest countries per capita, New Zealand now occupies a much lower position.
Tellingly, some formerly communist Eastern European countries like Poland and Lithuania have surpassed New Zealand in labour productivity. This means they now generate more output per hour worked than New Zealand does.
Addressing this productivity gap is crucial for improving any other aspect of life in New Zealand. Yet, during the election campaign, little was said about boosting the country’s prosperity.
Instead, politicians devoted excessive time to critiquing their opponents’ budget plans. While it is important fiscal numbers must add up, that alone does not make for a sound economic policy. Neither of the two major parties offered any meaningful solutions to elevate New Zealand from its eternal productivity slump.
Finally, the campaign was repeatedly sidetracked by discussions about possible post-election coalitions. Given New Zealand’s electoral system rarely yields outright majorities, it is understandable that coalition configurations would be a campaign topic.
However, it often felt like this was the only issue being discussed. Topics included why Labour no longer wanted to work with Winston Peters’ New Zealand First or why National seemed willing to, despite then claiming otherwise.
Other debates revolved around the ACT Party’s conditional support for National and why ACT leader David Seymour and Winston Peters might never collaborate.
While these are intriguing questions, they do not propel New Zealand forward. Not by an inch.
The election campaign was a wasted opportunity. It should have been a comprehensive review of the nation’s state and a forum for serious policy discussions. Instead, it trivialised important issues, reduced politics to a mere spectacle, and made a farce of democratic ideals.
On Saturday, New Zealanders will elect a new Parliament. But what they truly need is a new approach to politics.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
New Zealanders had much to discuss with their politicians this year. After six turbulent years under a Labour government, many policy topics are demanding serious debate. These include education, law and order, housing, government spending, public debt, civil service, and even road quality.
Yet, New Zealand’s election campaign has, once again, been derailed by distractions.
It is not that the pressing issues failed to appear in the campaign. Rather, they received scant serious attention.
Consider education. The falling standards among New Zealand students should cause national concern.
A recent pilot study by the Ministry of Education showed that over 40% of students failed the writing and maths parts of new literacy and numeracy tests—tests that are not even particularly challenging. This worrying trend has implications for New Zealand’s future workforce and economy.
Additionally, school attendance has declined significantly since the Covid-19 outbreak. In the first term of this year, just 59.5% of students attended school more than 90% of the time.
Further concerns arise from proposed changes to the curriculum. A draft of the new science curriculum lacks fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology. Instead, it aims to teach science solely through the contexts of climate change, biodiversity, the food-energy-water nexus, and infectious diseases.
Given these developments, education should have been a focal point in the election. Although major opposition parties did offer some meaningful policy solutions, these were primarily overlooked in public debates.
In their place, trivial policy ideas captured the spotlight. For example, the National Party’s pledge to ban mobile phones in schools became a talking point, even though most schools already enforce such bans without government intervention.
The National Party also suggested dedicating an hour a day to core subjects like reading, writing, and maths in primary schools. But instead of focusing on the merits of this straightforward proposal, public debates were sidetracked into whether this education policy was old-fashioned.
Missing from the discourse were key questions: How should we assess school performance? What is the best way to revise the curriculum? How can we improve teacher training, particularly using evidence-based approaches?
In economic policy, the conversation similarly fell short, barely touching on New Zealand’s chronic productivity issue.
To be clear, New Zealand is poor compared to other developed countries. Although it remains in the group of first-world nations, it has slipped in global wealth rankings over the past few decades. Once among the world’s richest countries per capita, New Zealand now occupies a much lower position.
Tellingly, some formerly communist Eastern European countries like Poland and Lithuania have surpassed New Zealand in labour productivity. This means they now generate more output per hour worked than New Zealand does.
Addressing this productivity gap is crucial for improving any other aspect of life in New Zealand. Yet, during the election campaign, little was said about boosting the country’s prosperity.
Instead, politicians devoted excessive time to critiquing their opponents’ budget plans. While it is important fiscal numbers must add up, that alone does not make for a sound economic policy. Neither of the two major parties offered any meaningful solutions to elevate New Zealand from its eternal productivity slump.
Finally, the campaign was repeatedly sidetracked by discussions about possible post-election coalitions. Given New Zealand’s electoral system rarely yields outright majorities, it is understandable that coalition configurations would be a campaign topic.
However, it often felt like this was the only issue being discussed. Topics included why Labour no longer wanted to work with Winston Peters’ New Zealand First or why National seemed willing to, despite then claiming otherwise.
Other debates revolved around the ACT Party’s conditional support for National and why ACT leader David Seymour and Winston Peters might never collaborate.
While these are intriguing questions, they do not propel New Zealand forward. Not by an inch.
The election campaign was a wasted opportunity. It should have been a comprehensive review of the nation’s state and a forum for serious policy discussions. Instead, it trivialised important issues, reduced politics to a mere spectacle, and made a farce of democratic ideals.
On Saturday, New Zealanders will elect a new Parliament. But what they truly need is a new approach to politics.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
4 comments:
Political debate in this country is a farce because we have a media intent on favouring one side.
The root of evil is the MSM. Without addressing this, political debate and public understanding of important issues will never improve.
If the Left manage to win this election it will be thanks to our MSM and the embarrassing ignorance and naivety of many New Zealanders.
When measuring productivity how is the vast effort and money devoted to te reo assessed? Not an issue for the Poles.
More to the point, why do we have excellent articles on NZCPR by people with excellent analysis and ideas who don't seem to be able to influence anyone in the political sphere? We have academics, business people, political scientists, economists and has-been politicians (who promote ideals that never saw the light of day when they were politicians - with perhaps the exception of Peter Dunne) who stand by and watch as we go down the drain hole.
Will it take a mother of all protests to start a movement for change? Or could there possibly be some leaders in our country who will make something happen? We can see the problems but it's like watching an arsonist light a fire and just watching it burn.
I have been an active member of 3 different political parties over the last 30 years, hoping to help make a difference but I realise that I wasted my time. The movers and shakers are working in a world not of politics and have no-one stepping in and asking questions. The media has huge culpability here.
MC
No sizzle just over cooked boiled meat. So tough it cannot be eaten and comes without any flavour. Hopeless cooks who have ruined the meal. Labour and the Green will never learn, just sack them quickly before they destroy everything.
Post a Comment