Background Image courtesy of Nick Minto, Copyright 2024 Nick Minto; photographed November 6, 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn discuss:

• Why Democrats Lost: Incumbency, Elitism, Class & Alienation, Identity Politics…
• Why Trump Won: Anti-Establishment, Populism, Avatar for the Alienated…
• What to Expect Next: Trump Appointments, Isolationism, Geopolitical Impact & Response…

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn encourage interaction while live, and encourage their audience to lodge comments and questions. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and click on notification-bell for an alert for future programmes.

Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Background image: courtesy of and Copyright Nick Minto 2024. Image taken November 6 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The above chart shows the votes for the principal ‘leftish’ political parties in England from 1992 to 2024. The important thing to note is that vote tallies should be rising over time in any country which has a rising population. England had had a rising population trend, yet the numbers of votes cast for the established centre-left parties have been on a falling trend.

For Labour the situation is worse than it looks. In 1992 Labour was comfortably defeated by Conservative. Yet Labour got a million more votes in 1992 than it did in 2024.

We may blame ‘apathy’ for this situation. Many more people are not voting at all. But apparent apathy is usually a symptom of something else. Ideally, when we vote we are voting for some ideal or somebody. More people vote when they perceive at least one of the options in a positive light. There is another situation which can lead to a high propensity to vote; namely if the existing government is perceived as being so bad that people will vote for whoever they must vote for in order to dismiss the government. This was the situation in England in 2024; yet even that urgency failed to galvanise voters. The total number of votes cast in England was the lowest since 2005, when Labour ‘won’ with 35% of the vote. (In 2024 Labour got 34% of the vote.)

In 2024, the total votes cast for Labour in England fell by nearly a million, after the 2019 election which was disastrous for Labour. Yet the number of seats Labour gained nearly doubled. Clearly this last distortion is a result of the ‘plurality’ voting system used in elections to the Westminster Parliament. But there’s something more important going on. The centre-left is losing favour.

The vote for the Liberal Democrats also fell in 2024, despite that party gaining a huge increase in the number of seats won. Their decline in votes is the result of what is commonly known as tactical voting; in this case it appears that about a million people who would have voted LibDem in an MMP election chose to lend their votes to Labour. (Probably more LibDem supporters than this lent their votes to Labour, because it is also clear that, where the LibDem candidate was better placed to beat the Conservative candidate, many otherwise Labour voters lent their votes to LibDem candidates.

It was this ‘efficient’ and rational vote-lending behaviour that enabled the centre-left to win so many seats. So, while, for once, ‘progressive’ voters were clever this time, the bigger story is the decline of popular support for the centre-left political agenda.

Another feature of the 2024 election is the Palestine-Gaza factor. In many traditionally Labour seats, there were ‘independent’ pro-Palestine candidates who cannibalised the Labour vote; indeed a few of these candidates won their seats.

The other important feature is the rise of the Green Party as a left-wing party winning pro-Palestine votes; especially votes of non-Muslims who are disturbed by what is currently happening in the Levant. For this see the two tables below. The Green Party may have gained ‘critical mass’, being poised to be the new left presence in British politics.

England General Election Results
Votes
	Total	Labour	Conservative	LibDem	Green	other
1992	28,148,506	9,551,910	12,796,772	5,398,293		401,531
1997	26,058,712	11,372,329	8,780,881	4,677,565	60,013	1,167,924
2001	21,870,762	9,056,824	7,705,870	4,246,853	158,173	703,042
2005	22,713,855	8,043,461	8,116,005	5,201,286	251,051	1,102,052
2010	25,085,097	7,042,398	9,931,029	6,076,189	258,954	1,776,527
2015	25,571,204	8,087,684	10,517,878	2,098,404	1,073,242	3,793,996
2017	27,165,789	11,390,099	12,379,200	2,121,810	506,969	767,711
2019	26,909,668	9,152,034	12,710,845	3,340,835	819,751	886,203
2024	24,288,122	8,365,122	6,279,411	3,199,060	1,780,226	4,664,303

England General Election Results
Seats
	Total	Labour	Conservative	LibDem	Green	other
1992	524	195	319	10
1997	529	329	165	34		1
2001	529	323	165	40		1
2005	529	286	194	47		2
2010	533	191	298	43	1
2015	533	206	319	6	1	1
2017	533	227	297	8	1
2019	533	180	345	7	1
2024	543	348	116	65	4	10

Watching that election on UK Sky TV (live on You Tube), one commentator repeatedly mentioned the “efficiency” of Labour, meaning that Labour won many seats on small margins. This so-called efficiency will make Labour very vulnerable in the next election, which, luckily for them, may not be until 2029.

Unless Labour performs exceptionally well, the votes lent to Labour will return to their LibDem homes.

What about the votes Labour lost to Independents and Greens in safe Labour seats? And the votes, Labour lent to winning (and near-winning) LibDem candidates. They are most likely to stay with the Liberal Democrats who will need these votes to fend off Conservative candidates.

The Tories

What of the ‘Tory’ Conservatives? They clearly got trounced; their vote count fell by more than 50% in the 2024 election. They may or may not get votes from people who voted Reform, the biggest of the ‘other’ parties in 2024. A useful strategy for them could be to cultivate the large conservative Muslim vote. A significantly higher proportion of voters in England are now Muslims; that proportion will only grow as Muslim households continue to have more children than the national average. And, Islam is a very conservative religion.

There is a natural fit here, going forward. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nadhim Zahawi was born in Iraq and is “thought to be a Muslim”. Likewise, another former Conservative Chancellor, Sajid Javid – born to Pakistani parents – “still identifies as being a Muslim”. If the Tories wish to be relevant in England’s future, they will need to adopt a wider political vision that is attractive to non-radical Muslims as well as to conservative people of other faiths. Otherwise, the future of the Right in England may fall to the new Reform Party; such a change has already happened in France.

So, I am predicting that – in 2029, or before – the LibDems may come through the middle, just as Emmanuel Macron’s party did in France in 2017, leaving both Labour and Conservative to play the role of small ‘legacy parties’. Labour’s ‘landslide’ is likely to accelerate, but in the wrong way; indeed, a landslide is actually a disaster.

Note

In this chart and text, I have looked at England only, which is the core of the United Kingdom, but not its entirety. This is because, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, other parties play significant roles. In Scotland in 2024, the big story was the crash of the Scottish National Party (SNP). Labour was a beneficiary of that crash. But it is likely that votes lent to Labour by regular SNP voters will not stay with Labour.

______________

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

The Trump Assassination Attempt, Security Failures, The Politics and What Happens Next? – Firstly, in this episode of A View from Afar, political scientist and former Pentagon analyst, Dr Paul Buchanan, will provide us a preliminary assessment of the assassination attempt on former United States president Donald Trump.

At this juncture, it’s important to be clear…

To achieve a robust analysis of this crime that occurred while Trump was speaking at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, it will require a thorough assessment of eye witness accounts, details of the supposed gunman, his background, associations, potential motivations – and importantly a deep assessment of the role of the security agencies.

To determine a clear and probable account of what happened in Pennsylvania this weekend, we would need all of that information, and to apply it against any variances and/or avoidances by those involved or associated with investigating the events.

But clearly, much of that information is not yet available to us.

However, there is enough information for us to consider a preliminary assessment of how satisfactory, or otherwise, the security arrangements were for Trump at this rally.

So, with that said; today we will examine:

• How could an assassin get inside a security parameter, and in to a position with direct line of sight to his target… Donald Trump?
• And specifically, while the gunman was outside the immediate venue, it would appear the shooter’s location was within the security parameters, a position obvious to him as a prime area, with direct line of sight to his intended target.
• So why wouldn’t that fact be obvious to the US security services who were responsible for ensuring the parameters were safe and clear?
• And, importantly too, what are the political implications of this assassination attempt?
• For example; does this assassination attempt accentuate Trump’s mythology as an invincible born to rule leader? And as such, draw contrast to the incumbent US President Joe Biden’s frailty?

In this regard, Paul and I will assess what is likely to happen next?

Live Audience: Remember, if you are joining us live via the social media platforms, feel free to comment as we can include your comments and questions in this programme.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The recent French elections delivered an entirely predictable result; although few in the mainstream media actually predicted it. Instead, the pre-election narrative was that the dastardly ‘far right’ was heading for a win, and that a win for Rally France would presage some kind of disaster for democracy (even bigger, potentially, than the disaster being played out in the United States). And then, after the votes were counted, it seemed that the ‘oddball’ French voting system won the day by delivering the Left in a contest that had been presented as Centre versus Right.

The French two-ballot voting system, used in France’s Fifth Republic (1958 constitution) is a variant of the Australian preferential system, and the multi-ballot systems used for electing presidents and leaders of political parties. One of the earliest countries to use the simple two-ballot electoral system was Maoriland New Zealand – Maoriland was once the preferred indigenous name for New Zealand – in 1908 and 1911.

The French system has one complicating quirk that distinguishes it from its New Zealand antecedent, and that’s what allowed the Rally France (“far right”) party/alliance to (disingenuously) claim that it was robbed in last Sunday’s final vote.

The simple two-ballot system – adopted by New Zealand for the 1908 election – is simply the ‘first past the post’ plurality system (FPP, still used by United Kingdom, United States, and Canada) but with a second round election in electorates for which one candidate failed to gain a majority of votes.

Multi-Ballot Voting

A purest multi-ballot system would have up to four rounds of voting in an electorate with five candidates; after each round the lowest-polling candidate would be eliminated. Thus, the final round would be a simple run-off between the two surviving candidates. We see this system used, ubiquitously, in ‘Reality TV’ shows.

The two advantages of multi-balloting are, one, that it eliminates the ‘vote-splitting’ which is the bane of the FPP system; vote-splitting occurs when two or more candidates occupy a similar place on the political spectrum, to the potential detriment of all those allied candidates. And, two, that multi-balloting enables voters to reflect before making their final choice, knowing where other voters’ preferences lie, and therefore knowing who the real contestants are. Thus, early ballots (especially the first ballot) efficiently serve the same purpose as today’s political polls.

Preferential voting is a compressed version of the multi-ballot system, which eliminates the vote-splitting problem, but fails to address the need for advance information about the actual prospects of each candidate. A vote for someone who has no realistic chance of winning is commonly called a ‘wasted vote’. Preferential voting overcomes this disadvantage if there are reliable political polls published ahead of election day. The problem though, in systems fully based on single-member constituencies – France, UK, USA (Congress and Senate), Canada, Australia – is that most polling is done on the nationwide popular vote, with little reliable polling at electorate-level.

The two-ballot system is a cut-down version of the multi-ballot system, which avoids the cost and potential tedium of having more than two rounds of voting. In its pure New Zealand (1908-1911) form, it eliminates all candidates except the two leaders from the first round. We note that France and a number of other countries (eg Iran, in its recent election) use simple two-ballot elections to vote for their presidents.

France

France, for its Parliament, uses a variation that is confusing to most people outside of France and also to many people in France. Under two-party politics – where, in most electorates, only two candidates are genuine contenders – the French system works like the former New Zealand system – to eliminate obvious also-rans. But in three party politics – or ‘three-alliance politics’, as we now see in France (strictly three alliances plus a still-popular centre-right party) – the simple two-ballot system could enforce the elimination of some genuine contenders.

Thus, in France, it is possible for three or more candidates to make it to the second ballot; meaning that, even on the final ballot, vote-splitting would still be a problem. In the 2024 France election, and for the first time ever, three candidates qualified for the second round ballot in most electorates.

To avoid vote-splitting, in the few days after the first round ballot ‘horse-trading’ is encouraged and as a result many candidates qualifying for the second round withdraw their candidacy. This is sensible practical politics; the candidates themselves work out who is likely to come third, and – especially if the most disliked candidate is in the first-round lead – the likely third-placed candidate formally withdraws from the electoral race. What in the end happens, in most electorates, is that the second ballot ends up exactly as it would have been in the New Zealand 1908-1911 system.

In France, once the second-round ballots are finalised – that is, before the votes are cast – the result is predictable in most electorates. Thus it was clear two days before the election – that is, on 5 July 2024 – that the Left alliance would be headed for a narrow ‘win’, where the winner is defined as the alliance or party with more successful candidates than each of their rivals.

Of course the Left didn’t really win. President Macron’s second-place centrist alliance has all the influence in any minority administration that forms, because the Centre will be able to play off both the Left and the Right (and noting that the Right has more MPs than the Left, given that the Right is made up both of Marine Le Pen’s’ far-right’ alliance and the centre-right ‘Les Républicains’ party). As a concession to the Left, President Macron is likely to choose a Prime Minister (PM) from the right of the Left. To me, the obvious candidate for PM would be former president François Hollande. Macron came to prominence in French politics as Hollande’s technocratic finance minister (2012-2017).

In the context of efficient ‘horse-trading’ that may take place when there are more than two contestants in the final ballot, the United Kingdom election of 4 July was an interesting case study. There was significantly more so-called ‘tactical voting’ in the UK than usual, with the main tactical goal being to create an informal alliance against the ‘Tory’ Conservative Party. Thus we saw Liberal Democrat (LibDem) voters ‘lend’ their votes to Labour in most constituencies, while in about 70 constituencies very many former Labour voters chose the LibDems this time.

What happened in New Zealand in the 1900s?

In 1905, under FPP, Richard Seddon’s Liberal Party got 53.1% of the vote, and 58 out of 80 seats. Seddon died in 1906, replaced by Joseph Ward. It was a time of party formation, with the Opposition then being William Massey’s Conservatives. It was a time of increasing numbers of three-way electoral contests in which credible Independent candidates might split-the-vote, allowing rival rather than allied candidates to win.

In 1908, under the two-ballot system, Ward raised the Liberal vote to 58.7% but won fewer seats (50 instead of 58 in 1905). 22 of the 80 electorates required second ballots.

The main drama happened in 1911. In the final vote, Ward’s Liberal Party won 34.2% of the vote and 33 seats, Massey’s conservative Reform Party got 37 seats with 33.4% of the vote. The (literally ‘new’) Labour Party got 4 seats with 11.5% of the vote. Simple maths tells us that 6 seats were won by others, including Independents.

The action that mattered was in the Kaipara electorate. Gordon Coates, running as an ‘Independent Liberal’ came second to the official Liberal, on the first ballot. Once the Reform candidate was eliminated, Coates gained most of the eliminated candidate’s votes, enabling him on the second ballot to defeat John Stallworthy, the official Liberal candidate. Massey spotted Coates as a potential ally in negotiations to resolve this ‘hung parliament’; Coates differed from official Liberal policy in favouring freehold tenure for farmers, otherwise he was a Liberal. Massey’s Reform party was founded as a way for the Conservatives to emphasise their preference for freehold over leasehold land tenure.

After the election, Joseph Ward tried to form a minority government, but was unable to win a vote of confidence. Nor could Massey. A Liberal minority government persevered through most of 1912, under the Prime Ministership of Thomas Mackenzie.

It was Massey’s head-hunting of Gordon Coates that enabled Massey to defeat Mackenzie in a confidence vote late in 1912, and for Massey himself then to form a minority government; a government which maintained the confidence of the House until the 1914 election. The 1914 election was held in the early years of World War 1; Massey (with Coates) won comfortably but not comprehensively. Massey was arguably helped by his action, in early 1913, to revert the electoral system to the FPP which older New Zealanders knew but never really loved.

My final observation here is to note that Coates succeeded Massey as Prime Minister when Massey died (in office) in 1925. Coates went on to be a failed Prime Minister (his party voted out into third place in 1928); though, in the mid-1930s, he was the Minister of Finance who did more than anyone else to bring New Zealand out of the Great Depression. (He even sought advice from, among others, alleged ‘Communist’ economists; as a result, he precipitated the split in his conservative coalition party which brough Labour and Michael Joseph Savage to power in 1935, thanks to the vagaries of FPP.)

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

“Follow the money” is the classic directive to journalists trying to understand where power and influence lie in society. In terms of uncovering who influences various New Zealand political parties and governments, it therefore pays to look at who is funding them.

The political parties are legally obliged to make declarations about the donations they’ve received each year. They pass this information on to the Electoral Commission, and the donations from the 2023 year have now been published on the Commission’s website.

Below are the aggregated total donations for each party elected to Parliament last year. The total donations received by these parliamentary parties were nearly $25m. Of this total, the parties of the new government (National, Act, and NZ First) received 16.5m, and the parties of the Opposition (Labour, Greens, Te Pati Māori) received the lesser amount of about $8.2m.

Total donations

Huge totals of donations received

National has declared a total of $10.4m of donations for the 2023 election year – which has captured media headlines about the release of the donations declarations. Journalists reporting on this have used the terms: “staggering” (Stuff), “enormous” (Newshub), and “massive” (The Herald and Newsroom).

The $10.4m raised is indeed significant and illustrative of just how popular the National Party is at the moment with wealthy individuals and companies. However, some caution is also required in the interpretation. For example, some reports have compared the $10.4m figure with smaller totals that National have received in the past, suggesting a significant increase in funding for National. But this is a case of apples being compared to oranges.

The reporting rules have changed significantly for the 2023 election-year donations. Whereas previously, the parties were legally required to declare donations of $15,000 or more, this threshold has now been considerably lowered to include any donations over $5000. This means National’s donation reporting captures many more donations than in the past.

Furthermore, parties also now have to report on the quantum of donations received that are below the declaration threshold. For 2023, National has declared about $6m of below-$5000 donations. The larger donations only make up about $4m, or about 40 per cent, of National’s declaration.

The $10.4m raised by National is still highly significant and note-worthy. However, there should also be caution with the claim made in the media in the last few days that this figure is the largest ever received by a party in New Zealand’s political history. It’s worth noting that at the 1987 general election, the Labour Party of David Lange and Roger Douglas received about $3.5m in donations. When this figure is translated into 2023 dollars, it’s about the same as National received last year.

Large donations

The 2023 election year certainly contained quite a few huge donations from wealthy individuals and companies. By far the biggest was the $500,000 donated to National by business owner Warren Lewis. Although this has been reported to be the largest recorded donation given to a political party, back in 2005, businessman Owen Glenn infamously gave $500,000 to the Labour Party.

The second-largest donation was $200,000 given by property developer Mark Wyborn to New Zealand First.

National also received a $200,000 donation from Buen Holdings, which is owned by Guemsoon Shim and Lian Seng Buen. However, the records state that this was received on 10 August last year, but it was then returned to the donor on 23 August – the same day that the donors were in the news for a story about the Auckland Council and Tenancy Services investigating alleged unlawful tenancy management in one of their buildings.

The table below lists the biggest donations received.

Large donations

While the above table includes all the donations of $100,000 or more, it’s also worth noting the amount of lesser amounts. Taking an arbitrary threshold of $20,000, the following table shows how many medium-sized donations the parties have received.

It’s also useful to look at how many large donations each party received. If you take an arbitrary threshold such as $20,000, the list below shows how many large donations above this figure were received by each party.

Once again, of these 131 medium-sized donations, most have gone to the parties of the new government (101), and few have gone to the parties in opposition (30).

Medium donations

Donations under $5000

In the past, parties only had to declare donations over a certain threshold (which has been $15,000 in recent years). But now parties also must account for donations under $5000. Rather than detailing each donation and the identities of the donors, the parties simply declare how many such donations they have received and what the aggregated amount of money is. The total number of sub-$5000 donations received by each party is below.

Small donations

The donations below $5000 appear to make up the vast bulk of money received by the parties. As already mentioned, 60 per cent of National’s donation income in 2023 came from these smaller donations, and for some of the other parties, it is even higher. Interestingly, the parties of the opposition, in particular, have received more of the smaller donations (88,253) than those of the government parties (53,397).

Anonymous donations

Political parties’ ability to receive anonymous donations has been clamped down. Parties can now only receive such donations in two highly regulated ways.

Firstly, parties are only allowed to accept anonymous donations of less than $1500. The table below shows how many such donations each party received in 2023 and the total amounts of these donations for each party.

Anonymous donations

Donations can also now be given anonymously to political parties by sending the money to the Electoral Commission, which then passes the money onto the parties without any identities attached. These are called “Protected donations”, and the Electoral Commission is only allowed to distribute a maximum of $373,520 to any one party in a year. Below is the list of protected donations passed onto the parties.

In 2023, there were only eight such donations, six of which went to National, totalling $363,000 (just below the allowable limit). NZ First and Act received one protected donation each. This information can be seen in the table below.

Protected disclosure donations

MP donations

Parties raise much of their income from MPs’ high parliamentary salaries. Some parties, traditional on the left, have a “tithing” rule in which roughly ten per cent of their MP or Ministerial salaries are donated to the party.

Such tithing didn’t always appear in the Electoral Commission records – because, in the past, when the threshold for disclosure was higher, many of the MP tithing amounts were lower than needed to be declared. But in 2023, all the tithes for Labour and Green MPs were published. See the table below for the biggest MP levies in 2023.

MP donations

Donations from election candidates

The records of donations released by the Electoral Commission include some curious donors – the candidates themselves running for Parliament. It’s pretty standard for party organisations to raise money to give to candidates to help their local election campaigns, but in this case, some of the candidates have also been making donations to the head office.

The most prominent example in the table below is the $50,000 given to Te Pati Māori by list candidate John Tamihere, however in his case, he’s also the President of the party. Just as Tamihere didn’t make it into Parliament, National’s Auckland Central candidate Muralidhar Mahesh – who donated $37,199 – also missed out, along with TOP donor-candidate Ben Wylie-van Eerd ($6098). More successful were Jenny Marcroft ($32,000) for NZ First, Vanessa Weenink ($26,357) for National, Tanya Unkovich ($5970), and Karen Chhour ($5200) for Act.

[ Donations from candidates

Donations from former politicians

It’s normal for political parties to seek extra fundraising from former MPs, especially those in retirement who might have accumulated decent fortunes from their time in politics and afterwards. While the example in the table below of Clayton Cosgrove’s consultancy firm giving $6000 to NZ First is the smallest, it’s possibly the most interesting, given that Cosgrove is a retired Labour MP.

[ Ex-MP donations

Loans to political parties

Although donations to parties have been regulated for decades, the loans provided to politicians have often flown under the radar, even though such loans have in the past been written off. Loans can often turn into donations, so they are now required to be disclosed. But in 2023, only two loans were disclosed, and they were both given to the NZ First party from the families of candidates—see the table below.

Loans to parties

Donors giving to multiple parties

Several donors have given to more than one political party. Clearly, some donors wish to support many different parties on the same side of the political spectrum. Hence, New Zealand’s richest man, Graeme Hart and his company The Rank Group, gave $204,000 to Act (in separate donations), $150,000 to National, and $110,000 to NZ First – all totalling $464,000.

Another Richlister, Trevor Farmer, gave $115,000 to Act, $100,000 to National, and another $50,000 to NZ First.

AJR Finance has only given to two of the new Government coalition partners: $55,000 to NZ First and $20,000 to National.

Another company, Christopher & Banks, gave National and Act $100,000 each. The private equity firm is run by Christopher Huljich, who gave National another $10,000.

Property developers Christopher and Michaela Meehan have given $103,260 to National and another $50,000 to Act. Similarly, Wellington’s Chris Parkin gave $24,500 to National and $10,000 to Act.

Wellington businessman Troy Bowker – a previous donor to Labour’s Stuart Nash – gave $15,000 to Act and $10,000 to NZ First.

On the left, gym company boss Phillip Mills gave $50,000 both to Labour and the Greens. Similarly, property developer Mark Todd gave $50,000 to Labour and $20,000 to the Greens.

Donating to more than one party

Housing property donations

A large number of donors appear to be involved in the housing and property development industry. These donations have featured particularly strongly in the declarations from the parties now in government.

The largest donation of the year – $500,000 from Warren Lewis – is not directly involved in property but the wider construction industry. Lewis’ business, FMI Building Innovations, is described as a “building systems and materials supplier”.

Various property developers have made some large donations. For example, Mark Wyborn has given $200,000 to NZ First and $24,000 to National. His business partner Trevor Farmer has given $115,000 to Act and $100,000 to National.

Property developer Winton is partly owned by CEO Chris Meehan and his wife Michaela Meehan. Together, they donated $103,260 to the National Party in 2023. In addition, Chris Meehan donated $50,000 to Act. Christchurch property investor Philip Carter donated $59,500 to National.

One of the largest private developers in New Zealand, Manson TCLM, is partly owned by Culum Manson, who gave $70,000 to National. Real estate boss Garth Barfoot, a long-time National donor, gave $20,000. National received a further $22,000 from Auckland commercial landlord Andrew Krukziener, who also donated $19,999 to NZ First.

NZ First also received $145,000 from Wellington property developer Vlad Barbalich.

One of the more interesting property developers, Ockham Residential, appears to have hedged its bets with political donations. Owner Mark Todd gave $50,000 to Labour and $20,000 to the Greens. The company’s Chief Executive, William Deihl, gave a further $20,500 to National.

Housing donations

Mismatch between donations and spending

The $25m declared in donations by the parties in Parliament for 2023 was obviously used for fighting that year’s general election. However, caution must be taken when comparing the donations and expenditures declared to the Electoral Commission.

At first glance, there might appear to be a major discrepancy between the funding and expenditures. For example, National declared $10.4m in donations but only spent about $3.6m. Labour spent more than this ($4.8m) despite declaring a smaller amount of donations.

The two figures aren’t immediately comparable. First, the spending figures only relate to the 12 weeks before polling day, whereas parties generally spend money on campaigning throughout the year.

Secondly, the spending figures only account for money spent on paid advertising. There are plenty of other party and election expenditures that aren’t captured by the legal declarations – such as money spent on staff and opinion polling.

Further columns will dive deeper into this and look at the donations received by individual parties.

Dr Bryce Edwards

Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

This article can be republished for free under a Creative Commons copyright-free license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

Elections in the United States are dominated by big money. But what isn’t commonly understood is that most of it is raised and spent, not by the political parties and candidates for office, but by special interest groups who run their own election campaigns to influence the outcome.

Billions of dollars are channelled into campaign groups to run what are normally attack ads against politicians. The reason for this is because the political donations rules are designed to encourage this – with big clampdowns on people funding the politicians, but allowing them to more easily give to advocacy and lobbying groups instead.

This is a trend that is finally starting to occur in New Zealand. As the rules tighten on money going to candidates and political parties, this is pushing the big money towards less regulated and less transparent special interests. Critics call this “dark money” or “soft money” because it’s outside of the party system and therefore more difficult for officials and the public to scrutinise.

As with the US, such groups are incentivised to run negative attack campaigns, because if they run positive campaigns in support of a party or candidate, then that spending has to be allocated against the expenditure limits of the politicians, who also need to sign off their agreement with the campaigns (which they never want to do).

Dark money spent in the 2023 general election

Some of the money spent by campaign lobby groups must be declared. The Electoral Commission has just published the declarations of those organisations that spent more than $100,000 on advertising at the last election. However, there are many ways that “dark money” spending can stay below the threshold, and so most lobby group campaigning isn’t captured by the Electoral Commission.

The amount spent by these so-called “Third-Party promoters” has escalated quickly in recent elections. At the 2020 election, only $147,000 was spent. This increased by 13 times in 2023, with nearly $2m being declared. You can view all the declarations here: Registered promoter expenses for the 2023 General Election

The top spender lobby groups were the following, in order of money spent:

1. Vote for Better Limited: $386,515
2. New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: $371,565
3. New Zealand Council of Trade Unions – Te Kauae Kaimahi: $299,344
4. Hobson’s Pledge: $283,899
5. Family First New Zealand: $204,771
6. The Better NZ Trust: $266,069.39
7. Groundswell NZ: $283,899

Lobby group spending dominated by the political right

This big spending list is dominated by rightwing campaigners – with only the CTU and Better NZ Trust being aligned with the leftwing parties. The latter carried out a campaign promoting policies to enable greater electric vehicle uptake. It’s unclear who funded the group, but previously they had listed one of their supporters as being Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) – a government agency – which led to allegations that they were a “sock puppet” group. And the CTU ran an attack campaign against Christopher Luxon, with advertisements saying he couldn’t be trusted.

On the right, there was a real mix of socially and fiscally conservative lobby groups. The biggest spender was the mysterious Vote for Better group, run by businessman Tim Barry, whose main interests are in the horse racing industry.

The next biggest spender was the Taxpayers’ Union, run by director Jordan Williams, which ran anti-Government campaigns, mostly focusing on extravagant spending. Some of the TU’s declared advertising expenses were paid to The Campaign Company, which is also owned by director Jordan Williams. The Campaign Company was also contracted to several other lobby groups – such as Groundswell and Hobson’s Pledge. The company was also employed by electorate candidates, such as NZ First’s Casey Costello.

Some of this is covered today by Farah Hancock’s very good RNZ report, $2m surge in election campaign spending by third-party groups. In this she raises whether some groups such as Hobson’s Pledge have been involved in “astro-turfing”, in which elite well-funded campaigns are passed off as grassroots movements. She also draws attention to the increasing amounts being spent by the conservative groups – Hobson’s Pledge increased their spend from $254,115 in 2017 to $283,899 last year, and Family First went from $141,224 in 2020 to $204,771 in 2023.

There were 31 “third party promoters” that were registered with the Electoral Commission because they were planning to spend significant amounts of election advertising, but 26 of these didn’t make a declaration, presumably because they say they didn’t spend above the $100,000 threshold that necessitates one.

RNZ’s Farah Hancock has also investigated some of these groups. One appears to have been politically successful in its objectives: “The Natural Health Alliance encouraged voters to choose NZ First to get the Therapeutic Products Act repealed. It ran several full-page advertisements in the New Zealand Herald. Chairperson Paddy Fahy indicated these cost close to $10,000 each. Repealing the Act formed part of National’s coalition agreements with NZ First and ACT and is included in the government’s 100-day plan.”

While we know some of what these campaign groups have spent money on, it’s difficult to discover where they raised their money from. Although New Zealand’s political donations rules keep tightening up – and some scholars think they should be tightened significantly more – this has merely pushed the big money into these more mysterious groups, who don’t need to disclose their funding. This trend is only likely to worsen. And because such groups are incentivized to run campaigns against political parties (because the rules discourage them from campaigning in favour of parties or candidates), New Zealand is likely to go further down the route of elections dominated by Americanised attack advertising funded by dark money.

Fights between left and right activists about such dark money are likely to escalate. The Labour Party’s Greg Presland, who is also a part owner in corporate lobbying-PR-consulting firm Polis Consulting Group, has been drawing attention to the funding of groups on the right, asking questions about the rightwing Vote for Better Limited, which was the biggest campaigner last year – see: About the promoters electoral returns

Here’s his key point about this campaign run by businessman Tim Barry: “There is nothing to suggest that he is a well healed individual who is deeply upset with the direction of the last Government and the thought struck me what if he was paid by someone to do all of this? What if he was instructed by a Fisheries Company or an Oil Company or a fundamentalist American Christian Church or the Atlas Network for that purpose to do his best to undermine confidence in the left during the election campaign? The problem with the promoter rules is there is no obligation for them to say who they were paid by. And it can be an overseas person or corporation.”

Other political donations scrutinised

Newsroom’s Jonathan Milne has also drawn attention to a big mining company that appears to have successfully influenced an election race on West Coast last year. He has been investigating the spending of $32,600 by Bathurst Resources to bankroll the campaign of an Independent candidate at last year’s election, which is said to have been a decisive factor in leading to Labour’s Damien O’Connor losing to National’s Maureen Pugh – see: Big coal company bought West Coast election campaign

The mining company was opposed to the Government’s mining policies, and so funded the contest of independent candidate Patrick Phelps who was campaigning for more mining on the West Coast. Phelps is the manager of Minerals West Coast Trust, which last year was given $220,000 by various mining companies.

The donation from Bathurst Resources meant Phelps was the biggest spending candidate, and according to various sources was able to pull enough votes off O’Connor to let National win the seat – something that the Bathurst Resources company also boasts about.

The experience has made Labour’s O’Connor even more critical of the role of the wealthy in the political process: “There are many international companies and organisations wanting to influence New Zealand elections for their own purposes – the smoking industry, the investment and real estate industry as we’re starting to see. And there’ll be many more… I think what people have to do is follow the money, ask the question: why such investments would be made? And for the most part, no business makes an investment without some realistic expectation of a return.”

The big fundraising and spending electoral candidates

The Electoral Commission released the donations and expenditure declarations of all electorate candidates last week, which means the public has a better understanding of the money being used by politicians at the local level. Below are some of the top figures from these declarations, detailing whether they were successful in their campaigns.

The top ten donation recipients:

1. Siva Kilari, National, Manurewa – unsuccessful: $110,483
2. Mahesh Muralidhar, National, Auckland Central – unsuccessful: $109,496
3. Shane Jones, National, Northland – unsuccessful: $95,524
4. Chlöe Swarbrick, Greens, Auckland Central – successful: $95,023
5. Chris Bishop, National, Hutt South – successful: $98,549
6. Cameron Brewer, National, Upper Harbour – successful: $86,659
7. Tim Costley, National, Ōtaki – successful: $79,679
8. Hamish Campbell, National, Ilam – successful: $70,677
9. Scott Sheeran, National, Wellington Central – unsuccessful: $64,260
10. Catherine Wedd, National, Tuktuki – successful: $61,920

The top ten election advertising spenders:

1. Scotty Bright, Democracy NZ, Port Waikato – unsuccessful: $41,905
2. Rachel Boyack, Labour, Nelson – successful: $32,560
3. Julie Anne Genter, Greens, Rongotai – successful: $32,554
4. Raf Manji, TOP, Ilam – unsuccessful: $32,502
5. Tim Costley, National, Ōtaki – successful: $32,089
6. Chlöe Swarbrick, Greens, Auckland Central – successful: $31,643
7. Dana Kirkpatrick, National, East Coast – successful: $31,565
8. Cameron Brewer, National, Upper Harbour – successful: $31,243
9. Katie Nimon, National, Napier – successful: $31,191
10. Carlos Cheung, National, Mt Roskill – successful: $31,072

Some of this information is also available today in Glenn McConnell’s very good Stuff article, The politicians who were flush with cash and broke the bank campaigning

Dr Bryce Edwards

Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington

This article can be republished for free under a Creative Commons copyright-free license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is now being openly mocked and ridiculed by political commentators for his failure to achieve a coalition government. There are certainly signs that Luxon hasn’t managed the process well, and raising questions about competency at this early stage is a poor start to government.

The most savage criticism of Luxon is coming from the political right. Today rightwing political commentator and former National Beehive staffer Matthew Hooton has a scathing column in the Herald giving his account, obviously based on insider leaks, of how the negotiations have unfolded. Hooton paints a picture of National’s negotiations as a failure, caused by Luxon’s arrogance and hubris.

Hooton records Luxon’s criticisms immediately after the election of how previous Prime Ministers have conducted coalition negotiations and his claims that “I’ve done a lot of mergers and acquisitions”. With the exception of the Air New Zealand-Virgin alliance that broke up when he was chief executive, there is little evidence of any other mergers Luxon worked on in his business career.

Despite boasting of his business experience and relationship-building skills, Hooton says the National leader has astounded those involved in the negotiations by his cackhandedness.

After apparently not achieving much of the promised progress in the three-week period before final results came in, Hooton reports that the presumptive PM then entered talks without bothering to take his coalition partners seriously. Hooton reports, “Act, NZ First and National insiders say Luxon is a talker rather than a listener. He never asked how Act or NZ First thought negotiations should proceed, or what they wanted from them.”

Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan has also criticised Luxon’s management of the negotiations, pointing out on Monday that only the 1996 MMP coalition negotiations have taken longer: “That’s embarrassing for Chris Luxon. Because he’s the guy who’s talked up his negotiating skills, given he’s done a lot of mergers and acquisitions. And he’s the guy who set the deadline of wrapping this up in time for him to go to APEC.”

Why is this important? First impressions matter, and du Plessis-Allan suggests that Luxon and National’s reputation is suffering: “The start of a Government is a really important period. It sets up voters’ expectations for the first term, that’s why Governments often write up 100 day plans. Because they want to create a sense of urgency and give the impression they’re changing things fast. Literally the opposite of that is happening right now. There is no sense of urgency, nothing’s changing fast, there’s no momentum.”

Why the rush? Danyl McLauchlan explains today in the Listener that Luxon “promised to introduce a mini-Budget by Christmas and he’s running out of runway to get that done. They want their ministerial offices staffed and running but they can’t hire anyone because they don’t know who has what portfolio. They’re wasting crucial time.”

McLauchlan says the speed of the negotiations “will be driving Luxon wild with frustration” but Winston Peters will be entirely comfortable: “For Peters these negotiations – the tactics, the games, the stalling, the triumphs – are the quintessence of politics.”

He also points out that, although Peters cannot leverage the threat of supporting Labour instead, “he’s demonstrating his power over his larger coalition partners, making them come to him. He is the most important person in the country, the absolute centre of attention. And he will go on like this: he always does.”

Luxon has, according to commentators, failed to grasp the power that NZ First and Act have in the negotiations. He has assumed they are captive negotiators who will essentially have to agree to whatever he offers them. Hence there have been reports of low-ball offers that both Act and NZ First have been dismissive of, if not offended by.

Seymour and Peters have outmanoeuvred Luxon, not only because they have shown they are willing to work together, but because Luxon has failed to realise that the minor parties can walk away from the negotiations, causing a new election or forcing National to form a minority government that would be even more reliant on them.

As Hooton points out today, the pressure is on Luxon to produce a deal: “It is he who must close a deal before Christmas or there will be new elections. Seymour and Peters can quite happily walk away, leaving Luxon to form a minority Government that would need to win their agreement issue-by-issue. If anything, Seymour and Peters would be more powerful if not limited by a coalition agreement and the decaying but still burdensome rules of Cabinet confidentiality and collective responsibility. Seymour and Peters understood this all along. Luxon needs them if his Government is not to be a complete circus, with the clown show of the past five weeks being repeated whenever it wants to do anything contentious. Seymour and Peters don’t need him at all.”

Does this suggest Luxon will prove to be a weak prime minister? Leftwing political commentator Chris Trotter thinks so, arguing that Luxon’s poor negotiating skills only illustrates how little power he has, and essentially Luxon now looks like “an inexperienced numpty”.

Writing for Newstalk ZB today, Trotter suggests Luxon has overplayed his hand: “Placing insultingly meagre first-offers before such men might be survivable if Luxon had come to the table, as Key did in 2008, with 45 per cent of the party vote. Turning up with this election’s 38 per cent is nowhere near so impressive.”

Trotter argues the troubled negotiations should remind the public just how poorly Luxon has performed since becoming National leader, especially compared to the likes of his mentor John Key. On becoming leader Key made audacious raids into Labour constituency and ideologies by first visiting poor parts of Auckland and then helping Sue Bradford get her “anti-smacking bill” passed.

Luxon’s record is derisory by comparison, and in his first big test all that he has achieved is the own-goal of uniting David Seymour and Winston Peters in a negotiating bloc against him. And Trotter agrees that they now hold the winning cards, and Luxon is under pressure to capitulate: “What Luxon and his colleagues have seemingly failed to appreciate is that all the pressure is on them. As the largest party, they come, not with all the cards in their hands, but with a very large clock ticking loudly in their ears. Covid and a cost-of-living crisis have made New Zealanders ill-tempered and impatient. In the minds of many, the wait for a new government has already gone well over time”.

It’s now five weeks since the election. But there is talk today of an agreement being reached, perhaps on Sunday. But it could take much longer – especially if the three parties take the offers back to their respective parties and fail to get their immediate sign-off. We already know that the big policy sticking points have been over tax and a referendum on the Treaty. These will be the big issues to watch out for, to see who has compromised.

Hooton says today that if the minor parties aren’t happy with what Luxon offers on tax and the Treaty, they will be happy to have another election and campaign on those issues – which is likely to only make them more popular.

Then there are the portfolios and baubles. All parties deny these are big issues, but they always are crucial to the minor parties. And they might prove to be a big headache for Luxon. Who does he give Deputy PM to? And Peters is rumoured to have demanded the role of Attorney General, in charge of his old foes the Serious Fraud Office.

Such dilemmas would tax even the best negotiators. And in Luxon’s case, it might well defeat him.

*******

Dr Bryce Edwards is the Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

There may be some surprises when the final election count comes out today.

One particular point to note refers back to the United States presidential election of 2020, when the late votes in most states – those votes not counted on election night – very heavily favoured Biden over Trump. The context was that Trump had the election night ‘victory’.

It is possible that something similar could happen here. This election has some characteristics which means the ‘late votes’ – for want of a better name – could strongly reflect the frustrated voters who only decided to vote at all towards the end of the campaign; many being first-time voters or voters whose registration had elapsed on account of them being renters who have insecure housing, or young people living ‘at home’, or recent immigrants.

So, I am suggesting that there is a 10% chance that ‘The Left’ will have 60 or more seats this afternoon. And I think there is another 25% chance that ‘The Left’ will have more seats than ‘The Right’, where ‘Left’ means Labour/Green/TPM and ‘Right’ means National/Act. If this happens, National/Act will require NZ First to vote with them in Parliament, whereas, under the more likely scenario, National/Act will be able to get legislation through if NZ First abstains.

What I think is most likely to happen is that the Specials, mainly later votes rather than advance votes, will reflect the already known differences between election day voting and advance voting. This means that Labour, Green and New Zealand First should gain with the specials, with National being the biggest loser from these ‘late’ votes. We also should note that Green and Te Pati Māori traditionally improve with the specials, and are likely to do so again. This should mean that TPM is entitled to an extra party-list seat, eliminating the present overhang.

We should also note that preliminary vote tallies for Auckland (except the very outer electorates) are low. This reflects a significant diaspora of population from Auckland since around 2015; although we also note that Auckland has also received many immigrants in that time, and that Auckland’s population is probably on (or just past) the cusp of an accelerated replacement. (Such a replacement magnifies what is happening in New Zealand more generally, with the process amplified in Auckland.)

The low Auckland count on election night also probably means that the special votes will be weighted towards Auckland. There may be an effect from the specials this time that is similar to the late election-night wave in 2005, which swung the election to Labour when it first looked that National would prevail.

My best estimate is that this afternoon’s result will be:

• National 47 seats (up to 48 after Port Waikato)
• Labour 35 seats
• Green 15 seats
• Act 11 seats
• New Zealand First 8 seats
• Te Pati Māori 4 seats

Re the electorates, which the media overemphasise, I am picking that Labour will regain four seats which went to National on election night: Te Atatu, New Lynn, Nelson, Banks Peninsula. (So National should pick up one more list seat; though Green may get to 16 seats, meaning that National/Act may be four down from election night.) And I think that Carlos Cheung, looking safe in Mt Roskill on election night, will win that seat by less than 500.

My best guess is that Kelvin Davis and Pene Henare will hold on in their Māori seats. But, if not, these could flip, generating a TPM overhang, and thereby freeing up one or two list seats.

Re the process of counting, I think that the Electoral Commission could give running counts of late votes, and then do the final audit. This would make the counting process much faster. Perhaps more importantly, they could give much more precise information about where the special votes are from, and about the breakdown of their categories (eg overseas, absent from the electorate, first time registrations, and re-registrations). Each of these sub-categories, considered regionally, could make it much easier for statisticians to make reliable projections of the final count. (We note that well-conducted polls certainly mean we get quite reliable projections of our election outcome before election day. Major problems with pre-election polling mainly happen in jurisdictions with First-Past-the-Post voting, and their vagaries of marginal electorates and swing states.)

The mainstream media, and many officials and pundits, continue to overemphasise the role of ‘marginal electorates’; a role which is close to zero in determining the balance of party representation. An example of this is the presentation in Wikipedia of the electorate votes (by party) ahead of the actual party votes.

Another example of this is the obsession with electorate boundaries. I live in New Lynn which now has quite a strange ox-bow shape, giving parts of Titirangi to Kelston while including much of Avondale. The reality is that electorate size makes not a jot of difference to the final result. I think it would be far better to maintain stable electorate boundaries, drawn with reference to existing local authority boundaries. And it would be better for cities to have more populous electorates than rural areas. This ensures better rural representation through smaller rural electorates, while also noting that most of the list MPs have offices in the cities. Certainly, Auckland has had too many electorates in recent years, while many of the places with the highest vote counts have been hinterland electorates. (And I note that Dunedin could be a single urban seat, with Taieri a hinterland seat.)

Finally, I would like to congratulate the Electoral Commission for its information pamphlet for voters. They make it clear that the electorate votes are for people, not for parties. (Like mayoral votes, if you will.) I only wish that the commentariat would take note.

Wishing the new government the best, and noting that it needs to govern according to the actual concerns of the people, focussing on issues such as infrastructure, education, health, housing, inequality, sustainability and world peace. New Zealand’s most popular governments preserved and extended our traditions of universality; a tradition which promotes cohesion rather than division. Non-elite New Zealanders don’t like the targeting of morsels of welfare, and all the moral hazard problems that come with that approach.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

The 2023 general election campaign must be the most hollow in living memory. There really isn’t much that is positive or attractive about the electoral options on offer. This is an election without inspiration.

An angry mood for change

There is a definite gloominess amongst the public right now – with a perception that not only is the country broken in many ways, but the political system is too. We see this most strongly in surveys that ask if the country is on the right track or not. Generally, New Zealand has flipped in a few short years from having about two-thirds of the public saying the country is headed in the right direction, to now having two-thirds saying we’re going the wrong way.

Journalists and politicians report that out on the campaign trail they are discovering that the public is angrier than ever. Mark Blackham reported this week that “MPs are encountering angry people – a general anger about the state of affairs and paucity of political choices.”

Stuff journalist Julie Jacobson summed up the political mood in the weekend as “Disillusioned, demoralised, disenchanted, disgruntled”. And she argues this has only increased during the campaign: “what was a low hum has become a sustained grumble.” Jacobson reports that across the political spectrum people are “out of love with what’s currently on offer.”

Certainly, much of what the politicians are offering is extremely grim. For example, both Labour and National are promising to slash billions of dollars from public services.

This promised austerity drive reflects a reality that the government’s books are empty, with no room for additional new spending. Hence Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has openly said that this election can’t be one for big spending policies.

Hipkins has gone from promising “bread and butter” reforms to, as leftwing political commentator Chris Trotter points out, being committed “to less butter and thinner bread for at least the next three years.” Trotter says, in general, there’s not much for the public to positively vote for, and instead people will vote negatively – choosing whoever they regard as the best of a bad bunch. Hence, “This is not going to be a happy election.”

For traditional leftwing voters Labour’s austerity programme is a major disappointment, as it goes hand in hand with opposition to any real tax reform that might collect more revenue for public services and infrastructure.

Likewise, on the right, there is a strong suspicion that National’s tax cuts are simply unaffordable. The policy is being called out by the likes of rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton as being unprincipled and incompetent, and by the Taxpayers Union as foolhardy.

There is also growing scepticism that some of the bigger policy promises are electoral bribes that can’t be delivered. Hooton says that a “cynical electorate” sees many of these policies as empty promises – especially because voters have got used to being lied to or misled by politicians who don’t deliver their promises once in power. He suggests that voters are right to be cynical because New Zealand has had “15 years of people hearing promises from politicians which are platitudes on the face of it and they haven’t even been delivered to that extent”.

Similarly, Stuff journalist Andrea Vance argued in the weekend that “Voters know when they are being used”, suggesting that the “bribes” being offered don’t compute for voters. Vance says politicians are promising to slash “public services and spending – in the name of savings and efficiencies – when they are already stretched and degraded.”

Voters shouldn’t have confidence, she suggests, that the next government will be able to meet the existing needs of public services, let alone start fixing the severe deficits in infrastructure and services. Fundamentally there is a credibility gap between politician promises to cut spending but to properly maintain all “front-line” services.

The Politicians aren’t up to the challenge

Voters are aware that we’re in something of a “polycrisis”, and the status quo is unsustainable. Political pollster Peter Stahel wrote last week that there is “an unmistakable mood for change” based on a “strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction, driven by personal financial hardships and an uncertain economic outlook”. His company’s polling show “only 29% of voters say the current options for prime minister appeal, with nearly half (46%) saying they don’t.”

There’s a cost of living crisis, failing public health and education systems, a housing crisis, a climate crisis – the list goes on. As Newstalk’s Mike Hosking says, “There is no shortage of serious, worryingly serious, issues to discuss this campaign”, but the politicians are largely missing in action.

Because the politicians haven’t risen to the challenge, the contrast between what is desperately needed and what is on offer has never been so great. The public is right to be disenchanted – parties are mostly just offering sniping and petty criticisms of their opponents. As political commentator Josie Pagani has put it, “This is an election of parties wrestling on the ground, when we crave a new Jerusalem.”

Pagani says “We have gone from ‘Hope and Change’ to ‘Perhaps Just a Biscuit’.” Whereas in previous elections, parties ran on a programme of grand causes, this time around, issues like child poverty and the housing crisis are being ignored by politicians.

Former Labour leader David Cunliffe appears to agree – he went on Breakfast TV on Thursday to say that “voters are grumpy. They don’t think that either party is really hitting the nail on the head in terms of what’s worrying them.”

Similarly, business commentator Bruce Cotterill wrote in the Herald last week that the campaign has been highly disappointing so far because it’s more about attack ads and petty sniping than about illuminating the big issues and the policies that the parties have for fixing them. He laments the lack of debate about the crises in the health and education systems, and says problems like housing waiting lists and child poverty have been virtually ignored.

Hooton also says this avoidance of the big issues is a tragedy, especially since we are now in what he argues is the worst economic crisis in decades.

An Uninspiring election campaign

In lieu of being focused on the things that matter, the politicians are becoming more aggressive, threatening to turn this year’s campaign into the most negative in living memory. Press gallery journalist Glenn McConnell reports that as we go into the last month of the campaign its “becoming more feral”. He says the politicians are largely to blame: “nobody is running a wholesome forward-looking, solutions focused campaign. They are frothing to attack, attack, attack.”

The lacklustre nature of the parties is reflected in their campaign slogans according to Jacinda Ardern’s former chief of staff Mike Munro. He says none of them are original, because “every variation of wording around concepts like change, hope, aspiration, unity and the future have been previously used on party billboards”. And he argues that the parties are incredibly risk-adverse this election, being determined to stage-manage every element of the campaign and the candidates, reducing any chance of life in the election.

Is this therefore the most uninspiring election ever? Writing on Sunday, journalist Andrea Vance asks: “Has there been a duller election campaign in recent memory?” She labels it “the election of The Great Uninterested” because people seem to be turning away in boredom or disgust. Vance says: “It’s not just that voters are bored. They’ve stopped listening.”

Political commentator and former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne is also amazed at the lacklustre performances of the politicians so far – especially Hipkins and Luxon who are in the fight for their political careers. He says, given the big issues at stake, “Neither Hipkins nor Luxon has so far shown sufficient passion or boldness to convince New Zealanders they have what it takes to be an effective prime minister in the difficult years ahead.”

Election fatigue and low voter turnout

Do you wish the election was over already? You are probably in good company. This year there is no apparent enthusiasm for the campaign. You’ll notice that there aren’t many pictures or videos of politicians being swamped on the campaign trail, signing autographs or having mass selfies with fans – as occurred in recent elections.

Young people, in particular, seem unimpressed this time around. According to political scientist Richard Shaw, the students he teaches are losing faith in the New Zealand political system. He says that they are part of a growing cohort who are now “over” politics. Shaw is also picking that voter turnout is going to be low this election.

So, could the most popular choice at the coming election be “none of the above”? Certainly, the number of eligible voters who choose not to vote in the upcoming election could surpass a million, effectively making it the most popular option in 2023.

Voter turnout has generally been trending down in recent decades, and it hit a low of only 69.6 per cent at the 2011 election. That low turnout was generally because none of the parties were offering much that was inspiring, and no one expected the result to be close. Hence, one third of the electorate turned away in that election in disgust, apathy, or whatever.

The fact that the politicians and debate have become more aggressive and divisive puts people off. Other commentators are also now picking a decline too. David Cunliffe says: “Expect a record low turnout, and expect a record low vote share for Labour and National combined, and the highest ever share for the [minor] parties on both sides of politics.”

Leftwing columnist Verity Johnson has also written recently about the political despair amongst the public, predicting an extremely low voter turnout: “I’ve lost count of the people I’ve spoken to this week (smart, articulate and historically politically engaged people) who aren’t planning on voting in October. What’s the point, they shrug, there’s no one to vote for.”

Johnson says that the rising fury in New Zealand society is very tangible: “if you go into the suburbs and listen closely, you can hear an ominous hiss of fury rising up like a gas leak.” She suggests that this disenchantment is rational, and that there’s now little hope that politics can fix the problems of New Zealand: “Whatever happens on October 14, it feels like there’s just gonna be another 3 years of muddling, myopic, middle management politics where we have our head up our ass and our ecosystem on fire.”

Is politics in New Zealand broken?

Given the declining trust and participation in politics and the electoral process, this might signal that something is wrong in New Zealand’s democracy. Of course, this is a problem all over the world at the moment, with rising dissatisfaction and a sense that elites and vested interests dominate. There is a huge mood of change everywhere.

Writing this week, Chris Trotter says that most politicians haven’t caught up with the new Zeitgeist. He reports on a new book exploring the decline of politics, written by former British Tory Cabinet Minister Rory Stewart, which reflects on how the political system has hollowed out. Here’s the key quote that Trotter cites from the book, suggesting it could well come from a minister in the current New Zealand Government: “I had discovered how grotesquely unqualified so many of us, including myself, were for the offices we were given… It was a culture that prized campaigning over careful governing, opinion polls over detailed policy debates, announcements over implementation.”

Similarly, writing about how dire the current election campaign is, Matthew Hooton says New Zealand’s political system is effectively broken because the parties simply aren’t serious vehicles for political change anymore. He argues that they have been captured by careerists, consultants and lobbyists seeking power: “That is, they are not concerned with achieving power to make anything better. They are focussed merely on achieving office, to enjoy the status and perks. This is why they feel no need to do real work between elections, before which they release pseudo-policies, written the night before, often by external lobbyists or consultants, that they can’t and won’t deliver – and which they don’t care whether or not are delivered anyway.”

Empty election debates

Could tonight’s leaders’ debate on TVNZ1 be as dire as the campaign so far? Expectations aren’t very high for an illuminating contest of ideas. Expert more hollow and negative posturing.

Sure, there is a fair deal of anticipation on whether Hipkins can easily beat Luxon, or whether Luxon can rise above the low expectations about his debating skills or charisma. This question of who will “win” will be of some interest, but of little real consequence in a campaign in which everyone is surely getting election fatigue.

Therefore, even if 1.2 million New Zealanders tune in at 7pm (as they did for the first leaders debates in 2017 and 2020), they’re unlikely to last the full 90 minutes. As with the overall election campaign, viewers will probably turn off fairly quickly. So, although it is likely to be the single biggest TV event of the campaign, don’t be surprised if the real winner of the debate is actually Shortland Street on TV2 at the same time.

In this the seventh episode of A View from Afar podcast for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning examine the strengths and weaknesses of democracy around the world.

In particular Paul and Selwyn consider how and why democracy in many countries around the world is on the slide.

They examine the causes of democratic backsliding and also test why the erosion of high democratic ideas have, in many cases, popular support.

First, Paul offers a context, and defines democratic backsliding. He identifies the countries that are decisively eroding their own democracies of principles that were once embraced by both power elites and citizenry.

The Questions include:

• Why are we seeing more democratic backsliding in recent times?
• Is it just a political phenomenon or does it extend beyond the political sphere?
• Where has democratic backsliding been most evident?
• What do Chile, Guatemala, Israel and Thailand have in common when it comes to backsliding?
• What is occurring in the United States?
• If a democracy “backslides,” what does it slide into?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recordings of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Democracy in New Zealand could and should be improved in so many ways. So it’s a pity that the Government has yet again produced a review of elections that has delivered a disparate and incomplete package of recommendations. Few of the recommendations will ever see the light of day and, if they do, those chosen will favour the vested interests of whoever is in government at the time.

The interim report of the Labour Government’s He Arotake Pōtitanga Motuhake – Independent Electoral Review has just been published, and as an overall package it’s unconvincing. There are plenty of individual proposals that on their own might improve politics, but the whole project is unlikely to lead to the sort of sweeping reform that the panel are suggesting.

Reforms for the vested interests of politicians

The headline recommendations of the report from the panel are about lowering the voting age, holding a referendum to shift to a four-year parliamentary term, giving all prisoners the right to vote, decreasing the MMP threshold to 3.5%, abolishing the “coat-tail” rule, and capping donations that people can make to politicians. Some of these would make New Zealand more democratic, while others would make the country less so.

For example, getting rid of the one electorate “coat-tail” rule will be good for parties like Labour and National – and might generally be populist – but will reduce the representation of minor parties, leading to a less representative parliament. Parties that win an electorate seat and get, say, three per cent of the vote, would no longer be proportionally represented in Parliament. In the current Parliament, for example, Te Pāti Māori would be denied its second seat.

But the problem is that the panel’s package is something of a pick-and-mix selection for politicians to choose between. A scattergun approach has been taken – with tinkering here and there, but nothing comprehensive.

Most of the recommendations will appeal more to the Green and Labour politicians’ interests. And already there have been criticisms that the reforms appear designed for the interests of those parties currently in power. This is unfortunate. In dealing with major changes to how the rules of elections are run, the process needs to be one that works on a level playing field rather than just handing more power to whoever is in charge.

A Wasted opportunity for reform

The latest review has been sold to the public as a “once in a lifetime” chance to overhaul elections and the creaking old Electoral Act. However, it’s turned out to be quite the opposite – a piecemeal process, which mostly just rehashes the flawed review carried out in 2012 by the Electoral Commission, which was also toothless and lightweight.

The current review could have been so much more useful if it had concentrated on just political finance – fixing up the very serious problems of money in politics. This was actually the main justification for the review, and yet on the question of political fundraising it ends up being very much “once over lightly” instead of dealing with the problem systematically and in-depth.

For example, although one of the biggest current issues in political funding is the propensity for politicians to run “Cash for access” schemes in which Cabinet ministers and the like charge for meetings with wealthy businesspeople, this has been ignored by the report – as has a lot of other dodgy fundraising that has led to scandals, Serious Fraud Office charges, and court cases.

The panel has come up with novel recommendations for dealing with donations and state funding of parties, and these now need some serious discussion. But unfortunately, the panel has hardly scratched the surface, and proposed various recommendations that may not work in practice.

Similarly, the panel could have focused on constitutional reforms, a review of the MMP electoral system, or even just electoral administration. Instead, the panel has dipped into some areas, left others alone, and all without any discernible pattern or logic. The result is that each recommendation sits on its own, is seemingly superficial, and is unrelated to the other recommendations.

This isn’t exactly the fault of the panellists that the Government handpicked for the role. This was a panel set up by former Justice Minister Kris Faafoi before he gave up the portfolio and became a lobbyist. Unfortunately, he didn’t do his homework when he set up the review, which led to a botched terms of reference that directed his panel on what they should and shouldn’t look at.

Any attempt to design a process to build consensus and broad support for changes to democracy has been thrown out in favour of a process that is likely to treat electoral rules like a political football.

The review could have been a significant and in-depth opportunity to look at every aspect of the electoral system, or even just one aspect like political donations, and to consider all sorts of radical or fresh ideas that might improve the way our elections translate the popular will of the people into parliamentary representation.

More debate is required and less partisan manoeuvring

Despite the shortcomings of how the whole exercise has been set up and what they have come up with, all of the recommendations do deserve much more debate and serious consideration. So far, the public reaction to the interim reactions has been rather muted, which suggests the conversation is already ended before it’s begun.

On the one hand, the Greens have strongly endorsed the recommendations, and on the other hand Act has declared the recommendations to be essentially partisan attempts “produced by left-wing activists trying to screw the scrum”.

What’s more, the Prime Minister has now said that the Labour Party will essentially cherry-pick from the interim review, and put forward its own solutions on electoral reform at the election, pre-empting its own panel’s final report which is due a month after the election.

This brings the whole process into question, making it look like a waste of everyone’s time. Once more the public could be forgiven for feeling that the process is just another one of Faafoi’s botched attempts at reform that won’t go anywhere but is designed to make it look like the Government is delivering something when they’re not.

Referendums on the electoral system

The one recommendation that all the politicians agree upon from the report is reducing elections to every four years instead of three. Of course, this is to be expected – the politicians have a very strong vested interest in having their job performance reviewed much less often. This simply amounts to having less democracy.

So, if there is one recommendation that the review panel might easily get across the line it’s the idea of having a referendum on the length of the parliamentary term.

But maybe other areas should also be taken to a referendum. The most interesting one would be on what amount of donation should be allowed from any one individual over a term of Parliament.

The panel has recommended individuals should be allowed to give up to $30,000. Of course, there are not many people who could afford to give away anywhere near that amount. And it’s curious as to why the panel think that this exact amount should be allowed.

Recent survey evidence commissioned by the Victoria University of Wellington shows that about two-thirds of people want donations above $10,000 to be made illegal, and almost half of the public would outlaw donations above $1000. Hence, if a referendum was held on the topic, then surely a much lower figure than $30,000 would be agreed upon.

All of this serves as a reminder that in designing the rules of our democracy, we should be wary of listening too much to either the loudest voices or the vested interests of the politicians themselves. It’s time now for the public to have their say – you can read the report and make a submission here: He Arotake Pōtitanga Motuhake – Independent Electoral Review.

The defection of Labour Minister Meka Whaitiri has been heralded by some as a stunning coup for Te Pāti Māori and a “courageous” step by the rebel MP. But is it really? The whole episode can also be viewed as rather farcical and shabby, reflecting very poorly on the integrity of both Whaitiri and the party welcoming her. This episode also illustrates just how much Te Pāti Maori has changed. The party once claimed to be all about the pursuit of “mana enhancing” relationships, but the contemporary version of the party is looking increasingly opportunistic.

The Māori Party was originally established when another Labour MP and minister, Tariana Turia, defected from Helen Clark’s Labour Government in 2005 over the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of that dispute, Turia’s departure was a highly principled one, and carried out honourably.

Turia fought inside Labour to change its stance on the Foreshore and Seabed issue and, when she lost that battle, she took advice from a large array of supporters and resigned from her government. She also resigned from Parliament, as she understood her mandate as an MP came from being elected as a representative of the Labour Party. She soon won her seat back, gaining a mandate to establish the Māori Party – Te Pāti Māori.

In that case, the defecting MP did everything the right way, including giving her colleagues the respect of telling them that she was going and explaining why. She also was entirely upfront with the public.

There have been other notable waka jumpers who left their parties in a similar honourable fashion. Jim Anderton resigned from the Fourth Labour Government in the 1980s, Winston Peters departed from Jim Bolger’s National Government in the 1990s, and Hone Harawira left the Māori Party in 2011.

Of course, there are also examples of less honourable party hopping – from Alamein Kopu’s jump from the Alliance to set up her Wahine Māori party which propped up Jenny Shipley’s National Government, through to Brendan Horan leaving NZ First to set up his Independent Coalition. Such departures were about personal quarrels and vanities. Political philosophy and policy played no real part in their departures.

The Hollowness of Meka Whaitiri’s departure

In announcing her departure from the Labour Government on Wednesday, Meka Whaitiri failed to point to any substantive policy and philosophical differences with the party she had represented in Parliament for nearly ten years.

Likewise, yesterday Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was unable to point to any particular reason for Whaitiri’s resignation and insisted Whaitiri had no “beef” with Labour.

Without Whaitiri being willing to provide any justification for her departure from Labour, speculation can be fairly drawn that it is simply about her own personal ambitions, gripes and vanities.

In particular, Whaitiri’s switch to Te Pāti Māori appears to be about her thwarted career ambitions. She was sacked by Jacinda Ardern in 2018 after a nasty altercation with one of her staff. Whaitiri never seemed to accept any fault in the dispute, displaying a lack of contrition and unwillingness to explain what happened. Her most notable statement following the dispute was that “In this country, we have a hierarchy; white men, white women, brown men, brown women, and sometimes brown women have to talk extra loud to be heard”.

Whaitiri was disgruntled when she did not make it back into Cabinet after the controversy, and even considered jumping ship to Te Pāti Māori in 2020. Subsequent reshuffles – especially the most recent ones under new prime minister Chris Hipkins – appear to have been the tipping point for Whaitiri, as she is said to have been aggrieved that other younger Māori MPs were promoted over her.

It also looked likely that Whaitiri would lose her ministerial position outside of Cabinet after the next election. If Labour is re-elected, the party will have less share of the vote and will have to divvy up ministerial positions with MPs from other minor parties, possibly including Te Pāti Māori. Other rising stars in Labour would also be likely to make up a refreshed Executive.

So, although Whaitiri has given up a ministerial position – and some have painted this as courageous – this was a case of her reading the writing on the wall. With this move, Whaitiri is now in a position to come back after the election as a more significant political figure, potentially even as a Cabinet Minister representing Te Pāti Māori.

Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori are letting down the electorate

Whaitiri was elected in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti as a Labour MP, but by deciding she is now a Te Pāti Māori MP she has disregarded that mandate. The principled course of action would have been for Whaitiri to stay with the Labour Party until the election, and then seek re-election for another party. The alternative would be to resign from Parliament and commence her campaign as a candidate for Te Pāti Māori.

The proportionality of Parliament has been distorted – something that the Labour Government previously stated as a reason for bringing in the waka jumping law, which Whaitiri has been able to step around. It is clear that both Te Pāti Māori and Labour have done everything they can to prevent Whaitiri from being ejected from Parliament under the waka jumping law.

Labour wants to avoid souring their relationship with Te Pāti Māori because their path back to power after the election is likely to be predicated on that party’s support. Labour has obviously calculated that to invoke the waka-jumping legislation – which they have every right and ability to do – would not be in their interests, even if it would be the principled thing to do. It also appears that Labour and its Speaker have bent over backwards to prevent Whaitiri from inadvertently triggering the legislation.

The Integrity of Parliament is in question

Much of the public will view Whaitiri’s ability to stay in Parliament as a stitch-up. The decision by the Speaker appears nonsensical in a way that can only be explained by the self-interest of Labour and Te Pāti Māori.

Now the Speaker simply expects the public to trust him on this big issue of public interest, and won’t allow the public to have the details of the negotiations and communications with Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori. But the lack of transparency means the public has no way of judging whether the Speaker’s decision was correct, or whether he has abused his position.

Although the Speaker and Te Pāti Māori are essentially claiming these issues are internal matters, there is a case to be made that all of the information should be released to the public. As RNZ’s Tim Watkin argues, “These are essentially public matters, not private ones.”

If Meka Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori want to prove their integrity over what has occurred then they will release the letter that Whaitiri sent to the Speaker. This might quell the doubts about how Whaitiri managed to stay in Parliament despite her account to the media which appeared to trigger the party-hopping legislation.

Unfortunately, Te Pāti Māori and Whaitiri appear to be trying to escape any accountability over the matter by refusing to front up. For example, yesterday Tamihere denied the requests of journalists wanting the details of Whaitiri’s communications to the Speaker, saying: “we are not accountable to U we are accountable to the law”.

What happened to Te Pāti Māori’s “mana-enhancing” approach?

Traditionally Te Pāti Māori has made a lot of their commitment to dealing with others in a “mana-enhancing” way. But this episode has raised questions about whether this commitment has been ditched, given the lack of respect shown by Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori to Whaitiri’s former colleagues.

RNZ’s Tim Watkin argues that this lack of respect has not just been to Labour, but to Parliament, the public, and to the voters of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. As with other commentators, he is astounded that “Whaitiri did not have the decency to speak to her boss” before resigning.

Watkin suggests that Whaitiri and Te Pāti Māori have been most disrespectful to the voters: “After a carefully staged announcement she has not seen fit to explain herself to the public she serves. MPs are not just creatures of their electorates, but representatives of the people. And the people, quite frankly, have every right to feel kept in the dark. She is a servant of the public, yet we have so many unanswered questions.”

There is currently a lot of praise for the “masterstroke” of recruiting Whaitiri to Te Pāti Māori. Party president John Tamihere is being painted as a smart and ruthless operator who is making his party much more powerful.

And there might be more to come. Te Pāti Māori appears to be trying to attract other disgruntled and alienated politicians to their cause. Louisa Wall is rumoured to be about to announce she will stand for Te Pāti Māori against Labour in Manurewa. And today there is talk about renegade Green list MP Elizabeth Kerekere also jumping ship over her unhappiness with her party’s investigation into allegations of bullying.

The problem is that in welcoming in an array of politicians who have a personality-based conflict with their respective parties, Te Pāti Māori might become a life raft for mavericks, rather than politicians who share a coherent political philosophical basis. Tamihere himself joined Te Pāti Māori after his requests to re-join the Labour Party were rejected.

Therefore although this latest injection of momentum with Whaitiri’s defection comes at a perfect time for Te Pāti Māori, it all looks rather shabby. Yes, the party looks more powerful, and it will be able to leverage its apparent “king-maker” positioning, it might also find that it gains a reputation for being opportunistic and unprincipled.

Te Pāti Māori’s lack of mana

Whaitiri’s recruitment – possibly to be followed by the likes of Wall and Kerekere – comes during a parliamentary term in which Te Pāti Māori have decidedly raised the temperature in their allegations about the shortcomings of their political opponents. Increasingly, the Te Pāti Māori co-leaders are inclined to level allegations of racism and race to make their point.

This was, once again, very present in the justification for Whaitiri’s waka jumping, with allegations made that Labour had kept their Māori MPs in “shackles” as slaves. Tim Watkin argues that such language is “deeply loaded and insulting”. It’s especially galling to talk about Labour having imposed slavery on her, when she has been on a $250,000 salary, while her constituents “are suffering more directly as slaves to a global cost of living crisis, climate change and more.”

Ironically this is all reminiscent of Whaitiri’s win over then Te Pāti Māori co-leader Marama Fox in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti in 2017, which led Fox to exclaim on election night that Maori had made a big mistake in voting for the Labour candidates: “what I think the whānau have done is that they have gone back to the mother ship, they’ve gone back like a beaten wife to their abuser”.

Fox’s toxic allegations against the likes of Whaitiri are now being repeated by Whaitiri against her former Labour colleagues. Unfortunately, such toxic hyperbole is a sign of where Te Pāti Māori might be going. It’s hard to see how any of this is particularly “mana enhancing”.

Political Roundup: Why Jacinda Ardern’s resignation changes everything

Should New Zealand have a snap election? That’s one of the questions arising out of the chaos of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s shock resignation.

There’s an increased realisation that everything has changed, and the old plans and assumptions for election year have suddenly evaporated. So, although Ardern has named an election date of 14 October there’s some good reason for the new prime minister to bring that forward to, say, March.

The big issue is one of electoral mandates. Will New Zealanders feel that Prime Minister Chris Hipkins – or whoever is chosen on Sunday – has a truly legitimate right to govern the country? Of course, constitutionally and legally the new PM will be able to govern – the role of PM is merely the choice of the ruling party. And, when Bill English took over from John Key a year out from the 2017 election, there was no expectation that an early election was necessary.

The problem for Labour is that it was elected as a majority government under the leadership of Ardern with 50 per cent support in 2020. People didn’t vote so much for Chris Hipkins, Kiri Allan, or Michael Wood. It was Ardern that won that support – more than any other party leader in New Zealand’s political history. It was Jacindamania, not Labourmania.

And now the Government only has the support of about 32 per cent of New Zealanders – about a third have been lost in two years. Hence even without a change of leader, Labour is facing a legitimacy challenge, and that’s only now forecast to get worse. So, when English took over from Key, the National Government was hardly in freefall, and it had coalition partners as a check on its power. That’s not the case in this situation, just nine months from the election.

What’s more, the economic recession, along with the multiple crises faced by New Zealand society – from housing, and inequality through to problems in climate, and law and order – are only going to accelerate as we get closer to 14 October.

And that is essentially why Ardern bailed out yesterday. She could see the writing on the wall, and was smart enough to get out before the going got much tougher, and her government was thrown out. It’s better to retire early as an undefeated prime minister than face the ignominy of being beaten by Christopher Luxon.

Of course, it wasn’t just Labour’s popularity that was plummeting – Ardern herself was losing supporters as well as creating more opponents amongst the public. Pollsters regularly ask the public about whether they have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of individual politicians.

The net favourables for Ardern – that is, favourable polling numbers minus unfavourable polling numbers – were extremely high for Ardern in her early years of power. David Farrar writes today that Ardern “spent the first two years at between +40% and +60% which is massive. John Key never got quite that high”. However, this shifted into the negative for the first time: “2022 saw the net favourability decline to +4% mid year, rebound to +12% and then a gradual decline until she hit -1% in the Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll released today”.

Calls for an early election

Broadcaster Rachel Smalley writes today in favour of an earlier election: “Labour will come under enormous public pressure to bring forward the election. It is unthinkable that we can sit in a rudderless void with Chris Hipkins or Michael Wood at the helm of the Government, lurching our way through a recession, and waiting for an election in October. Neither of those people, neither Hipkins nor Wood will make any decisions, we’ll just sit and tread water. Now the country, this is the reality, it needs a war-time leader and Labour does not have one waiting in the wings.”

According to Smalley, Ardern has given the new PM something of a hospital pass at a time of two separate types of crises: the crisis in the economy, and the crisis in the Labour Party that needs to reset itself to become re-electable in October. She suspects that the new PM will have to focus on the latter crisis, deprioritising the need to deal with the economy, housing, inequality, water reform, infrastructure and so forth. Better instead to go to the country and get a new mandate so that the government can concentrate on governing instead of electoral politics.

For an example of how changing prime ministers without an election can be a moral problem, look at the United Kingdom where the Conservative Government is onto its third prime minister this term. Once again, there was no legal or constitutional problem with Liz Truss taking over from Boris Johnson, and then Rishi Sunak after her, but without the public giving the leaders new mandates, the Government’s moral legitimacy has continued to be questioned.

The big problem, of course, is that Labour will want to double down on the need to provide stability, calm and certainty, especially in light of Ardern’s departure. The economic and global environment is already unsteady, and Labour has been campaigning on the basis that New Zealanders shouldn’t take risks this year, especially in their voting. And overall, the conservative advice to the Beehive will be to avoid anything that might look like panic or volatility.

Why would Prime Minister Chris Hipkins want to call an early election?

Having inherited an election date of 14 October, for the new prime minister – whoever it is, but presumably Chris Hipkins – it surely makes sense to hold onto power for as long as possible, with the hope of having as much time as possible to turn around Labour’s polling. Turkeys don’t vote for any early Christmas.

The counter to this is that things are likely to get much worse for the Labour Government over the coming year. This is especially the case in terms of the economy – with interest rates, and inflation picked by many to worsen through the year. It might therefore make sense to strike out early before the economy tanks further and the current gap between Labour and National widens to a place where re-election is seen as futile.

What the new prime minister needs more than anything is to reset the party and government in a truly surprising and bold way. This will require major changes in policy. There will be plenty of advice to the new PM to stand up to the Māori caucus, to shift further on things like co-governance and Three Waters. And someone like Hipkins, if he is PM, will be inclined to shift the Government further away from an association with what is perceived to be woke politics and culture wars.

Policy aside, a more substantial bold move to show bravery and chutzpah would be to call an early election. Yes, over-ruling Ardern’s election date would be something of a missive to the former PM, but this might be a useful way of the new leader telegraphing a difference from the old guard, and showing that they aren’t just going to be the proxy for the old boss. What’s more, there are some questions about whether Ardern should even have used her prerogative to set the election date unilaterally given that she was resigning – many might see that this should be a question for the new PM, not the old.

However, the most important point for Labour is that there is a real chance that an early election could be won by the new Labour PM. Almost certainly there will be some sort of honeymoon for the new leader. Yet this might well dissipate by 14 October. Hence the new Labour PM might have to choose between having a “snap election” or a “recession election”.

Although the conventional thinking is that a new leader needs plenty of time to stamp their mark and get known and liked by the electorate, this is no longer the case. Witness Ardern coming to the leadership in 2017 with just seven weeks before the election. A large element of momentum and urgency can work very well in politics.

Has Labour already lost the election?

The immediate response to Ardern’s departure has been to call the election for National. For example, writing in the wake of the shock announcement, political journalist Andrea Vance, said “Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson just conceded the election.” She argued that “Ardern has pulled the emergency eject lever, and Labour’s election hopes just crash landed”.

Business journalist Bernard Hickey writes this morning that “The odds are stacked much higher against them than they were 24 hours ago.” And according to Guardian writer Henry Cooke, “Labour MPs and supporters have every right to be furious…. She leaves the party in far worse shape to fight this election than it would have been under her leadership.” Leftwing commentator Josie Pagani also concludes: “Labour will be at much longer odds to be re-elected now.”

Newsroom journalist Sam Sachdeva suggests things could now get much worse for Labour: “the perception that Ardern is fleeing a sinking ship could accelerate that shift towards the right as people look to back a winner.”

Gamblers are also turning further against Labour with their money. Earlier in the week, the Australian betting sites were paying $2.20 for a Labour win in this year’s election, indicating a likely probability of only about 43 per cent. After Ardern’s shock announcement, the betting sites increased their payouts for a Labour victory to $3.80, suggesting only a 26 per cent likelihood of re-election.

A new PM could reset Labour for re-election

There is no consensus that Labour is doomed. Reporting on what Labour insiders are saying, Richard Harman says today, “Opinion within Labour circles last night was divided as to whether Ardern’s resignation would aid or harm its election chances.”

Rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton writes in the Herald today that Ardern’s resignation will make Labour more competitive, and he’s now forecasting a re-election as more likely than a National victory (although he thinks Labour would probably be re-elected in coalition with NZ First).

Hooton clearly thinks that Hipkins has what it takes to beat Luxon, and to attract a resurgent NZ First back into coalition with Labour after the election. But it’s Hipkins’ innate conservatism that makes him the right choice for Labour: “Hipkins is also more from the right of the Labour Party. No one who has met him would ever accuse him of being woke. To prove it, expect a Prime Minister Hipkins to carefully plan what the woke daily media will bellow are ‘mistakes’.”

Furthermore, Hooton says: “Hipkins is also not associated with policies Labour really needs to clear off the decks before the election. Those include aspects of Three Waters that are causing such angst in the provinces and, in Auckland, the unwanted and self-evidently unaffordable light-rail project”.

And Hipkins might be seen as the sort of PM that could deliver when Ardern couldn’t: “More substantively, he is orthodox on macroeconomic policy and has positioned himself as tough on law and order. Administratively, he is far more competent than Ardern but can also do a press conference to the required standard.”

The Herald’s Audrey Young is also sure that Hipkins is the right person to lead: “Hipkins is next best to Ardern and Robertson in terms of capability and credibility, and is the person most likely to cause the least pain for the public in terms of a transition to a new Prime Minister. If he puts up his hand for the Labour vote on Sunday, he should have no competition.” She suggests that such a candidate is obvious for Labour in this crisis: “This is the time for stability, competence, and safe hands.”

Stuff political editor Luke Malpass says that Hipkins is the obvious pick, not just because of his political skills and high profile but because he’s more rightwing: “He is also a centrist politician and further to the right of the Labour Party, putting him in a strong position to re-orient Labour to take on the economic challenges it will face this year.”

Labour’s big reset would also have to be substantial, according to Malpass: “Labour will also have to recalibrate its Three Waters policies as well as think seriously about its general rhetoric and positioning around co-governance. If Three Waters has shown anything, it is that race is still a live issue in New Zealand politics, even if it seems to have laid dormant for years.”

This is also why Labour might be uneasy about selecting Justice Minister Kiri Allan as PM. Writing for Newsroom today, Sam Sachdeva and Marc Daalder say: “Allan would be a high-risk, high-reward choice, given the extent to which co-governance has become a polarising topic and the potential for an unpleasant race-based campaign from some quarters.”

Allan would certainly be a very bold choice for Labour. And her ability to inspire enthusiasm for a generational change in leadership would be great, but possibly just too risky for a caucus that is probably more focused now on “winning votes than wokes”.

The symbolism of having Aotearoa’s first Māori Prime Minister will be very attractive to the more identity politics elements in Labour and the electorate, and the fact that she is young lesbian woman would also be a strong and positive narrative.

Instead, there will be many in the party telling Allan that it’s “not her time”, and to wait. The position of deputy prime minister is likely to be offered instead.

Huge pressure will be applied to caucus members to come together to find a new PM to anoint on Sunday, rather than go through what could be seen as a divisive vote.

But after a combo like Hipkins and Allan are anointed, they face the very big question of how to undertake the big political reset that Ardern was unable to do herself. While it’s unlikely that this will involve an early election, they will certainly need to consider whatever big and bold changes they can to show the public that this is a very different new government that deserves re-election. In this scenario, fortune will favour the brave.

Other items of interest and importance today

JACINDA ARDERN RESIGNS
Henry Cooke (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern’s shock exit imperils her legacy and her party
David Farrar: The rise and fall of Jacinda Ardern
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Labour shouldn’t choose our next Prime Minister, New Zealand should
Taxpayers Union: New poll – PM goes negative as Labour hits new low
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Labour Party support reaches new low in poll
Josie Pagani (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern resigns: What was the point of all that?
Matthew Hooton (Herald): Resignation puts Labour back in election race (paywalled)
Rachel Smalley (NBR): The election must be brought forward (paywalled)
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): Jacinda Ardern wouldn’t have quit if she genuinely thought she could win
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Jacinda Ardern’s resignation announcement has changed the political landscape
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson just conceded the election
Duncan Garner (Today: Hugely tough call, but Jacinda Ardern had to go
Bernard Hickey (Interest): A tribute to a tragic PM
Chris Trotter: Jacinda Resigns
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern resigns: Could Labour’s new leader save the party?
Luke Malpass (Stuff): A remarkable leader, Jacinda Ardern’s exit leaves Labour in dangerous limbo
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Ardern’s pared back life leaves Labour in limbo
Claire Trevett (Herald): The bombshell of PM Jacinda Ardern’s resignation – why and what happens next for Labour?
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Ardern’s resignation hands the 2023 election to National (paywalled)
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Tough task ahead for Labour as it seeks re-election without Ardern at helm
Richard Harman (Politik): Labour — nothing can be taken for granted (paywalled)
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Helen Clark’s comments about Jacinda Ardern ‘naive’ and ‘condescending’, political commentator says
Grant Duncan (The Conversation): Ardern’s resignation as New Zealand prime minister is a game changer for the 2023 election
1News: Jessica Mutch McKay Analysis: A surprise Ardern’s resignation came so soon
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Gargantuan task ahead for next Labour leader as Jacinda Ardern steps down
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Jacinda Ardern resigns: a legacy of towering leadership, and a nightmare for Labour
1 News: Helen Clark denounces ‘hatred, vitriol’ aimed at Ardern
Erin Gourley (Stuff): ‘Unprecedented hatred and vitriol’: Helen Clark on Ardern’s resignation
Herald: Prime Minister ‘driven from politics’ due to ‘constant personalisation and vilification’ – Te Pāti Māori
Herald Editorial: Jacinda Ardern quits as Prime Minister – opinion on her legacy will likely always be divided (paywalled)
Anusha Bradley (RNZ): The hatred and vitriol Jacinda Ardern endured ‘would affect anybody’
Linda Clark (BusinessDesK): A PM steps down: we allowed this to happen (paywalled)
Nadine Roberts (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern: An inspirational role model and victim of ingrained misogyny
Vera Alves (Herald): I cannot believe Jacinda Ardern didn’t quit earlier
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern sums up how we all feel in January: I’m over it
Stephen Minto (Daily Blog): Jacinda betrayed
Steven Cowan: When the going gets tough
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Jacinda’s Bombshell Resignation: Political Winners, Losers & Predictions
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): We broke our Prime Minister – New Zealand Civil Society is the loser this day
No Right Turn: An amazing disappointment
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): The unbearable weight of being Prime Minister
Mike Munro (Herald): Jacinda Ardern’s resignation is no victory for social media trolls (paywalled)

LEADERSHIP CONTEST
Audrey Young: Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins the only replacements (paywalled)
Herald: Who will replace Jacinda Ardern? Megan Woods not in the running, Labour hopefuls quizzed on PM aspirations
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): What Labour MPs have said when asked if they want the top job
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern resignation: Chris Hipkins tells Newshub ‘consensus’ about new Labour leader would be ‘far better for NZ’
Rachel Sadler (Newshub): Chris Hipkins ‘obvious’ choice for new Labour leader – political commentator Bryce Edwards
David Farrar: What NZers think of top Labour MPs
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): How will Labour elect a new leader, and who has the advantage (paywalled)
Felix Desmarais (1News): Waiting in the wings: Who could replace Ardern?
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Labour Māori caucus to meet Saturday, ahead of Sunday’s vote for a new leader
Joseph Los’e (Herald): Jacinda Ardern quits: Māori want a Māori as next Prime Minister
Joel Maxwell (Stuff): Labour’s caucus needs to make sure the next prime minister is Māori
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: As Ardern departs, will next Labour leader simply be a placeholder?
Sam Sachdeva and Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Five MPs who could be the next Prime Minister
Thomas Manch, Nikki Macdonald and Anna Whyte (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern resigns: Who are the contenders to be New Zealand’s next prime minister?
Brent Edwards (NBR): What happens now Jacinda Ardern has resigned as PM? (paywalled)
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Ardern resigns: Who are the frontrunners for Labour leadership?
Stewart Sowman-Lund and Duncan Greive (Spinoff): Who will be the next prime minister? The Spinoff’s official odds
Ireland Hendry-Tennent and Amelia Wade (Newshub): Michael Wood, Chris Hipkins and Kiri Allan: The Labour MPs being touted as potential future leaders
Herald: Jacinda Ardern quits: The contenders to be the next Prime Minister
RNZ: What you need to know: Who takes over from Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister when she steps down?

ARDERN’S LEGACY AND FUTURE
Geoffrey Miller (Democracy Project): Jacinda Ardern’s outsized New Zealand foreign policy legacy
Mitch McCann (Newshub): Could Jacinda Ardern be destined for the United Nations, and what are her chances?
Michael Daly (Stuff): Difficult Conversations: Was Jacinda Ardern actually a good prime minister?
Kate Newton and Felippe Rodriques (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern’s prime ministership, explained in six charts
Tom Pullar-Strecker and Esther Taunton (Stuff): What is Ardern’s economic legacy?
Tom Dillane (Herald): Former National PM Jim Bolger says Jacinda Ardern set for high-profile global roles
Tim Watkin (Pundit): Jacinda Ardern: “For Me, It’s Time”. So How Will She Be Remembered?
Morgan Godfery (Guardian): In five momentous years Jacinda Ardern became New Zealand’s most important postwar prime minister
Herald: Jacinda Ardern quits: The highs and lows of the Prime Minister’s political career
Chris Keall (Herald): Jacinda Ardern’s mixed legacy with The Christchurch Call and social media (paywalled)
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern resignation: Her meteoric rise – and the bombshell announcement that shocked New Zealand
Madeleine Chapman (Spinoff): Jacinda Ardern never wanted to be prime minister
Stuff: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern: NZ’s leader in pictures
Herald: The perks PMs get to keep after they leave top job

REACTION
RNZ: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern resigns: Politicians and New Zealanders pay tribute
Jamie Ensor, Jenna Lynch and Amelia Wade (Newshub): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern resigning in February, announces election 2023 will be held on October 14
Thomas Manch, Anna Whyte and Katie Doyle (Stuff): ‘Thank you Jacinda’: Political leaders respond to PM’s shock resignation
Luke Kirkness and Laura Smith (Bay of Plenty Times): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stands down – Bay of Plenty politicians shocked
Josh Butler (Guardian): ‘Like a sister’: Australia will miss Jacinda Ardern but trans-Tasman ties likely to stay strong
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Political jabs and mountains of praise: Kiwis react to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s shock resignation
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): ‘Leader in a crisis’ – Ardern resigns
Michael Neilson (Herald): ‘That’s manaaki’: Māori leaders on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s legacy for tangata whenua
Ripu Bhatia, Katie Doyle and Maxine Jacobs (Stuff): ‘Devastated’: Māori leaders praise Jacinda Ardern following resignation
1News: Māori King ‘grateful’ for Ardern’s work with Kīngitanga
Tureiti Moxon (Herald): Māoridom didn’t always see eye to eye with PM Jacinda Ardern but had tremendous respect for her
RNZ: Shock and sadness as Pacific leaders react to Jacinda Ardern’s resignation announcement
Steven Walton (Stuff): Christchurch will remember Ardern as ‘mother of compassion’ after terror attacks
Jenée Tibshraeny and Tamsyn Parker (Herald): Jacinda Ardern quits as Prime Minister: Business leaders, market analysts react (paywalled)
Erin Gourley and Marty Sharpe (Stuff): NZers react with sadness, empathy to Jacinda Ardern’s resignation
1News: Mixed emotions for Kiwis following Ardern’s shock resignation
Te Aorewa Rolleston (Waikato Times): Jacinda Ardern will be sorely but not unanimously missed in her hometown, Morrinsville
Herald: Celebrities sing the praises of resigning NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

INTERNATIONAL REACTION, COVERAGE
Tom Chodor (Unherd): What was the point of Jacinda Ardern?
Tom Slater (Spiked): Good riddance to Saint Jacinda
Damien Cave (News York Times): How Covid’s bitter divisions tarnished a liberal icon (paywalled)
Fraser Nelson (Daily Telegraph/Herald): St Jacinda’s global cheerleaders can’t acknowledge the truth about her fall
Herald: Jacinda Ardern quits: World leaders praise ‘a true stateswoman’ after resignation
RNZ: Jacinda Ardern resigns: Reactions from around the world
1News: ‘A jolt around the world’ – how the world reacted to PM’s resignation
Stuff: ‘A hero to left-leaning women’: World media reacts to Jacinda Ardern’s resignation
Emma Clark-Dow (Stuff): ‘Intellect and strength’: World reacts to Jacinda Ardern resignation
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern resigns: The world reacts
Stewart Sowman-Lund (Spinoff): ‘An inspiration’ or ‘good riddance’? The world reacts to Jacinda Ardern’s resignation
Daniel Dunkley (BusinessDesk): The world’s media stunned by Ardern resignation (paywalled)
Samantha Lock and Jon Henley (Guardian): ‘An inspiring leader’: world reacts to Jacinda Ardern’s resignation as New Zealand PM
Jessie Yeung and Hilary Whiteman (CNN): New Zealand leader Jacinda Ardern announces shock resignation before upcoming election
Ainsley Thomson (Bloomberg): The Highs and Lows of Jacinda Ardern’s Time as Prime Minister
Lucy Craymer (Reuters): Jacinda Ardern steps aside as NZ PM with ‘no more in the tank’
Tess McClure (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern resigns as prime minister of New Zealand
Gaby Hinsliff (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern knew when to quit. Unlike some other politicians I could mention
Van Badham (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern’s graceful departure is the personification of modern democratic ideals
Tess McClure (Guardian): From stardust to an empty tank: one-of-a-kind leader Jacinda Ardern knew her time was up
Judith Woods (Daily Telegraph/Herald): Jacinda Ardern resignation shows how hard it is being a woman in a man’s world – opinion

RESIGNATION ANNOUNCEMENT
Anna Whyte (Stuff): How Jacinda Ardern’s Labour team found out her decision to retire as prime minister
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Ardern’s rare, personal candour in shock resignation
Claire Trevett (Herald): Watch: Tearful Jacinda Ardern steps down as PM – ‘I no longer have the energy’; Robertson won’t stand
John Hartevelt (RNZ): Jacinda Ardern quits: The bombshell resignation no-one saw coming
Glen McConnell (Stuff): ‘Let’s finally get married:’ Jacinda Ardern’s heartfelt message to family
Herald: Jacinda Ardern’s heart-warming words to Clarke Gayford in resignation speech
Herald: Jacinda Ardern resigns: PM looks forward to being there when daughter Neve starts school
Newshub: Labour Party erupts in rapturous applause and singing in emotional tribute for Jacinda Ardern

NATIONAL PARTY
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): National’s new mantra? It’s a lot like Let’s Do This
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): National reshuffle: Chris Bishop, Judith Collins and Todd Muller the big winners
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): National caucus reshuffle: Barbara Kuriger falls, Judith Collins rockets back up list
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Christopher Luxon announces National caucus reshuffle, new portfolios to start election year
RNZ: National announces caucus reshuffle as Napier retreat kicks off
RNZ: Kuriger says no plans to step down after family scandal aired
Stephen Ward (Stuff): Hamilton’s Tama Potaka picks up Māori development and social housing roles for National

ECONOMY, COST OF LIVING
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Inland Revenue asks more than 80,000 people to return cost of living payment
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): Food prices rising faster than at any time since 1990 with no clear end in sight
Esther Taunton (Stuff): Tomatoes up 136%, spud prices soaring: Mind-boggling price changes seen over past three years
John Weekes (Herald): Food prices skyrocket: Largest annual increase in 32 years as inflation bites hard
Alka Prasad (Herald): ‘Serious inflation problem’: Food prices highest in 32 years (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: The economic slowdown has arrived (paywalled)
Herald: Some so-called supermarket specials are a dog’s breakfast, consumer group says
David Hill (Local Democracy Reporting): Record demand for food parcels in North Canterbury
BusinessDesk: Household wealth fell in Sept quarter even as savings rocketed (paywalled)

HOUSING
RNZ: Largest fall in national average house prices in over 15 years
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Two-thirds of Wellington houses bought at market peak now in negative equity, research shows
Miriam Bell (Stuff): Here are the cities with house price falls bigger than in the GFC
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): Paddock or protected wetland? 102 Auckland homes held up by technicality

MEDIA
RNZ: Morning Report reveals television presenter Ingrid Hipkiss as new co-host
Stuff: Ingrid Hipkiss has been named as new host of RNZ’s Morning Report replacing Susie Ferguson
Herald: AM presenter Bernadine Oliver-Kerby won’t return with show next week

HEALTH
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Māori child health inequities cost society over $170m annually, research shows

OTHER
Frances Chin (Stuff): Corrections paid consultants more than $300k during restructure
Gordon Campbell: On Ardern, business confidence, and the worth of sanctions
Lynn Charlton (Herald): Stop calling rodeo deaths accidents (paywalled)
Grant Bradley (Herald): Airport security alert: Pilots ‘appalled’ after passenger evades screening before Air NZ flight (paywalled)
Damon Salesa (Herald): Legacy of Covid on education will last a decade (paywalled)
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Kaupapa Māori approach helps Maori learners, report finds
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): Rubbish dumped at Ihumātao piled as high as the trees
No Right Turn: Are the police following the law on DNA?
Bob McCoskrie: The Government pushes forward with first step of controversial ‘hate speech’ laws
Brooke van Velden (Herald): Our roading infrastructure needs fixing asap (paywalled)

Earlier this week, in the wake of a decision by the Supreme Court of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Government announced it would draft a Bill which would extend the franchise in New Zealand to sixteen- and seventeen-year-old citizens and permanent residents. (See this press release on Scoop from the ‘Make it 16’ advocacy group, this on Evening Report from The Conversation, and this from RNZ.)

Indeed, the denial of the franchise to these younger people may contradict the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Yet, in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Government explicitly denies Covid19 booster vaccinations to people based on their ethnicity. (See this on Stuff.) Contradicting the Bill of Rights has not even been discussed with respect to vaccination rights.

I have no concern about sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds being less capable of voting wisely than, say, their parents. Nevertheless, whether this is a good idea for 2026 should be seen in the context of the history of democracy. Democracy is not a form of governance which arrived in one hit. Rather, democracy worldwide is a long-running ‘project’ which remains incomplete, more incomplete in some countries than others.

The progress of the democracy project can depend on the sequence of democratic reforms undertaken.

Sequences of Democratic Reforms in United Kingdom and New Zealand.

The first step towards democracy in England was the Magna Carta, in 1215. Further steps were taken in the English (and Scottish) Civil War of the 1640s, when the King was deposed, and then beheaded, by Parliamentarians. These 1640s’ developments were problematic, and largely reversed with the restoration in 1660. But a big step was then taken in 1688, when the Glorious Revolution in England and Scotland replaced the absolute monarch with a constitutional monarchy.

Early steps on the road to democracy were power struggles between King and a Parliament of nobles. The mass of the people were largely unaffected by the gradual gains made by Parliament; in some cases they could be worse off, having less recourse to the King to override abuses perpetrated by the nobility.

In the eighteenth century, important steps to democracy were taken in the United States (1770s and 1780s) and France (from 1789 to 1798); both in the forms of Liberal (or ‘bourgeois’) revolutions. Again, these may not have much brought many people in these countries closer to the levers of power; we may note, for example, the matters of women and of slaves. These revolutions led to a conservative reaction in the United Kingdom, a formal Union from 1801.

Nevertheless, democratic reforms of a progressive nature did take place: namely, the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, 1884, and 1918; each of which significantly extended the franchise in the United Kingdom. In addition, ‘plural voting’ (some people being able to vote more than once) was abolished in 1848. This meant the United Kingdom essentially had a system of ‘one man, one vote’ by 1918. While the 1918 reform also gave the vote to some women, it was in 1928 that women and men aged over 21 had the vote on an equal and universal basis. The United Kingdom voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969; and to 16 in Scotland in 2014.

New Zealand essentially inherited the British Law of 1832. All Māori men over 21 gained the right to vote (in special Māori electorates) in 1867. From then, universal male voting was introduced in 1879, and plural voting was eliminated in 1889. Working-class men gained the vote in 1879 (1867 for Māori), and all women in 1893; the only cases where New Zealand reforms preceded equivalent British reforms.

New Zealand of course introduced the critical reform of ‘proportional representation’ in 1996; a reform still awaiting in the United Kingdom. So New Zealand did precede the United Kingdom in the more critical extension to democracy.

Elite versus Non-Elite Voting

The key step changing the class balance-of-power was the ‘universal male franchise’. The female franchise was of course important, although working-class men then were reticent about this, believing that, on balance, women would vote for conservative candidates. That ‘concern’ was probably valid, from the working-class point of view; although, fortunately, the critical universal reform had already taken place.

On this matter of women voting more conservatively, we may note the poem by James K Baxter – The Ballad of Calvary Street – with its famous line “National Mum and Labour Dad”. Baxter wrote this in 1944, when he was 17 years old. (And here’s an academic reference to that line, in Landfall volume 16, 1962.) Many would argue that women this century vote less conservatively than men; but, then, the meaning of ‘conservative’ may have changed; try substituting the words ‘privileged’ or ‘advantaged’ instead. A vote for Labour may now be at least as much a vote for ‘no substantial change’ as a vote for National once was.

Sequence does matter. If, in the nineteenth century, middle-class women had got the vote before working-class men, then there could have been a considerable delay in granting the vote to working-class men.

There may be similar concerns with the proposal to lower the voting age. The push to lower the age appears to be driven by the new elite, or at least the teenage children of the new elite. And, it is almost certainly true that, at present, new-elite young people are significantly more likely to vote than are working-class or underclass youth. So the question is whether this mooted lowering of the voting age will in any way impede more important and more necessary democratic reforms. Certainly, in the past, it has been elite interests which have been the barriers to the eventual achievement of hard-won extensions to non-elites. (Or, maybe lowering the voting age might facilitate further democratic reforms which benefit non-elites?)

Extensions to Democracy unrelated to the extension of the Franchise

The introduction of proportional representation was clearly the most important of these in New Zealand’s history. This reform meant that one person’s vote had the same value as any other person’s vote.

(We see many overseas examples where this is not the case. The most obvious is that voters in California have zero influence in choosing who the President will be, and almost zero influence in determining the balance of power in the senate. There are two issues here. Re the president vote, California always votes Democrat; it is not even close to being a ‘swing state’. Re the Senate vote, the ratio of population to senators is 20,000,000 to 1. In neighbouring Nevada, which is also a swing state, there are 1,600,000 people per senator. Nevada senators have the same weight in the federal Senate as do California senators.)

The discussion around democracy gets more diffuse when it goes beyond ballot-box issues. Here we move into the realm of economic democracy, and the importance of expressing constitutional equality in the area of public property rights. Huge amounts of each country’s productive economic resources are subject to collective ownership – that is, collective stewardship and (ideally sustainable) utilisation. In some cases, collective resources are local, in some cases they are national. And in many cases resource ownership/stewardship is global, meaning that each country has equity with respect to a population-weighted share of global public resources.

Economic democracy means that every ‘person of age’ – currently that age is 18 in most parts of the world – has an equal share of the public property rights associated with collectively owned public resources.

Economic democracy is as conceptually simple as political democracy. Yet the elites muddy the waters, just as they have done through most of human history with respect to the establishment of universal voting rights.

In this case democracy means that economic organisations – ‘firms’, for want of a better word – should be paying a ‘production tax’ (a mix of a rent and a service fee) for their use of collective resources. Firms should be paying that tax in proportion to their size. Thus, if Firm A is twice as big as Firm B, then Firm A – using twice as much public resource – should pay twice as much production tax. (The next thing to be aware of is that, by definition, production taxes are the same as income taxes; just another name. A change of language does, however, facilitate a new way of thinkingabout income tax.)

The second half of the argument for economic democracy is that every person ‘of age’ – as equal shareholders of our collective resources – should receive an equal stipend from production tax revenue.

Economic democracy can be represented by the bumper sticker slogan: ‘flat tax, universal income’.. In conventional language, it’s a built-in rights-based (ie non-targeted, non-bureaucratic) mechanism of ‘progressive taxation’. Depending on the rate of production tax and on the size of the universal stipend, the mechanism may be broadly neutral in its income distribution effect, or may be more ‘redistributive’.

As a simple way of conceiving this, we may think of public finance at the local council level. Imagine two proprietors in a town, and three equal properties in that town. Proprietor A owns two of the properties, and proprietor B owns the other property. Under the principle of economic democracy, A pays twice as much in property rates as B. But the benefits of the revenue raised are shared equally between all persons in that town, meaning that A and B get the same as each other.

Prospects for Economic Democracy

Possibly, in western societies our present position is much like the United Kingdom in the year 1801; meaning that the First Economic Reform Act may be about 30 years hence, say around the year 2050. Economic democracy is needed now, of course, just as political (and economic) democracy was desirable in 1801.

So the question is, would the extension of political democracy to sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds impede or enhance our journey towards economic democracy?

My fear is that this extension to the franchise would create a further impediment to the achievement of economic democracy. The first reason, already alluded to, is that this change would slightly entrench the power of the new elites; and that it is the elites who represent the main impediment to the achievement of democracy by lower socio-economic groups.

Part of the sway of the elites is their obsession with ‘sound’ (in practice, ‘miserly’) public finance. Thus, if the age of entitlement to a universal public stipend is 16 instead of 18, then such a provision will be more expensive, because there will be more people entitled to that universal payment.

Second, the discussion around economic democracy – a discussion easily derailed by our old and new elites – is that the matter of paying an adult stipend to school ‘children’ may become a substantial diversion from the main discussion.

Third, there is the problem that advocates of a Universal Basic Income are often their own worst enemy. Many argue for a universal gift (‘grant’, ‘transfer’) without appreciating that the achievement of this payment is a consequence of a production tax regime as outlined above. Economic democracy cannot be the one part without being the other part. Production taxes and universal stipends represent an alternative to graduated income taxes and targeted transfers; not some kind of ‘stick on’ ‘band aid’ to our present conception of income taxes. If advocates don’t get this right, they will be forever on the back foot when challenged on how to pay for what they present as a ‘gift’. (Equity dividends are not ‘gifts’.)

Further, many of the advocates of a Universal Basic Income see the ‘universal gift’ as a payment sufficient to create an alternative to labour, thereby enabling non-elites to choose to not work. This conception of a universal welfare state riles elites, and allows them to use the ‘labour supply’ issue as a ‘straw man argument’ against economic democracy. The important reality is that economic democracy enhances the functioning of the labour market, rather than stifling it. It should be that a universal stipend falls short of a stand-alone wage. The fact that participation in the labour market would not cost a person their stipend means that they are much better incentivised to participate in non-exploitative labour. In other words, a proper implementation of economic democracy creates the labour-supply elasticity – the ‘surge capacity’ if you like – that enables people to establish healthy work-life balances, and also enables people to adjust those balances (in favour of more paid work) in times of labour shortages.

I may be wrong in my concern that the inchoate economic democracy project might be derailed by the granting of full democratic rights to a younger cohort of people. Maybe, an extension to our education (probably in Years 9 and 10, given NCEA requirements for older students) towards “civics’ education” might lead to school students becoming much more aware of the ‘full gamut of democracy’ discourse; civics would need to be well-taught, and not massaged to conform with elite interests. If quality civics’ education is a co-requirement of extending the franchise to senior school pupils, and both teachers (who are not part of the social elite) and genuinely progressive students ‘grasp the nettle’, then a lower voting-age could smooth some of the many bumps in the road to a more complete democracy.

At the end of this essay are two academic references for my work on the theme of economic democracy.

Conclusion

The extension of democracy from political democracy – the right to vote in elections – towards economic democracy is critical if humanity is to have a future. Any proposals to extend democracy in ‘sideways’ directions must be evaluated in terms of whether these proposals inhibit or enhance the achievement of the more important reforms.

Just as if elite women had been given the vote before non-elite men then the achievement of universal suffrage may have been delayed (or otherwise compromised), so also an extension of voting rights which in practice will mainly benefit young elites may also endanger an already fraught path towards universal democracy. (Or it may not, if there can be genuine improvements in ‘democracy education’ as part of the reform.)

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

References:

Public Equity and Tax-Benefit Reform
https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/publications/public-equity-and-tax-benefit-reform
“economic democracy: one economic citizen, one dividend”

Symposium on The Basic Income Guarantee
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4024&context=jssw
Keith Rankin: Prospects for a Universal Basic Income in New Zealand

Political Roundup: The High barriers to lowering the voting age

Sixteen-year-olds aren’t about to get the right to vote anytime soon. Despite yesterday’s Supreme Court declaration that a voting age of 18 violates the Bill of Rights, there are still many barriers to get over before the voting age could be lowered.

In fact, as a best-case scenario, youth voting campaigners are now setting their sights on 2029 as the first general election for 16-year-olds to vote in, and perhaps 2025 as the first time that they might be able to vote in local government elections. But to get an extended franchise by these dates would require that the following very high barriers be overcome.

1: Public opposition to lowering the voting age

The problem for advocates of lowering the voting age to 16 is the vast majority of voters disagree. Poll after poll shows that about three-quarters of the public is not yet convinced that it’s a good idea. The public has actually been more favourable to giving the vote to prisoners than they are to letting younger people vote.

A TVNZ Vote Compass poll in 2020 showed 70 per cent in favour of a voting age of 18 years, and 20 per cent favouring a lower age. Then a 1News Colmar Brunton poll showed a massive 85 per cent opposed lowering the voting age to 16. And Curia Research also polled on the question in 2020 and found 88 per cent favoured the status quo. A more recent Curia poll showed that 79 per cent opposed dropping the voting age. And back in August of this year, a Talbot Mills poll showed 66 per cent opposed, and only 28 per cent in favour.

It seems that those favouring change – largely those in political activism, journalism, and academia – are strongly at variance with wider concerns. The case for change simply hasn’t had the cut through yet, until it does, a change in the law is highly unlikely.

2: National and Act oppose lowering the voting age

The rightwing opposition parties are unequivocally against lowering the voting age. This means that when the Labour Government introduces legislation next year to lower the age to 16, it will fail. What’s more, it means that a future National-led government would be inclined to reverse any shift to a lower voting age.

Normally any significant changes to electoral law require some sort of cross-party consensus, and this just hasn’t yet been forged. Campaigners have focused more on judicial activism, which turns out to have achieved them a powerful win, but without actually convincing most of the political parties yesterday’s Supreme Court declaration becomes something of a moot win.

National and Act have the power to stymie any changes to the general election voting age because the Electoral Act is constitutionally entrenched, meaning a super-majority of 75 per cent is required to make changes in Parliament. Ninety MPs are required to vote in favour of such a change, which is not going to occur.

3: Labour Party caution

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has come out in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 years and has promised to introduce legislation in terms of general election voting next year, as the Government’s answer to the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, she has made the call safe in the knowledge that such legislation won’t be consequential, because it won’t be passed.

Cynics might see it as a smart move by Ardern. It ticks off a legal requirement to respond to the Supreme Court ruling, and keeps her onside with progressives who favour a reduced voting age, but at the same time it avoids actually changing the law and alienating the three-quarters of the public opposed to 16-year-olds voting. Quite simply, Labour can rely on National and Act to save them from achieving what they possibly don’t really want to win – an unpopular lowering of the vote.

The problem for Labour will be the question of the voting age for local government elections. This is now where attention is likely to shift. This is because the Local Government Act isn’t constitutionally entrenched, which means that only a simple majority in Parliament is needed to lower the voting age to 16. The Government can’t just rely on National and Act to block this change.

The pressure will therefore be on the Government to reform the Local Government Act immediately. Labour has no excuses not to do so and it will therefore be a real test of Ardern’s principles.

Pressure to reform the Local Government Act’s voting age has also been increased by the review that the Government itself commissioned. The recent Future of Local Government report also recommended a voting age of 16 years for local elections, making it more difficult for Labour not to progress this.

The argument of reformers is now that local elections could be a “trial” for a lower voting age. Or, put another way, by introducing a lower voting age in this less important level of government, it would be a good way for the public to get used to the idea, with the hope that it would lead the way to the public supporting a lower voting age for general elections too.

But is Labour too cautious to make this change? It’s likely to stymie this by trying to keep the voting age for both general and local elections bound up together. The Government might even kick for touch by arguing that it wants to hear back from the Independent Review of Electoral Law before making any decisions – who are not due to report until after next year’s election. This would effectively make the change too late to implement until much later elections.

The general convention – which Jacinda Ardern reiterated yesterday – is for the implementation of significant electoral law changes to only take place for the election after the next one. This would mean that even if the Electoral Law was changed in 2024 to allow 16-year-olds to vote, this wouldn’t occur until the 2029 general election.

4: The Appearance of politician self-interest

Much of the debate about the voting age is likely to be blocked due to apparent political self-interest. Quite simply, the age level for voting has a large impact on the support levels of the various political parties.

There is a general consensus that younger people vote in higher proportions for the parties of the left. This is why one of the Supreme Court judges, Stephen Kos, gave a dissenting opinion yesterday, saying that “Altering voter age is not a neutral political action”, and “Whichever direction it goes in is likely to benefit some parties disproportionately”.

This means that National and Act’s opposition to a voting age is partly driven by the desire to protect their own levels of support. Act leader David Seymour expressed this yesterday, saying: “We don’t want 120,000 more voters who pay no tax voting for lots more spending”.

Conversely, Labour and the Greens could be accused of wanting to lower the voting age for their own advantage. Stuff political editor Luke Malpass explains today that “most of the political upside would go to Labour or the Greens, meaning that a Labour or Labour/Greens Government could look pretty self-interested in making any such change. That’s because those younger voters tend to split 2:1 to the left (either Labour or the Greens)”.

Malpass calculates that lowering the voting age to 16 could result in 80,000 more votes (a 2.7 per cent increase), which “could result in an extra seat for the centre-left. In an MMP environment where elections can be close-run, this would amount to a small – but not insignificant – realignment of the electoral board in favour of the political left.”

Such motivations for lowering the voting age are likely to become more apparent in any developing public debate about reform. New Zealanders have been shown to use “fairness” as a clear criteria in approaching issues such as electoral reform, and so on this subject they might be very inclined to also regard the lowering of the voting age with suspicion – leaving reform to the distant future.

Further reading on the voting age

VOTING AGE
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Change to local body voting age possible – even likely (paywalled)
Michael Neilson (Herald): Parliament to vote on lowering voting age from 18 to 16, could see ‘differential’ system for local and general elections
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Which parties would a voting age lowered to 16 likely favour in Parliament?
Richard Harman (Politik): Supreme Court v Parliament (paywalled)
Liam Hehir: The disappointing but not surprising Supreme Court decision (paywalled)
David Farrar: Hehir on the Supreme Court and the voting age
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Lowering voting age to 16 likely to fail in Parliament
River LIn (1News): Luxon calls on voting age to remain at 18
Brent Edwards (NBR): Opposition unimpressed with Supreme Court decision on voting age (paywalled)
RNZ: Voting age 16 law to be drafted requiring three quarters of MPs to pass – Ardern
Tess McClure (Guardian): Ardern promises bill to lower voting age to 16 in New Zealand after discrimination ruling
Michael Neilson (Herald): Parliament to consider lowering voting age to 16 after Supreme Court rules ‘inconsistent’ with Bill of Rights
RNZ: Supreme Court rules in favour of ‘Make It 16’ to lower voting age
Stuff: Door for voting age change open after backers score win in ‘uphill battle’
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): Voting age should be lowered to 16 – Supreme Court
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): The voting age: Keep it 18 or make it 16?

Other items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Election 2023: a minor (party) flirtation (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Christopher Luxon not ruling out NZ First coalition after Winston Peters rules out Labour
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Luxon not ruling out post-election deal with NZ First
Newshub: Christopher Luxon won’t rule out NZ First coalition after Winston Peters says no to current Labour Party
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): For the first time ever Winston Peters has chosen a side before election day
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Winston’s risky Labour call
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): If ACT rules Winston out, Luxon and NZ First will be snookered
Phil Pennington (RNZ): The ‘big maybe’ over Māori seats in Parliament due to census undercount
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): Census undercount could have shortchanged Māori seats – Waititi
Jonah Franke (Stuff): By-election? What by-election? Voter indifference as battle for Hamilton West heats up

HATE SPEECH REFORMS
Chris Trotter (Interest): In spite of Labour’s back-down on ‘Hate Speech’, the debate looks set to rage on through election year
Arran Hunt (Heald): Will hate speech laws turn NZ into another Iran? (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): How to save Labour from their Religious Hate Speech Law minefield
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Hate speech change: What it means and why it matters
Jamie Enosr (Newshub): Government’s hate speech change explained: How different is it to proposals, will it be unlawful to insult someone’s religion
David Harvey: Eroding Freedom of Expression

HOUSING
Seni Iasona (Newshub): Grant Robertson says 1000 fewer people in emergency housing shows Govt ‘making progress’ amid desperate plea from Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell
Michael Neilson (Herald): Government to make Healthy Homes extension announcement for Kāinga Ora and private landlords
1News: Govt’s possible healthy homes deadline extension ‘a slap in the face’
Giles Dexter (1News): Healthy Homes deadline extension under ‘active consideration’
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Warning building boom could see homes built in ‘terrible places’
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Farewell to home ownership: Interest rate hike forces borrowers to reconsider plans
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): Recap: Frustration, elation in the race for a rental
Greg Ninness (Interest): Median rent up $40 a week nationally in September year but almost flat in Auckland
RNZ: Iwi file Treaty claim over proposed Hamilton housing project

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): Volodymyr Zelensky invited to address New Zealand Parliament
RNZ: Defence Minister Peeni Henare to discuss funding weapons for Ukraine with Cabinet colleagues
Mei Heron (1News): What Peeni Henare likely discussed with Ukraine defence minister
Stefan Dimitrof (Whakaata Māori): Defence minister reaffirms New Zealand’s support of Ukraine
1News: Mahuta announces new sanctions against Putin’s daughters
Stephen Hoadley (Newsroom): Five summits reaffirm global cooperation
RNZ: Jacinda Ardern talked to Xi Jinping on human rights, Pacific development, Robertson says

ENVIRONMENT
Simon Wilson (Herald): National Party’s approach to climate-change policy is a massive failure for farmers (paywalled)
Rachael Kelly (Stuff): Climate Change Commission staff will meet with Groundswell NZ
Henry McMullan (1News): East Coast communities concerned about farmland sell-offs
Rod Oram (Newsroom): COP 27 ends with historic win and abysmal fail
RNZ: COP27 was ‘bitter, divisive, chaotic’, climate change expert says
Herald Editorial: Climate conference results a mixed blessing (paywalled)
Stefan Dimitrof (Whakaata Māori): Microplastics found in breast milk highlights importance of Global Plastics Treaty
David Williams (Newsroom): Mackenzie protection deal disarmed
Hauraki Coromandel Post: National MP Scott Simpson attends UN Climate Change Conference

HEALTH, DISABILITY
Emma Vitz and Shanti Mathias (Spinoff): The rising costs of outsourced healthcare
Rob Campbell (BusinessDesk): We need to centralise health to localise it (paywalled)
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): Health minister asks for patience as GPs demand changes to ‘soul-destroying’ conditions
1News: GPs say practice wait times becoming ‘dangerous’
Kristie Boland (Stuff): UK nurses turn to hospo jobs after waiting 8 months for NZ work approval
Louise Ternouth (RNZ): Disability sector facing critical staffing crisis and calling for more carers
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Covid cases are rising – will Govt intervene or are we on our own?
RNZ: Covid-19 update: 24,068 new cases, 40 deaths and 344 in hospital reported in past week
Chris Ford (RNZ): Opinion: Let’s go no further with voluntary euthanasia
Zoe Madden-Smith (Re: News): New over-the-phone abortion service getting 100 bookings a week

BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT
Kaysha Brownlie (Newshub): National Party reiterates plans to repeal Fair Pay Agreement law
Jane Nixon (1News): Bill to address supermarket duopoly set to pass in 2023
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Tiwai Point aluminium smelter set to stay open ‘long term’, says broker
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Tiwai power deal likely to be settled (paywalled)
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Give mountain a chance to recover, say Ruapehu iwi
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Small retailers ditch insurance over rising costs

EDUCATION
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Eight $200k-a-year executives wanted at Te Pūkenga, despite need to cut $35m from budget
Jimmy Ellingham (RNZ): Massey vice-chancellor’s 18% pay jump not a pay increase, Public Services Commission says
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Christopher Luxon takes aim at parents, ‘culture of excuses’ for truancy crisis, but Jacinda Ardern fires back

RMA, Infrastructure
David Parker (Herald): Making resource management faster, cheaper and better (paywalled)
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Infrastructure: Three Waters ‘the right thing to do’ – Grant Robertson (paywalled)
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Trentham Racecourse on track for 850 new homes
Graham Skellern (Herald): Infrastructure: Record pipeline of road and rail projects, Michael Wood says Auckland harbour crossing critical (paywalled)
Simon Bridges (Herald): Infrastructure: 5 ways to fix Auckland’s transport problems (paywalled)
Reuben Tucker (Herald): Infrastructure: A Lodestone for transformation (paywalled)

TRANSPORT
Anne Gibson (Herald): Experts ponder: is this what might be planned for $15b second Waitematā Harbour crossing? (paywalled)
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Michael Wood responds to Christchurch transport request (paywalled)
John MacDonald (Newstalk ZB): End of the road for Waka Kotahi ads?
1News: 6 road deaths over weekend could have been prevented – police

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONS, POLICE
Dave Armstrong (Stuff): A policy that hits youth offenders where it hurts
Duncan Garner (NBR): If law is not working, why can’t we get tough? (paywalled)
Sam Sherwood (Herald): Police officers failed to declare conflicts of interest while involved in international procurement process
David Farrar: Some dismal stats on prisoner literacy and numeracy programmes

BLACK FERNS TO BE CELEBRATED AT PARLIAMENT
Mana Wikaire-Lewis (Whakaata Māori): Official celebrations for Black Ferns on Parliament’s lawn in December
RNZ: Black Ferns World Cup win to be celebrated in Parliament
1News: World Cup-winning Black Ferns to be celebrated at Parliament

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Todd Niall (Stuff): Is Auckland Council’s next budget really the fiscal apocalypse?
RNZ: Tāmati Coffey voted off Rotorua Trust

OTHER
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Identity Check online system pilot launched despite gaps over privacy, rights
Nick Truebridge (Newshub): Charity says hungry and struggling elderly New Zealanders account for 80 pct of calls
Herewini Waikato (Whakaata Māori): National iwi hui wants funding and resources to take care of whānau
Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): NZ’s prehistoric past at risk of crumbling away
Gavin Ellis: NZME reaches a milestone some thought impossible
Gerhard Uys (Stuff): Pig farmers concerned banks won’t finance expensive upgrades for new animal welfare standards