It's bizarre, I know, but I enjoy elections. That's probably because, even more bizarrely, I'm fascinated by politics. And that is because, most bizarre of all, I'm actually interested in policies.
Most of the time, of course, political debate has little to do with policies. Instead, it revolves around personality issues that are largely irrelevant to the running of the nation.
I don't really care whether or not David Benson-Pope stuffed a tennis ball in some noisy kid's mouth decades ago. What I want to know is whether he and his colleagues can come up with an assessment system that tells us something useful about students and their schools.
Nor am I bothered by Gerry Brownlee manhandling a protester at National's campaign opening last election. What interests me is whether he is capable of presiding over policies that see Maori participate fully in national life.
The reason I enjoy elections is because that is the time for a real focus on the ideas the parties are putting forward and what they would mean for the country.
Yes, I know that elections are about personalities as well but, in the end, surely it's the policy differences that count?
I am not worried by Don Brash's difficulty coming up with clever soundbites on television. His performance as Governor of the Reserve Bank and rapid development as a politician leave me confident he could do the job of Prime Minister.
I am also unfazed by Helen Clark's failure to front up in the court case involving speeding charges against her entourage. We all know that she can take tough decisions when it is necessary.
What matters is what direction the two opposing leaders would take the country if they gained power, and the best idea of that comes from looking at their policy promises.
Take the economy, for example. The election provides a great opportunity to debate whether the Government should focus primarily on growing a bigger national cake, as National argues, or sharing the cake more evenly, as Labour has done.
I think the only way the average Kiwi will get a slice the same size as that enjoyed by the average Australian is to grow the cake, but there is plenty of room for argument about where the balance between efficiency and equity should fall.
What matters is that we have an intelligent national dialogue about the alternative courses on offer and fully understand their implications. And an election is the right time for that to occur.
So has it happened? Not quite. Thus far, economic debate has concentrated mainly on questions like when National will release its tax policy and how much money Labour has available for last-minute election promises. Weighty stuff.
Foreign affairs is another area where an election spotlight would serve a useful purpose.
The big question there is whether we should emphasise relationships with our traditional allies such as Australia and the United States, which is what National seems to think, or place our trust in the United Nations, as Labour prefers.
Personally, my concerns about the course being plotted by the present US Administration are outweighed by a fear that the United Nations in its present form is unlikely to be any more effective over a crisis in our part of the world than it was in, say, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or Sudan.
Still, it is an area where there is plenty of room for disagreement. What matters is that we come to a national understanding on the divergent directions in which the two policy emphases might lead the country before it is too late to turn back. And, again, an election is the right time for all of that to be thrashed out through informed debate.
Unfortunately it hasn't quite happened yet. Instead, we have had a lot of squabbling over the suggestion that a US billionaire might be pulling National's policy strings and whether Trevor Mallard's claim to that effect was just a case of him running amok or a carefully planned Labour tactic.
Related to that, of course, is our rigidly nuclear-free stand which, despite being raised to almost religious status, is another policy area that should be debated.
Quite apart from the fact that the US continues to be irritated by our ban on visits by nuclear-powered warships is the wider question of whether New Zealand can afford to ignore the option of nuclear-generated electricity.
With natural gas reserves declining, hydro-electric schemes stalled by problems over water rights, coal apparently off the agenda because of greenhouse gases, and wind farms striking increasing opposition, our growing demand for electricity must be met somehow.
A number of other countries facing similar problems are turning to the new generation of nuclear power stations - claimed to be cheaper, safer and definitely greenhouse gas-free - to fill the gap.
Surely only someone with a closed mind would refuse to even debate the options, and an election campaign is a good time to do it.
Not, however, this election, it seems. National is so scared of nuclear contamination it is promising to do nothing without a referendum.
And Labour seems to believe that any suggestion of using nuclear energy equates to abandoning our status as an independent nation.
Instead there has been a deeply edifying argument over whether Lockwood Smith sounded out a visiting delegation of senators about getting a US think-tank involved in a nuclear debate, and a related fuss over the propriety of Phil Goff making selective releases of confidential Foreign Affairs minutes.
Ah, well, another week of wise discussion on Mt Olympus.
This is the last in this series of Jim Eagles' columns. John Roughan returns next week.
Opinion by
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
