Voting papers ready for their two ticks.
Peter Carr
The right to vote is one of those “must have” acts for which many have fought – and died – in the past. Ask the lady who threw herself under the King’s horse in England over 130 years ago. Ask Kate Sheppard – a much vaunted national hero who led women into equal voting rights with men around the same time – thus, bringing New Zealand onto a gold medal platform of women’s rights. Yet it took many years for one of that gender to grace a green leather seat in the House of Representatives.
And so, this week, three days prior to this article appearing before your eyes, early voting started for the current political round. When this innovation first took place a scant low percentage of voters utilised the opportunity. Instead, the greater majority were happy to trudge along to the local village hall, school or church premises to join a queue which dwindled rapidly if there was marked inclement weather. In 2020 67 per cent of those who voted utilised the early venue offering – thus essentially forcing political leaders to ensure that their key messages hit the road at least two weeks prior to the official election date.
To assist the populace to understand those key messages the television companies gleefully put up their key political investigative journalists to host what may be best described as ‘shoutathons’ masquerading under the nomenclature of debates. I was lucky enough to attend a school where debating was very much a part of the curriculum – where teams of usually three earnest future leaders (or at least thinkers) would put the case for a subject to be debated in a positive and or negative environment. And the audience decided on the winners.
What was de rigueur for these excellent and provoking exchanges was that good manners, silence when a formal speaker has the floor and a regard for their earnest preparation was appreciated – usually with vigorous applause at an appropriate time. Polite behaviour were very much the order of the day and woe betide any boy (single sex school) who breached any acceptable and expected behaviour.
But over recent weeks (and Sunday morning four days ago was no exception) we were treated to extremely poor manners by both broadcaster and political leader where the former, using library-based information, tried to trip up the political aspirant who was struggling with numerical details. Shouting at each other, interrupting, the aspirant threatened to change the manner by which TVNZ will be operated. This indicated that a professional alternative – such as the written word firmly and irrevocably set up on newsprint – can be swiftly scanned, read, re-read and, if required, measured in subsequent letters to the editor.
The protagonists on Sunday (and there will be more of it this coming Thursday evening) exhibited the very worst in both journalism and political leadership. Worse still, after the close of voting next week, we will probably be subject to a lengthy period of haranguing between parties as they attempt to ringfence their associated bedfellows in order to have a majority in the House.
The outcome will no doubt be poor political governance, sloppy, uneven legislation and, hopefully, a demand to distance ourselves from the shackles of the dreaded MMP.
