We're not asking right questions

By JOHN HINCHCLIFF*

In this election campaign candidates began by promoting their policies intelligently and sensibly. Unfortunately, character assassination and mud-slinging have returned to capture attention.

Once again the candidates do not seem able to rise above the short sound-bites encouraged by the media. Thus we are denied leadership in the development of big-picture ideas and strategies.

We all choose to embrace New Zealand as our home. But what does it mean to be New Zealanders? It must be more than keeping immigration down and singing Po Kare Kare Ana. The question we should be asking is whether this election will help us to discover ourselves.

Confucius said: "The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home." Integrity, in turn, depends on underlying key values. The question is: what sort of values do our political leaders want us, as New Zealanders, to manifest? Is it that we should make more money? Or save more? Consume more? Or less?

Should we share our society's financial burden equitably? Or does this mean a descent into mediocrity? Should we be self-centred? Or should we strive for altruism and share what we have with others?

We belong to the family of nations. To what extent should we be caring for those who are suffering from starvation, disease, pollution and oppression? Are we giving enough of our budget to help those less fortunate than ourselves?

To what extent are we committing ourselves to pax Americana? Are we preparing ourselves for a long-term relationship with China, the next superpower? Will we stand firm on the Kyoto Protocol or will we back-pedal on our commitment to resolving the problems of pollution and resource management?

Our relationships will determine our future in many ways. But this election seems to avoid any discussion in this area.

Reports tell us our health system is too expensive for us to afford adequate care for everybody. As usual, we hear commitments from those in opposition to make more money available for propping up the existing system.

But are there not creative ways to reform the expensive components? Why is there no debate about the need to fund more preventive care, such as reducing some health problems by addressing issues of poor lifestyle?

The genetic modification debate looms as the major single issue of the campaign. But there are so many complex dimensions to this debate. It is too simple to be either for or against GM. And there are serious issues relating to ecology that are being ignored, such as the eradication of pests, protecting forests and policing and penalising those who harm our natural order.

Will there be an attempt to prioritise the ecological challenges and so make progress on the most urgent problems?

The Treaty of Waitangi is again being aired. One party says the progress of compensating for land acquisition claims should be time-limited. Another says the progress is fine given the enormous complexities. Yet another seeks to attack the treaty industry.

But underlying this issue remain serious issues of biculturalism and multiculturalism. Can we really create a society in which individual cultural differences are adequately expressed and sensitively respected? Is Maori separatism an issue and, indeed, who is a Maori?

And education. The election seems to be focusing on just a few issues, such as the National Certificate for Educational Achievement, which depends upon a discussion of appropriate assessment - something that is too complex for political bullet-points.

Similarly, bulk funding deserves more than "we are for it" or "we are against it". Forgiving student loans is an attractive proposition to those who have taken big loans, but not to those who have sacrificed to pay them back. Is there another answer?

Is the brain drain solely the result of our inability to pay sufficient salaries, or graduates seeking to flee from student loans? Or is it a temporary absence for professional development? Or are they disaffected with our society, our direction, our sense of selfhood? Do they retain their loyalty to the New Zealand ideal? If so, what is it?

Much is made of the knowledge society. But what does this mean for us as a nation? Should we financially encourage more research in information technology and biotechnology? Where is the philosophical and ethical analysis relating to artificial intelligence and the various new technologies? What sort of society will it all give us?

If it is clearly important, should we not fund our universities and research centres more appropriately? Should we not have some bonding scheme to retain our best research brains?

We are focusing on selecting our preferred local candidate and party. Or are we? Is it right that presidential politics should sideline our quest for the best representative? Does the party manifesto mean anything?

Clearly we have talented, competent and idealistic people standing for Parliament. Which party will admit that the crude insults and silly interjections mock the ideal of a Parliament that offers wise, thoughtful and competent debate?

Is party loyalty such an important commitment on almost every issue? Would it not be more healthy to allow MPs to vote with their consciences? Must our MPs be dutiful if not mindless sycophants? Is there a reformer among them?

We mark our ballot paper every three years or so. But does this really mean we live in a democracy? Perhaps we are being fooled into believing we live in a democracy. Perhaps there are other ways we can participate.

But perhaps the fault lies with us. Perhaps we passively acquiesce to the agenda of debating points offered to us by the candidates. Perhaps we should attend electorate forums and engage in discussions with our candidates about the issues that concern us. But where are these meetings? I have not been aware of any in my electorate.

We need purposeful, insightful and dignified debate dedicated to building a good community. Useless self-seeking posturing to win a few extra votes must be rendered obsolete.

But again, in all probability the fault lies with us, the electors. It is our responsibility to ensure that the level of debate is raised to a higher plane. And the media can help.

Let's challenge each other to challenge our politicians to engage in the search for answers to these questions and, in particular, the crucial question about the meaning of being a New Zealander.

* Dr John Hinchcliff is vice-chancellor of the Auckland University of Technology.

Full news coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links:
The parties, policies, voting information, and more

Ask a politician:
Send us a question, on any topic, addressed to any party leader. We'll choose the best questions to put to the leaders, and publish the answers in our election coverage.