Editorial Tuesday May 27, 2014

Peter Jackson, editor, The Northland Age

THEY haven't gone the whole hog and demanded chicks for free, but some political parties are once again showing an alarming interest in getting money for nothing.

The idea that we would all be better off if the taxpayer funded political parties has been around for a while, and although it regularly drops off the radar it keeps coming back, and seems about to do so again. If it's left waiting in the wings a little longer this time around that will only be because of a perception that taxpayers shouldn't be so blatantly insulted too close to a general election.

Art galleries and political parties have at least one thing in common; if they can't generate enough support to make them financially viable they should call it a day. Art galleries might make up for a lack of public interest by finding a wealthy patron, but it is deeply unhealthy that some of our politicians see nothing wrong about forming that sort of relationship with people who don't want a bar of them. It is outrageous that parties that struggle to rise above the margin of error in poll after poll, or couldn't win an electorate seat to save themselves, should ask for taxpayer funding, but the worst offender seems to be Labour, which used to fundraise but is apparently finding it difficult these days.

Apart from the distasteful nature of the proposition that taxpayers should fork out for the people who serve us so badly to make promises they have no intention of keeping, there are at least two very good reasons for insisting that the parties fund themselves. One is that if they are so left (or right) field that they have no appeal at all, they will disappear. The other is that there is nothing like sizzling sausages to keep them in touch with the people they purport to represent. This is particularly important under MMP, which means a good chunk of those who inhabit the House would otherwise have no contact with the real world at all.

Increasingly we are being wooed by party leaders as opposed to the parties per se; our elections have evolved into a presidential-type contest, with the rank and file would-be MPs cheering, as unobtrusively as possible, from the sidelines. We only really get to know them once they've won a seat, especially if that's a list seat, and even then they often remain anonymous.

Who had ever heard of Green MP Jan Logie before she enriched our lives with her obscene tweet about the government's budget? Anyone care to explain how her elevation to Parliament has made this a better country in which to live? Does anyone have any idea where she sits on this year's list? She's 10th, one place above Kerikeri-based (and rather more impressive) David Clendon. Both will be returned in September unless the Green vote collapses.

We've all heard of Maurice Williamson, although most of us probably wish we hadn't.

Truth be told, a good many of our 121 MPs have no public profile at all, because they haven't done anything of note, they've never opened their mouths and/or their parties don't need to them to achieve public recognition. That's the job of the Russel Normans and Meturia Tureis, the David Cunliffes and John Keys.

So why should the taxpayer front up with the cash they need to mount an election campaign? Apart from the fact that this current Parliament has arguably been the most appallingly behaved, puerile and self-serving in memory, the concept that taxpayers should fund them is fundamentally wrong. We already give them enough by way of free television time, largesse that blatantly favours the big parties over the small (and new), as no doubt would any formula they come up with for total campaign funding.

They will, and do, say that if parties were taxpayer-funded there would be no question of politicians selling access to the hoi polloi. Wrong again. A crooked politician will not be deterred by whatever arrangements are made for campaign funding, and in any event, contrary to what some would have us believe, politicians at all levels have always been within reach of those who wish to see them. Long may that last.

There is no reason why politicians should be immune to the sense of entitlement that is taking hold in this country, but they should be leading by example, not indulging in the disconcertingly common belief that whatever anyone wants to do, someone else should pay for it. Deciding whether or not to buy a sausage from any given political party, or to make a more sizeable contribution, is about the last means we the common people have of influencing politicians and their parties. If we don't want to give voluntarily we should not be compelled to do so.

All this talk of level playing fields and fairness is a load of cobblers. It's about political parties that have lost touch with the people they represent trying to stave off bankruptcy.

They would do better to ponder why so few people want to support them, and do something about it.

Land of opportunityEvery day we hear stories of how hard life in this country has become. Families struggle to make ends meet, kids go to bed (and to school) hungry, workers baulk at minuscule pay rises or no pay rises at all, and the Kiwi dream of home ownership has been snatched from a whole generation. But for some this is still the land of opportunity. Even in the Far North, where the social deprivation index is supposedly at its worst, some are not only making a go of their lives, but are going gangbusters. And rarely does that have anything to do with silver spoons or any other sort of unearned advantage that is denied to the many.

The key ingredients are attitude and enthusiasm. And one of the great things about working for a newspaper, especially a small one, is that it routinely provides opportunities to meet people with both.

The latest addition to the writer's list is Victoria Valley artist Michelle Chapman-Cullen (see page 7), who displayed what she was made of when she left her family in Australia to give her kids what she describes as a true Kiwi upbringing. This is a woman who, at the age of 27, faced more challenges than most. And now, at 40, an age when many of her generation have conceded defeat, she is embarking upon a career as an artist.

It helps, no doubt, that she has talent to burn, but so do a lot of other people. And she has worked hard to get where she is; any success that comes her way will have been well and truly earned. But apart from her talent, it is her passion that makes an immediate impact. She still has a busy life beyond her art, but her life has taken a whole new turn, and she is clearly enjoying every moment of it.

Michelle Chapman-Cullen is patently a glass half full person, and we could do with more of them. There must have been many times in her life when the future looked bleak, but it's all rosy now, and that's down to her (with a nod, no doubt, to those who have supported her). And spending 30 minutes with her makes one wonder why so many can't see further than their immediate difficulties.