Garth George: Independent idealists in Parliament ... if only

It is nice to see that there are some idealists sprinkled among the ideologues making a bid to get into, or back into, Parliament in this election campaign.

Foremost among them are the candidates for the two Christian parties, who will never live to see their idealism bent out of shape and ultimately mangled by the compromises that politics ever demands.

Fortunately for them - although in their naivety they probably disagree with me - the only way any of the Christian Heritage or Destiny Party candidates will get into Parliament is by taking a look from the visitors' gallery.

For three elections I have made it plain that I have no time for Christian political parties and seriously question the philosophy that leads to their formation. Now it's four.

It was a tenet of society when I grew up that "religion and politics don't mix", and that is as true today as it was then.

One has only to study a bit of world history, and to look at the Middle East today, to see what an absolute disaster religiously led governments, including some set up in the name of Christ, have been and are.

I do not, however, have any argument with Christians becoming politicians, for they are generally politicians who happen to be Christians, which is quite different from being Christian politicians.

Which brings me to one idealist for whom I have a great deal of sympathy, a Christian who became a list politician under the flag of the United Future Party.

After one term Paul Adams has left United Future and is standing as an independent in his home electorate of East Coast Bays. And he's doing it because of his political ideals rather than his Christian beliefs.

Mr Adams wants to represent people, not just a political party, and hopes to be instrumental in ushering in what he sees as the "next generation" of MMP.

He reckons the MMP system as it operates today is simply "first-past-the-post in disguise" because it is still dominated, as was FPP, by political parties and their strict dogmas.

But this is the bit that really appeals to me: Mr Adams envisages a dozen or so independent MPs, elected in their home constituencies and owing allegiance to no political party or ideology, making MMP much more effective and giving the public a lot more say in the affairs of the nation.

It's a damn shame that so firm is the grip of the political parties on the electoral system that it will never come to pass.

Parliamentarians would never allow it and, much to this nation's shame, they are the ones who have all the say.

Which is why we've never had the second referendum on MMP. No party is going to put at risk the powers it has acquired to decide who will and who won't get into Parliament. And we, poor silly people that we are, call this democracy.

But at least Mr Adams is prepared to give it a go and his electorate is a pretty near perfect example of what he's on about.

It is held by National's high-ranked strategist Murray McCully, whose list position is so high that he couldn't miss out on a seat in Parliament if he tried.

There is, therefore, in Mr Adams' view - and I have to agree with him - no good reason for the electorate to vote for Mr McCully since he will be in Parliament anyway.

They could, instead, well take the opportunity to elect an independent who, unrestricted by party duties and policies, could better address the issues of concern to them.

And if there were enough of them - Mr Adams' dozen, perhaps -independents could make a huge difference to the way things happen in Parliament.

Take, for instance, the votes on the controversial prostitution and civil unions legislation. One sneaked through by one vote and the other by a handful, simply because the Labour Party laid down the law on how its members would vote.

Those votes certainly indicated that the gap between the morally liberal and morally conservative in Parliament appears to be closing - witness Michael Cullen's warning to the party not to push the boundaries any more - and the election of a few independents would probably speed that process up.

Politics is all about negotiation, and if electors want to have a stronger position at the parliamentary bargaining tables then they need to elect some MPs who don't have to toe party lines and submit to the collective conscience.

I like it. But, sadly, neither I nor Mr Adams is likely to see the day it happens. New Zealand voters just ain't that smart.


You have to hand it to the master

Paul Holmes' interviews with Helen Clark and husband Peter Davis and with Don Brash and his wife Je Lan on Tuesday night were a masterpiece of television that could not have been carried off by anyone else, because no one else has Holmes' human touch.

Those who tried to write him off because of the failure of his current affairs programme after he moved to Prime will live to eat their words.
The way in which he drew out the humanness of the two couples is a rare gift indeed, and one which few journalists possess. Holmes has it in abundance.