Published in The Australian (Sydney), 11 October 2023
Winston Churchill is often wrongly credited with saying that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
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.
