Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has surprised everyone with his ruthlessness in sacking two of his ministers from their crucial portfolios. Removing ministers for poor performance after only five months in the job just doesn’t normally happen in politics.

That’s refreshing and will be extremely well received. The public will perceive this unprecedented move as a sign that Luxon has very high standards for his government and is determined that his ministers actually deliver results.

Brutal sackings will be popular

Appearing on 1News’ 6pm news last night, I described the demotions as “brutal sackings”, adding that although I thought the moves would be popular, few should believe Luxon’s explanation that the need to replace Melissa Lee was because they needed someone more senior: “Melissa Lee is one of the most senior, experienced politicians in National. She’s the third-longest serving National MP, so it doesn’t quite add up that she wasn’t experienced. She’s been in that portfolio since 2017” – see 1News’ ‘Collective sigh of relief’ likely over Lee’s sacking – Jennings

The demotions have been strongly applauded by Newstalk broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allan who argues that Luxon’s strong style of “performance management” is just what the public wants at the moment – especially after many years in which much worse poor performance has been accepted by prime ministers with a lower threshold of expectations – see: NZ deserves Luxon’s style of performance management

She says that Luxon’s show of strength is a massive contrast with the last government: “What’s happened today will shock a lot of people, because over the last few years we’ve got used to Prime Minsters just putting up with their ministers doing a bad job or behaving badly in public. Kiri Allan, Phil Twyford, Michael Wood, Clare Curran, even Nanaia Mahuta – the Foreign Minister who didn’t like international travel. It took forever for Hipkins or Ardern to demote the under-performers, and they suffered for it – public opinion of them was tainted.”

The “kindness” attribute displayed towards their colleagues by recent prime ministers is now very out of step with an electorate that desperately wants politicians to get things done.

Of course, there’s always been a sense in which prime ministers are expected to be ruthless towards their colleagues – something that former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne emphasises today in his column, Luxon gets out his butcher’s knife – briefly

In this, he points to the phrase used by William Gladstone, the former PM of Britain: “the first essential for a Prime Minister is to be a good butcher.”

Luxon is sending a strong message

Dunne says that Luxon’s brutal ministerial reshuffle “has sent two clear messages – one to both Ministers that they are on their last warning, and that they will be unceremoniously shown the door if anything else goes wrong. The second warning is to all other Ministers about the Prime Minister’s limited tolerance for poor performance and the fate that might await them in such circumstances.”

He also argues that it would have been detrimental for both the Government and Luxon’s own reputation if the two ministers had been kept in place, and so it was smart to get them out of the way before the Budget.

Herald political editor Claire Trevett also stresses how unusual such demotions are – especially this early in a government’s term, and without any more overt wrong-doing: “Usually ministers are stripped of portfolios for a scandal, a breach of the Cabinet Manual, or telling a porky to the Prime Minister or the public” – see: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s reshuffle of Melissa Lee, Penny Simmonds should keep all ministers on their toes (paywalled)

She also says that Luxon has read the room well, unlike previous PMs: “Too often, prime ministers let flailing ministers stay in their jobs too long, either to save face or to risk looking as if they are conceding they made the wrong choice.” But she warns that such demotions are a balancing act, because if you do it too much it becomes a negative: “There is a bit of risk to Luxon in this approach: if you end up moving too many ministers around for shonky performances, it starts to look a bit chaotic.”

National Party insider Ben Thomas has also described the demotions as rather brutal, comparing them to some of former PM John Key’s: If Luxon’s mentor, former prime minister John Key, was the so-called ‘smiling assassin’, the current National party leader might be more like a corporate drone strike: affectless, unperturbed, and delivering the bad news in clinical HR speak” – see his column in The Post: Luxon unleashes the corporate drone strike (paywalled)

But Thomas admits that there’s a chance that the sackings, occurring so soon after Luxon appointed these ministers, might reflect poorly on his original decision to appoint them: “To paraphrase The Thick of It’s Malcolm Tucker, it has usually been thought that if the PM sacks you after a year, you’ve effed up; if he sacks you after a week, he’s effed up by appointing you.”

Newsroom’s political editor Laura Walters also points out how soon the demotions have come: “fewer than 150 days into the term was not a good look for the Government – something Newsroom understands Luxon’s staff raised with him” – see: Melissa Lee’s media Hail Mary comes up short

RNZ’s political editor Jo Moir suggests it’s a bad look in terms of diversity in Cabinet for Luxon to be sacking two women and bringing in a man (Climate Change Minister Simon Watts). But she says for Luxon “competence in the job, or lack thereof, had to trump anything else” – see: Aces in their places: Luxon plays coy over ministers’ competence. But Moir points out the positive of having Watts come into Cabinet: “It will also bring to an end the frustration from climate and environment quarters over the climate change portfolio being outside Cabinet in the first place.”

The other possible message that the demotions send, according to Kelly Dennett of The Post, “is that Luxon is taking delivery seriously; that it’s productivity or bust in this corporate-styled National-led Government” – see: What Luxon really means when he says ‘this is how I roll’ (paywalled)

But she wonders if Luxon is using too much “corporate-speak” in these types of announcements. His phrase that “This is how I roll, this is how I lead” has been derided by a number of commentators. And Dennett argues it’s “not particularly prime ministerial, more what the sneaker-wearing CEOs volley around the boardroom.”

Melissa Lee’s poor performance

Although yesterday’s demotions were surprising due to their timing, no one seems to have been surprised, as Melissa Lee was already in serious trouble. Over the last month or two of major downsizing and threats in various media businesses, Lee has been widely viewed as ineffective and missing in action. Common reactions to her performance have involved the word “clueless” and phrases like “possum in the headlights”.

According to the Herald’s Claire Trevett, Lee was unfortunate to possess the portfolio during a crisis, but also failed to produce credible responses: “Lee’s downfall was that they came to a head on her watch – and she did not have an answer to them by the time they took their toll. Nor had she come up with anything since.”

Ben Thomas is more sympathetic to Lee’s plight, saying there was an element of unfairness in her sacking: “she had been, to differing extents, gagged by her own side. Even before the election, National refused to release her broadcasting policy”. Then during the media crisis, he says that she was stuck in limbo because of coalition politics involving NZ First: “Her office was reportedly barred from clarifying the timeline of policy development with journalists by Luxon’s office, to ease tensions with deputy PM Winston Peters.”

Newsroom’s Laura Walters appears to have more inside information on what has been going on in the Beehive, saying that Lee’s final downfall came when her third attempt to develop a Cabinet paper of solutions to the crisis disappointed the Prime Minister. Walters reports on Lee’s third Cabinet paper failing: “Sources told Newsroom that Luxon… believed the proposals in Lee’s [third] paper did not adequately deal with the complexities of the issues facing the media industry.”

Lee has now been replaced as Media Minister by Paul Goldsmith, and Claire Trevett ponders whether the new minister is simply being “handed a poisoned chalice.” The portfolio has certainly been a difficult one that appears to have defeated previous ministers like Claire Curran, Kris Faafao, and Willie Jackson – all of whom struggled to make much headway in helping the sector to modernise. For more on this, see Colin Peacock’s Media minister rolled as industry awaits plan

Penny Simmonds’ poor performance

Penny Simmonds has lost her cherished Disabilities ministerial portfolio in similar circumstances – as she too has caused the Government embarrassment, but not in a way that would normally lead to a sacking. However her mismanagement of the Disability portfolio led to savage cuts to disability support allowances, which shocked her colleagues and the sector. It was made worse by some intemperate remarks about those in the sector.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis had to intervene in the debacle, returning funding to the disability sector, and making it clear that any such changes in the future would need to be cleared by Cabinet rather than just Simmonds. And according to Newsroom’s Laura Walters, this “was seen by many as a vote of no confidence in Simmonds’ ability to oversee her own ministry.”

Despite this poor performance and bad publicity for the Government, few were tipping her to be fired so quickly. According to Walters, reporting on Beehive information, Luxon needed to demote Lee, and was less inclined to demote Simmonds this early, but “he decided to make both changes in one go to avoid another potential reshuffle down the road should Simmonds not bounce back.”

Also reporting Beehive sources, Ben Thomas says today that “insiders say Simmonds has struggled with the workload across her portfolios, and that the disabilities carer payment changes were not the only significant official-led announcements that passed under her risk radar.”

Luxon is appealing to our anti-political grumpiness

Luxon will win new plaudits from commentators for being decisive and bold, especially after years in which prime ministers have seemed highly reluctant to punish poor behaviour or performance. Luxon and his Government look like they won’t settle for “business as usual” or workmanlike politics.

If that is Luxon’s objective, then he’s smartly tapping into the Zeitgeist, reacting to a public mood that is increasingly grumpy and intolerant towards political complacency and mediocrity. We live in an age of political anger and discontent, which means that this National-led Government will quickly suffer if it protects poor performance.

Two recent IPSOS polling surveys indicate just how volatile and hard to please the public are. Last month, the market research company released its polling, showing that the public wasn’t evaluating the new government’s performance any more positively than it did for the last Labour Government when it was at its most unpopular – the average rating that people gave the National Government was only 4.6/10 – see my coverage of this: Scoring 4.6 out of 10, the new Government is struggling in the polls

Then last week, IPSOS released its survey of New Zealand’s attitudes to politics, which showed that two-thirds of the country believes that “New Zealand needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful”, amongst many other rising anti-Establishment beliefs – see my column: Serious populist discontent is bubbling up in New Zealand

Of particular relevance was the survey question in which respondents were asked whether they agreed with the following statement: “To fix New Zealand, we need a strong leader willing to break the rules”. 54 per cent answered “yes”. The same question asked in the rest of the world had an average agreement of 49 per cent. In New Zealand, the demographics who much more likely to agree with the need for a strong rule-breaking leader were rightwing voters (60%), those on low incomes (66%), and Māori (73%).

Notably, political scientist Jack Vowles has also detected this growing grumpiness and desire for strong leadership. His NZ Election Study found that in 2020 43 per cent of the public agreed with the following statement: “A few strong leaders could make this country better than all the laws and talk”. But last year, the survey question found this had increased to 51 per cent.

Luxon and his government are also carrying out their own polling regularly, and will be well aware of how this increasingly anti-political mood means that voters will reward political leaders making strong decisions and being intolerant of mistakes and poor performance. In this sense, when he launched his surprise and ruthless demotions yesterday, Luxon was finally showing that he could be a “strong leader” or perhaps even a “populist” type of politician for our times.

Dr Bryce Edwards

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

When the First Labour Government came into office in 1935, the new Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage was determined not to live a bourgeois, extravagant lifestyle. Being a representative of workers meant to him that he shouldn’t just take on the material comforts of the ruling class once he was elected to represent those workers. Hence, he refused to live in Premier House on Tinakori Road, near Parliament.

Savage regarded such a mansion as inappropriate for any politician, let alone one representing the proletariat. The spacious house and gardens were apparently too opulent, and he thus believed it was against socialist principles to occupy such an ostentatious home. Instead, Savage boarded with friends and purchased a bungalow in the suburb of Northland.

Premier House as a dental clinic

Savage directed that Premier House be converted into a large dental clinic for children, as part of his government’s health programme and welfare state. After that, the house was used as a crèche and then left empty for decades. As PM, Robert Muldoon lived in another government-owned house in Lower Hutt, and then David Lange chose to live in a small flat opposite Parliament, on Hill St.

But a decision was made by Lange’s Fourth Labour Government to restore Premier House at great expense. It was then occupied by Lange’s successor, Geoffrey Palmer.

Since then, prime ministers of both sides of the spectrum have lived there, largely without any real criticisms. Savage’s socialist critique of elite living was out of fashion.

Yet to avoid accusations of being out of touch and removed from the realities of the public, the various inhabitants have been careful not to spend money upgrading and maintaining the buildings. This has led to a situation in which the place has been run down, and in need of a huge investment.

Neglect of Premier House by parsimonious PMs

As Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern knew of the need to continue with at least the appearance of parsimonious spending on politician accommodation. Like other PMs, she didn’t want to run afoul of any Savage-like notions of politicians treating themselves to luxury at the public’s expense.

However, Ardern was also well aware of the neglected state of Premier House, complaining of many water leaks and possums in the walls and roof. Hence, she established the “Premier House Board” to evaluate the health of the property and recommend what should be done to upgrade it. An attempt was made to find a bipartisan solution in which at least Labour and National could quietly agree to put aside the politicking to allow the necessary upgrades.

This all came after an acknowledgement that such Parliamentary manoeuvring had meant no government felt comfortable addressing the declining state of the building. The political editor of Stuff, Luke Malpass, says: “The decades of neglect have clearly come from a lack of leadership, political expediency, buck-passing, from a number of prime ministers spanning four separate decades” – see: How decades of buck-passing left the PM’s pad in disrepair (paywalled)

The Premier House Board report was handed first to Chris Hipkins last year, and then to incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. And although it hasn’t been fully released, media reports from the last week say that a price tag of about $30m has been attached to the recommended upgrades. And the descriptions of the house by officials are rather condemning, saying it is “below current building standards” and “only partially meets building and residential tenancy requirements and does not suit modern living requirements”.

This is well covered by the Herald’s Claire Trevett, who says the report “catalogues a list of problems – from 30-year-old fittings and furnishings to a lack of insulation and windows that were not adequately sealed so let draughts in” and it raises “red flags about its condition and suitability as a home for the Prime Minister” – see: Premier House: Report into Prime Minister Chris Luxon’s apartment reveals it’s draughty, dated, uninsulated (paywalled)

According to her, the report says this about the PM’s residence: “It was commonplace for things to break. It noted the apartment was ‘uncomfortable,’ had small, poor-quality bathrooms and was badly laid out… and fell well short of the status of the Prime Minister and of comparable residences in other countries.”

Others have also commented on the poor state – Grant Robertson said recently that the house had “a slight 80s motel vibe to it”, and “it is in severe need of an upgrade upstairs there … it’s not up to scratch”. Heritage NZ has also described it as being in a “dishevelled” state.

It’s not surprising that Luxon has decided to stay in his own home – in the Kate Sheppard Apartment building, opposite Parliament. Luxon explained all this three weeks ago, with a spokesperson stating that the PM was going to deal with the Premier House Board’s advice first: “The report suggests Premier House requires a significant amount of work so the prime minister will consider that before making any decisions around residing there” – see Thomas Manch’s Luxon yet to move into Premier House as he considers ‘significant’ renovations (paywalled)

The article also explained that, as PM, Luxon was entitled to an upgraded housing allowance: “He has previously claimed an annual $31,000 accommodation allowance while living in his Wellington home as an MP and now, as prime minister, he can claim up to $52,000 a year if he chooses not to relocate to the Thorndon residence for prime ministers.”

A Savage response to Luxon’s entitlement

On Thursday last week, the official work spending figures of all politicians for the last three months of 2023 were released. This showed that MPs and ministers had spent over $2.3m on accommodation, flights, and other travel between October and December. This is best covered in Felix Desmarais’ article: Expenses for MPs and Ministers revealed – who spent what?

Then on Friday Prime Minister Luxon admitted that he had filed a late return, and so although the officially-released figures don’t reflect it, he had decided to claim the accommodation allowance. While visiting Queenstown, Luxon gave a stand-up press conference in which he fielded journalists’ questions over why he was claiming the allowance when he already owned the apartment he was living in, mortgage-free. His answers boiled down to this statement that he was “entitled to the entitlement”, which went down terribly. As one commentator quipped, it looked like Luxon had come down with “chronic entitle-it-is”.

Within hours, Luxon had announced a U-turn on Newstalk ZB, saying that he had come away from his press conference thinking “Wow, people are pretty fixated on the allowance… what’s going on?”. Luxons says he listened to talkback radio and decided he would get rid of this “distraction” by paying back the $13,000 he’d recently been paid, and would no longer claim the allowance – see Adam Pearse’s Christopher Luxon won’t claim $52k accommodation allowance, to repay $13,000 amid Labour claims of ‘hypocrisy’

Commentators and activists were universally united in condemning that Luxon had taken the allowance in the first place. Even the rightwing Taxpayers’ Union spoke out strongly on the issue.

Herald political editor Claire Trevett explained that it was Luxon’s austerity policies and claims of economic parsimoniousness that meant he shouldn’t have claimed the allowance. Pointing to the cuts to the public service and beneficiary entitlements, Trevett said that taking the $52,000 “might be defensible if he was not a Prime Minister who was also a self-proclaimed defender of the taxpayers’ dollar, nipping and tucking away at spending in every other corner of government” – see: Christopher Luxon’s short-lived attempt to claim taxpayer funded accommodation allowance was never going to be defensible (paywalled)

TVNZ’s Maiki Sherman asserted on Friday that Luxon had done the right thing, after initially doing the wrong thing, explaining: “New Zealanders who are doing it tough under the crushing weight of the cost-of-living crisis might have felt they had every right to feel ripped off. At every turn the prime minister has made a point to talk about the pressure everyday New Zealanders are under and is at pains to say the Government is fixated on sorting it” – see: How Luxon learned a tough political lesson

Sunday Star Times editor Tracy Watkins said that Luxon should never have claimed the allowance, because he should simply have chosen to live at Premier House, just as other New Zealanders have to live in uncomfortable homes: “As PM he had the choice of living in a house that may not be all that comfortable, but which let’s face it is probably in better condition than most rentals. He chose not to live in that house but another one that he preferred. He had choices that a lot of other people don’t have, and he expected taxpayers to carry the cost for that choice. That’s why it’s unfair” – see: Why the PM’s accommodation allowance failed the fairness test (paywalled)

The same newspaper also published Vernon Small (a former advisor to David Parker), who said that Luxon had been extremely tone-deaf, especially given his wealth and ownership of seven properties – see: Perk blinds MPs to political risk (paywalled)

But it was Luxon’s austerity measures that were the biggest problem for the PM claiming the allowance: “It also looks like hypocrisy – restraint for others, but not for me – especially when set against cost-cutting (and inevitable job losses) in the public sector, the promise to get the most from every tax dollar and the thundering pledge to no longer treat taxpayers as a ‘bottomless ATM’. Then there is his government’s ‘tough love’ on the work-ready, and the move to curb future benefit increases.”

Similar points were made by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who stressed that Premier House was good enough for former prime ministers and that Luxon was being rather precious and wasteful.

Should other politicians stop receiving the allowance, and pay it back?

Given the consensus that Luxon was wrong to take the accommodation allowance because he already owns an apartment in Wellington, it raises the question of whether other politicians in the same situation should do likewise. For a long time, politicians from all political parties have bought Wellington properties and claimed the out-of-Wellington allowance.

During the last Government, there were four ministers in the same situation as Luxon, living in their own homes in Wellington and claiming the ministerial accommodation allowance, which is up to $45,000 a year. These were Willie Jackson, Jan Tinetti, Deborah Russell and Duncan Webb. All these MPs are likely to be in the same situation this year, but on a lower accommodation allowance.

In addition, last year four other Labour MPs were living in their Wellington properties while claiming the allowance. These were: Jenny Salesa, Arena Williams, Jamie Strange and Sarah Pallet. This was all covered in October in the Post by Andrea Vance – see: More than 20 MPs rent back their own homes at the taxpayer’s expense (paywalled)

Vance detailed MPs from other parties too: “Twelve National Party MPs, including leader Christopher Luxon, do the same. They are: Andrew Bayly; Gerry Brownlee; Judith Collins; Jacqui Dean; Barbara Kuriger; Melissa Lee; Ian McKelvie; Mark Mitchell; Simon O’Connor; Stuart Smith; Louise Upston and Michael Woodhouse. ACT’s Simon Court also claims the allowance and owns property in the Capital”.

Again in 2024, according to Stuff’s Bridie Witton, there are 20 MPs with second-homes in Wellington which “taxpayers are helping to pay their mortgages” – see: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon saga raises questions about politician entitlements

She also points out that many MPs are claiming taxpayer funds for their electoral offices, which are often owned by the politicians themselves – which means that they are the landlords of their own state-funded rentals. For example, in the case of the PM: “Luxon was also claiming $3750 in taxpayer cash a month to rent his electorate office, based in Northpark, in Auckland financial disclosures published in August and covering the year to June, show. Luxon owns the property, which is now valued at $1.52million.”

Although such conflicts of interest must be declared, Parliament continues to allow these rental arrangements, and all parties do it. And Vernon Small argued that both arrangements for politicians – living in their own Wellington houses, and renting their own electorate offices should not be allowed, even via trusts and superannuation funds: “It would be tidier and more transparent if they instead rented their Wellington digs or electorate offices from a third party, though the net effect is probably neutral for taxpayers. (For the benefit of Labour and the Greens, a political party or private superannuation fund are not third parties.) In the interests of public confidence, it is a change our parliamentarians should have made long ago.”

Rising discontent about politicians rorting the system

In the last two decades, there has been a growing global discontent about politicians being overpaid and rorting the system. This phenomenon really kicked off after the 2008 UK Parliamentary Expenses scandal. More scrutiny is now applied everywhere to the cost of politicians. And when Covid hit in 2020, here the Labour Government made a popular move in (temporarily) cutting ministerial salaries and encouraging top public servants to do the same.

In 2024 there’s now an increasing expectation of belt-tightening for the politicians. Part of this is due to the anti-political atmosphere in which elites are challenged and scrutinised more. But it’s also an immediate reaction to the cost-of-living crisis and the austerity that the new Government is pushing on others, especially in the public sector.

The consensus that quickly pressured Luxon to U-turn on Friday was extraordinary. There seemed to be no one willing to defend politicians’ right to their generous allowances. It was almost as if the spirit of Michael Joseph Savage had been revived.

Should politicians’ pay be cut?

That same socialist-like intolerance of elite self-aggrandisement might well continue to plague the new Government and Parliament whenever their perks and extravagance are out of line with any austerity being imposed on the public.

They might even find that there’s a public appetite for politicians to tighten their own generous salaries. At the moment the Remuneration Authority is undertaking their review of how much politicians should get paid. Their recommendations will be delivered next month, mere weeks before Nicola Willis presents her austerity Budget.

Expect to see some campaigning for pay cuts. The Taxpayer Union has recently said: “New Zealand’s MPs are already among the most highly paid in the world, and when you add in their additional perks and spending allowances, all of which are not subject to the Official Information Act, taxpayers aren’t getting a fair deal.”

The last time a major revamp of politician remuneration took place was in the 1980s. Previously politicians were paid more in line with the general public – a backbench MP earned roughly the same amount as an experienced teacher. Now MPs earn more than twice that ratio. And many politicians earn much more because of the other responsibilities they take on in Parliament and Government. With a basic salary of $460K, the prime minister earns about nine times the average wage.

The Remuneration Authority’s review might be expected to give politicians even higher pay, in line with escalating CEO pay. However, part of the Authority’s remit is to consider the economic conditions. They will need to therefore take into account the cost-of-living crisis that the public is experiencing as well as the coming austerity cuts from the new government. This should mean that politician pay is cut.

But if bigger salaries for politicians do come about from the review – especially at the same time that public services are being slashed – then Parliament might expect fireworks from an angry public.

It is also notable that Ministerial Services (the agency in charge of the Beehive administration) has recently briefed the new Government that entitlements for ministers may have to be trimmed to achieve the required 6.5 percent cuts demanded of the agency.

Housing allowances and other perks will also continue to be controversial. In the past, the only real scandals have been when ministers from Wellington have claimed accommodation or allowances that are only meant for those from outside the capital. This happened in 2001 when Labour and Alliance ministers Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle claimed housing allowances even though they owned their properties in Wellington Central and had been candidates and voters in that electorate.

Similarly, in 2009 then Finance Minister Bill English had become a list MP and moved his family to live in Wellington, but illegitimately claimed a ministerial housing allowance based on his belief that he still represented constituents in his old Dipton electorate of Clutha-Southland. In that case, a TVNZ poll at the time showed that 62 percent of the public thought English’s entitlement issue had damaged his credibility.

What should happen next to Premier House?

The new Government has a headache about whether to spend the estimated $30m required to do up Premier House. The Opposition has now made it clear they will politicise anything except the most modest proposal for maintenance. And Luxon himself has suggested that they might just sell the property off.

Some commentators are telling National to just move ahead with the restoration. For example, Stuff’s Luke Malpass is calling for the proper investment to be made, saying “New Zealand is not a two-bit poor country and whoever the prime minister is should have a decent residence where various dignitaries and New Zealanders can be hosted”. He tells Luxon to show some leadership and spend the necessary money: “Simply wimping out and not investing in the House, or selling it to scratch an urgent political itch, would also be far from the leadership Luxon promised when coming into the premiership.”

Or else Luxon could ask himself, “What would Michael Joseph Savage do?”. Looking at the state of the public health system, or even the dire dental system, Luxon might be best to revert Premier House into what it was in the 1930s – a building that served the public rather than politicians.

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)

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

The Labour Party’s fortunes go from bad to worse. Ever since the party was turfed out of power in October, incurring its biggest-ever loss, the party has shown no real sign of learning any lessons from its defeat, nor does it show any capacity to revive itself.

Last week is being labelled its “worst week yet” by commentators. One of them, Vernon Small, who until recently was the senior adviser to David Parker, wrote yesterday in the Sunday Star Times that Labour appears to have finally hit rock bottom last week, with another poor opinion poll result of 28 per cent support, Grant Robertson abandoning ship, and a new report out showing that in government Labour had failed on child poverty – see: Was that Labour’s worst week yet? (paywalled)

Not only is Robertson a major loss of talent for the party in opposition, Small points out that most of the other stars have been departing: “As well as Robertson and Ardern, Kelvin Davis, Nanaia Mahuta, Andrew Little, Michael Wood and Kiritapu Allan have all jumped ship or been thrown overboard. Third-ranked Megan Woods is being equivocal about her long-term plans.” Meanwhile, Small points out that Chris Hipkins has demoted other solid talent, such as Damien O’Connor and David Parker, leaving Labour’s front bench “looking decidedly callow.”

Small suggests that Labour views tax reform as a recurrent campaign nightmare” to avoid rather than “an opportunity to define itself, and fund its policy platform”. And he says that in keeping Parker away from the revenue and economic portfolios, he’s signalling that a wealth tax is off the agenda. Instead, Hipkins has put the rather dry Deborah Russell in charge of tax, and she says that wealth taxes are “largely unknown” and too complicated to explain.

And in the weekend another Labour insider wrote an analysis on the Labour-aligned blogsite The Standard about how Hipkins is more interested in preserving his leadership than giving MPs like Parker a chance to innovate on tax policy: “Hipkins is also using the elevation of Edmonds and Russell to shank David Parker. Parker is the only guy left with that combination of progressive chops, huge track record, and the merest mote of charisma to be an alternative leader to Hipkins. Hipkins has sent yet another signal to Parker to retire. This leaves Hipkins free to turn the entire Labour effort into an even more ineffectual Wellington-circling wankathon taking two terms to recover from the smashing he got it in 2023” – see: What’s Left?

Labour failed on poverty and inequality

It’s last week’s Statistics New Zealand report on child poverty that is truly eviscerating for Labour. As Small argues, Labour MPs and activists now need to acknowledge their government “didn’t adequately protect the most vulnerable being hit hard by the cost-of-living crisis.”

This is why many on the political left have been so disappointed by the last government. Arguably things got much worse for the poor and working class, while the rich got richer under Hipkins, Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson. Hence, some of the farewell commentaries for Robertson have been less than positive.

Some of the most scathing are from those on the political left. For example, activist Steven Cowan sums up what a lot of those on the left think: “The unvarnished truth is that, despite Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern promising to lead a government focused on economic transformation, very little changed. The Labour Government, supported by the Greens, merely tinkered. Working people were, again, like Oliver Twist, left pleading for more. The new child poverty figures only serve to underline the fact that the Labour Government continued to deliver out thin gruel for the working class its so-called ‘socialist’ MPs claimed to represent. And, presiding over it all, was Finance Minister Grant Robertson. While he wrote, in a nod to New Zealand’s myth of egalitarianism, that he wanted to give everyone ‘a fair suck of the sav’, in reality he was a resolute defender of the neoliberal status quo” – see: A loyal lieutenant of capital

Robertson’s end of an error

The toughest column on Robertson’s time in power has been written by Newstalk’s Heather du Plessis-Allan who says that his departure is not being accurately evaluated by the commentariat and press gallery because he’s the sort of politician that they like having a beer with. She rightly reckons that Robertson won’t be willing to have any more beers with her once he’s read her column: Grant Robertson is a great bloke, but he was a terrible Finance Minister (paywalled)

Robertson is praised by du Plessis-Allan for many of his talents, but she says he should be ranked as New Zealand’s worst finance minister on record – even worse than Robert Muldoon. This is mainly because he took the public’s debt from “$5 billion in 2019 to a projected $93b this year” without producing anything much to show for it. She says at least when Muldoon wasted money on building dams and energy infrastructure the country was left with some assets as a result – but in Robertson’s case, he seemed to blow all those billions without anyone really knowing where it went. She poses the question: “What can we point to and say ‘Grant paid for that’?”

Here’s one good example she gives of Robertson’s propensity to spend very poorly: “He said yes to Michael Wood’s bike bridge, which is the perfect example of wasteful spending. It was a stupid idea. It cost us more than $51m in consultants and rented office space. Then it was canned. We spent money and we have nothing to show for it. The implications are serious. We now don’t have enough money to pay the nurses their backpay or the police the pay rise they’re due. Or the GPs.”

Robertson also failed to advance any real economic reform. And despite lots of talk about how unfair the tax system is, Robertson mostly retained the status quo: “If he really believed the tax system needed to be fairer, he had his chance. He had the ear of Jacinda Ardern. He is one of her best friends. And he either couldn’t convince her or didn’t really try.”

Should Hipkins be replaced as Labour leader?

The worst part of the 1News poll for Labour last week was Hipkins’ plummeting numbers for preferred prime minister. Falling by ten percentage points revived speculation about whether Hipkins had to go. The NBR’s political editor Brent Edwards argued in the weekend that Hipkins is safe for the moment: “the knives will not be out now. It is surely too early in the electoral cycle to consider a change of leader, but the question might arise closer to the election if Labour is unable to lift its support and bridge the gap between it and National” – see: Tragedy, polls, retirement, forced apology and a grim scorecard

Herald political editor Claire Trevett also says that Hipkins is currently safe: “He does have some time up his sleeve. There are no signs as yet that any other credible leadership contender is ready to put their hand up. Once regular speculation starts around one or two names, that will become a more present danger for him. But until there are proper contenders to be a new leader, there is no point in rolling the old one. That gives him a window of opportunity to make sure that those names do not emerge, and that he is the one still standing in 2026” – see: Ginny Andersen’s attack on Mark Mitchell does Chris Hipkins no favours (paywalled)

Trevett also points to another low point in Labour’s past week, with another rising star in the party displaying questionable judgment, and making HIpkins’ job harder: “Ginny Andersen has done no favours for him with her bizarre attack on Police Minister Mark Mitchell on Newstalk ZB about his past as a security contractor in the Middle East. Mitchell quite rightly described it as a character assassination. Hipkins has said it went too far. Andersen has apologised to Mitchell personally, but not publicly and clearly not satisfactorily. She is now refusing to front on it.”

Nonetheless, Anderson is still talked about as the “running mate” for Kieran McAnulty in any attempt to replace the current leadership with a new generation of leaders that might be more able to connect with working class voters.

Labour is still the party of the Professional Managerial Class

The Labour’s progressive agenda and identity is very much their strongest sales pitch. And with the departure of Grant Robertson, the party’s reputation as a feminist force has become stronger – 70 per cent of its front bench is now female.

Also, by appointing Barbara Edmonds to replace Robertson as finance spokesperson, she creates a record as the party’s first female in that role and the first the Pasifika person as well.

This achievement is saluted in yesterday’s Herald with an editorial that says “The once impossibly high glass ceiling has been smashed”, with Edmonds creating “a new pathway not only for herself but one for other Pacific politicians and those aspiring to be so one day. She also represents something that was not always evident in New Zealand and overseas – brown women in leadership roles. Brown women in politics” – see: Barbara Edmonds’ new appointment another step forward for Pasifika (paywalled)

However, as to whether the party still represents working people is more in question these days. In recent years it’s become more apparent the party has been captured by the Wellington “professional managerial class”, pushing the party away from its traditional working class politics towards a middle class social liberalism.

This was discussed in the weekend by political commentator Janet Wilson: “October’s election result proved Labour has a problem of Democrat-sized proportions; they’ve become disenfranchised from their base while other left-wing parties enjoy the benefits. Which is how the Greens managed to snaffle the red strongholds of Rongotai and Wellington Central, and Te Pāti Māori grabbed six of the seven Maori seats. That’s what happens when there’s a divide between the professional managerial class running the party and the supposed blue-collar workers they’re meant to represent” – see: As Robertson heads for the exit, Labour’s reset becomes critical (paywalled)

Wilson explains that Hipkins epitomises that professional managerial class, and continues to hamper any tax reform that might threaten the interests of his own wealthy milieu: “As a paid-up member of that managerial class, having worn the well-trampled path from student politics directly to Parliament, the question must be, is Chris Hipkins the man to represent the workers in an age when AI threatens to disrupt all jobs? Can a leader who scuttled the tax work of his peers in one election hope to stop increasing dissension in the ranks if its polling numbers continue to slide and party irrelevancy beckons?”

There’s a hollowness to a party that continually refuses to implement reforms that would benefit Labour’s traditional base. Wilson says the party has therefore “lost its ideological compass and is adrift in the wilderness of what-it-doesn’t-stand-for. All while applying the magical thinking of all opposition parties – that the government of the day will only last for a term before they are ushered back into power.”

The hollowness has been recently discussed by Matthew Hooton, who has argued that Labour (along with National) has become a “mere empty vessel” for “the personal ambitions and brands of whoever gets control” of the party. Therefore, in lacking any real connection with social forces apart the Liberal Establishment of places like Grey Lynn, Hooton says the party can’t enthuse working people anymore.

In his recent column, What Labour must do to reclaim its core support (paywalled) Hooton says that Labour was “supposed to be about redistributing at least some power and wealth, from capital to labour and from the ruling establishment to ordinary people.” But looking through Labour’s last two times in office, Hooton suggests that the party has given up on its traditional constituency in favour of conservatism, and this will need to change if it is to be re-elected: “Labour will never win back the working-class and middle-income voters who switched to National in 2023 until it offers more change than Ardern and Hipkins were comfortable with. If there is to be a do-nothing Government, former Labour voters may as well stick with National, which is historically so good at it, but isn’t seen to pander to the woke, Wellington, pounamu- and David Jones-wearing, yet mainly Pākehā elites.”

A similar argument was made two weeks ago by Andrea Vance, writing in The Post, saying that Labour’s “existential crisis” relates to its inability to relate to working people, and the fact that it has evolved “into a clique of career-driven politicians who marketed themselves at the progressive middle class”. In lieu of an interest in working class politics, Labour now specialises in “futile culture wars and identity politics” – see: What’s left for the left? (paywalled)

To find a way forward, Vance argues “Labour should be asking: who does it now represent?” And “this requires a more fundamental reshaping of how the party thinks about workers.”

Is there anyone in Labour that can at least pretend to be in touch with working people rather than the professional managerial class? Hooton wrote a column for the Herald at the start of the year that singled out who the best replacement for Hipkins might be – see: Apologies needed for Labour to be taken seriously (paywalled)

Here’s his conclusion: “Thirty-eight-year-old list MP Kieran McAnulty is on manoeuvres, with speculation list MP Ginny Andersen would make a good running mate. Both served briefly as ministers in the last year of the defeated regime. McAnulty, while assuring Labour activists he is well to the left of Ardern on economics and tax, has built a blokey non-woke brand based on driving a ute and liking a beer and a bet. He’s certainly more in tune with today’s post-Covid, recessionary New Zealand than anyone from Grey Lynn.”

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)

In recent decades the New Zealand Parliament has become more representative of some of the historically neglected demographics in our society. As I told TVNZ’s Q+A programme in the weekend, it’s become browner, younger, more female and more gay, and this is good progress – see: New MP intake heavy on farmers, light on unionists.

But at the same time as Parliament has become more diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, and sexuality, it has become significantly narrower in terms of socioeconomics, occupation, or social class. Ordinary working-class people have been squeezed out of politics.

The trend reflects the professionalisation of politics that has occurred since about the 1980s, when all political parties increasingly became staffed and represented by people from the professional managerial class. Gone were the manual workers, the wage-earners, and in came the managers and higher socio-economic professions. Candidates and MPs were much more likely to be lawyers, public servants, accountants, and businesspeople than even teachers or nurses.

In the 2023 intake of 40 new MPs, ten are business owners, nine are former local government politicians, eight are lawyers, four are from media backgrounds, three are accountants, and another three are former parliamentary staffers. There are no union workers, classroom teachers, clerical workers, and certainly no blue-collar workers among them. Such occupations are seemingly unwelcome in today’s professionalised political parties.

At the same time, we have seen the rise of career politicians, with much younger candidates coming into Parliament after rising through the ranks of student associations, working as Parliamentary staffers, or even as local government politicians.

Labour’s professionalisation

A big part of Parliament’s changing demographics is due to the transformation of the Labour Party. Although the party was expressly established as a vehicle to get working class people into Parliament and Government, Labour has long since ceased with this aim and has become similar to National in terms of the backgrounds of the MPs and people at the top of the party.

The original Labour Party was based in the trade union movement, but by the 1980s it was a middle-class party – which is why the Fourth Labour Government was so easily captured by the neoliberal economic reform programme.

According to leftwing political commentator Josie Pagani, the middle-class bias of modern leftwing parties means that more liberal or social issues are prioritised instead of fixing the problems that most materially impact working class citizens. She argued earlier this year that parties of the left still promise a lot to the working class, but once in power “they reflect the priorities of the college-educated middle classes – who now run these parties. Ban plastic bags. Subsidies for EVs. Cycleways, ban hate speech” etc. Pagani argues that although Labour is inclined to sneer at the working class, what the party really now needs to do is “recruit more candidates who are comfortable in the smoko room, not just the university common room.”

Labour currently has a contradiction whereby the party’s caucus is mostly made up of middle class or wealthy individuals, yet they are seeking to win office on the votes of largely working-class people, with whom the party doesn’t have much organic connection. Increasingly Labour is seen as a creature of the Wellington central bureaucracy rather than ordinary people in provincial or working New Zealand. This isn’t helped by the fact that a quarter of the new Labour caucus live in the capital.

Conservatives reorientate back to farmers

The National Party has also been professionalising in recent decades, bringing in more of the professional managerial class as MPs and moving away from some of its original base in areas like farming. Whereas Federated Farmers was once known as “the National Party in gumboots” this connection dwindled after the 1980s, and farmer representation in Parliament declined too.

However, after National’s shock 2020 defeat the party has been rebuilding, which has involved bringing farmers back into the party, including as candidates. Hence the new National caucus has an influx of MPs from a farming background.

What’s more, Act and NZ First have also brought more farmers into Parliament. In the new intake there are, on current votes, going to be seven new farmers in Parliament. In fact, amongst the conservative parties there will now be a total 18 MPs with a farming or horticultural background.

This shift is in line with a global public mood that is against technocrats, insiders, and cosmopolitan elites. National, Act, and NZ First have grasped, to some degree, the populist Zeitgeist away from the professional managerial class, and have been electorally successful because of it.

Parliament’s working-class democratic deficit

Working class voices were largely absent from the recent election campaign. Instead, the contest was mostly just a debate between different elements of the educated classes and the wealthy.

Democracy suffers when politics is so narrow. It means our representatives simply don’t have the lived experience of ordinary people. They don’t have to worry about paying the bills, they don’t have to worry about the housing crisis.

Josie Pagani has recently pointed out that although only about nine per cent of the general public own more than one house, nearly two-thirds of Parliamentarians do. And while only one in four New Zealanders have a tertiary education degree, in Parliament it’s nine out of ten.

This means that our political system excludes most of the population – those who don’t have capital, great wealth, or aren’t highly educated. So, this large part of society is increasingly feeling disenfranchised. Pagani says: “If a group of people don’t see themselves – or their concerns – represented in their parliament, trust in government declines. Our country gets more divided.”

Furthermore, the fact that our Parliament is made up of the wealthy property-owning professional managerial class helps explain why governments do so little for working people. As Pagani points out, under the new professionalised model of politics the “share of the nation’s income going to wage earners, which had sat at around 70% in the 1970s, fell to under 60% by the late 2010s. If it had stayed at 70%, the average wage today would be $12,000 higher.”

The dominance of middle-class professionals also means that politicians do little to fix the many crises that disproportionately impacts those at the bottom – from the housing crisis through to the cost-of-living crisis, poor public transport or public health services.

For example, the current Prime Minister and Labour leader, Chris Hipkins, who was previously the Minister of Health, pays for personal private health insurance which means that unlike most citizens, he’s not so reliant on the underfunded and crisis-plagued public health system. It’s the same for most politicians, regardless of which party they are from – they’ve used their wealth and professional abilities to separate themselves from the travails and difficulties that most voters face.

Can the left bring working people into Parliament?

Perhaps, therefore, it’s time for the New Zealand Parliament to get an injection of working-class politics. National and the other conservative parties will always bring businesspeople into Parliament, and now we are seeing them return to their traditional constituency with more farmers too.

Looking at the left, it’s unlikely that the Green Party can foster any sort of working-class politics, as their voting constituency is very much the professional managerial class. It’s no coincidence that the Greens now win electorates like Auckland Central, Rongotai, and Wellington Central.

Perhaps it’s only the Labour Party that can bring working people into Parliament. And just because Labour has been failing on this doesn’t mean that the party can’t change. Certainly, after the party’s big defeat at the ballot box, and arguably its failed record in government, Labour is going to need to do some soul searching. This should involve questions about why the party exists, and who exactly it represents.

Although it might not be a popular proposal amongst the current Labour caucus, the answer to the party’s current woes could well lie in ditching the middle-class approach. Of course, all of this is more easily said than done. And ultimately, even if Labour decided to put more working people into Parliament, there’s a big question about whether such people would be ready to embrace a party that long ago abandoned the working class.

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)

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.

The Labour Government was elected with 50 per cent of the vote three years ago, but current opinion polls show their vote could halve in this year’s election, which would be one of the biggest plunges in political history.

Most polls have Labour on about 26 per cent. And the downward trajectory is clear – 1News has reported Labour dropping seven times in a row in their poll. And it’s not just the polls showing Labour is in serious trouble. The Australian TAB takes bets on the New Zealand election, and for each $1 dollar bet they are currently paying out $4.50 for a Labour win, and only $1.18 for a National win.

Newshub political editor Jenna Lynch has predicted “absolute carnage and political armageddon” for Labour – pointing out the party risks losing senior MPs like David Parker, Willie Jackson, Adrian Rurawhe, and Ayesha Verrall. And if things go really badly, even Finance Minister Grant Robertson could be chucked out.

Labour could be headed for an even bigger defeat than in 1931 when Gordon Coates’ governing Reform Party plunged to just 26.6 per cent.

So why has Labour gone from such highs to such lows so quickly? The answer to this question will be discussed for a long time after 14 October, but we are already seeing some early explanations for why Labour has become so unpopular.

1) Labour’s handling of Covid

Labour won its 50 per cent vote in 2020 in response to its successful handling of the first wave of Covid. The public was extremely grateful that Jacinda Ardern’s government prioritised protecting public health until vaccines became widely available, and ensured workers and businesses were supported. But subsequent Covid waves made it into the country, and various aspects of Labour’s management of Covid were found wanting.

Last week former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne said the main damage to Labour’s re-election prospects can be traced back to the middle of 2021 when Covid hit the country: “the government’s perceived slowness in winding back pandemic restrictions, alongside the mounting cost-of-living crisis brought about rising levels of public discontent. Compounding that was the second Auckland lockdown, which Ardern promised would be ‘short and sharp’, but which went on for over four months.”

Labour’s Covid story is now seen by many as negative rather than positive, and the Government is barely mentioning it in their re-election campaign. As Stuff political editor Luke Malpass has reported, “Voters just don’t seem to want to hear about it any more. They don’t want the Government crowing about how good it was – because it doesn’t feel that way now. And all the privations and disruption seem best forgotten.”

2) Failure to deliver the promised transformation, or even the basics

Labour came to power in 2017 promising transformational reform. They were largely judged to have failed to deliver on their promises after their first term, and it was only their handling of Covid in 2020 that saved Labour from being turfed out that year. Since then, the narrative that Labour hasn’t delivered has only grown stronger.

Labour’s flagship KiwiBuild programme, with its promise of 100,000 affordable new houses, still exists but has become something of a joke. Auckland’s Light Rail project was supposed to be complete by 2021, but hasn’t even begun, typifying Labour’s general weakness on infrastructure.

In the Listener last week, Duncan Garner argued Labour over-promised and leaned on slogans and gimmicks such as KiwiBuild and, as a result, the Government’s record of achievement is very slight.

Unsurprisingly, Labour is not running its election campaign based on what it has achieved. Malpass notes: “It’s remarkable that a Government of six years doesn’t appear to be running much on its record.”

Crucially, it also means the public are far less inclined to believe Labour’s latest promises. As TVNZ’s Jack Tame says: “what good are new promises if a government didn’t deliver on its previous ones?”

He has pointed to all the areas Labour has failed to deliver on – especially housing, mental health, and child poverty. In all these areas, Labour can point to progress, but there’s too much evidence of things going backwards. Even on climate change, some progress has been made, but ultimately “the most difficult emission reductions decisions have been deferred to future governments”, including how to deal with New Zealand’s largest gas-emitting industry.

Billions have been poured into the mental health system, but there’s a lack of clarity on where it’s all gone and why it hasn’t fixed the crisis. As the Mental Health Foundation says, the promised transformation hasn’t occurred, and “Things are overall getting worse, not better.”

Tame says, “there is no escaping the transformational void” under Labour, and its current campaign is a pale version of what got them into government in 2017.

In September, the research company Ipsos asked the public to rate the Government’s performance out of ten – with the result being 4.5/10, down from 7.2/10 three years ago. On all the issues voters consider most important at the moment, survey respondents rate Labour as inferior to National in terms of competence. This includes Health, Education and Housing – areas which Labour have traditionally dominated.

3) It’s the economy, stupid

Many voters will essentially ask themselves whether life has materially improved or worsened since Labour took power in 2017. Unfortunately for the Government, on many measures it seems to have worsened, particularly with record high inflation and interests rates. The housing crisis, in particular, has worsened significantly since Labour came to power, meaning people are struggling more than ever to pay skyrocketing rent or buy their first home.

Political journalist Henry Cooke sums it up like this: “New Zealanders are rightly upset about their falling real incomes, with high food costs in our uncompetitive grocery sector, high rents in major cities, and high interest rates for those who bought houses while they were severely overvalued… In New Zealand the government is not so squarely seen as the source of everyone’s economic pain, but it is hardly seen as the solution either”.

A common complaint is Labour has spent too much money, and has too little to show for it. Duncan Garner writes in last week’s Listener that “$48b more is spent annually than in 2017. What do we have to show for it? New motorways, trains, light rail and hospitals? No chance.”

Even on the left there is a feeling that the $48b extra spend per year under Labour – and especially the extra $60bn that was spent due to Covid – could have been targeted at transformational change, but has been frittered away on pet projects and more bureaucracy.

Some of this money has been put into expensive structural changes – centralising healthcare (Te Whatu Ora) and polytechnics (Te Pūkenga), but these have become lightning rods for discontent.

4) Broken New Zealand

For the last fourteen years polling companies have asked the public about whether New Zealand is headed in the right or wrong direction, and until recently the majority have always given a positive response. According to polling in 2020 over two-thirds of the population thought the country was headed in the right direction, with few dissenting. By 2023 this has entirely reversed – the vast majority of those polled believe New Zealand is on the wrong track.

A big part of this discontent is with key public services, which are increasingly criticised as dysfunctional, overly-bureaucratic, and under-performing. Stuff’s Luke Malpass reported that dissatisfaction with government services appears to be skyrocketing. According to a Curia survey, voters say public services have got worse since 2020 in the following key areas: Health (70 per cent say it’s worse), Criminal Justice (64 per cent), Education (57 per cent), Transport (47 per cent), and Welfare (37 per cent).

The term “polycrisis” is being used to describe the inter-connected nature of the various crises in the country. It all adds to a sense of anger and frustration with the status quo, creating a mood for change that Chris Hipkins’ government is struggling to turn around.

According to the Listener’s Danyl McLauchlan, Hipkins hasn’t been able to connect with voter dissatisfaction: “he never spoke to the very sour mood of the nation after three years of post-covid disappointment, high prices and political failure.” McLauchlan says that when this year’s Budget came out, voters could see that Labour had no plan or vision for how to fix all the problems in New Zealand: “I suspect they wanted Hipkins to signal that he had a plan to send it in the right direction. A diagnosis of our problems and a plan to solve them. The budget and now the campaign have revealed that there’s no such scheme.”

5) Failure on tax reform

New Zealanders are particularly dissatisfied with the tax system. Experts and the wider public are in agreement about the need for change – it’s only the Labour Government that seems wedded to the status quo, ruling out change. Survey after survey shows the public is open to significant reform of taxes, including introducing capital gains and particularly wealth taxes.

The Labour Government came to power promising tax reform and especially to investigate a capital gains tax. However, Jacinda Ardern went on to rule out a capital gains tax from being implemented under her watch. Under Chris Hipkins, Labour once again ruled out any new progressive taxes.

Some in the Labour Party wanted a wealth tax brought in, and Revenue Minister David Parker worked on a tax that could’ve been implemented this year, only to be overruled by the more conservative Hipkins. A Newshub Reid-Research poll recently asked voters whether he was right to rule this out – with 47 per cent disagreeing with Hipkins’ decision, and only 39 per cent agreeing.

6) Perception that Labour is arrogant and out-of-touch

Winning 50 per cent of the vote in 2020 was both a blessing and a curse for Labour. It meant that Labour had the largest number of MPs any party has ever had, and the ability to push through reform. Labour has been judged to have squandered that historic opportunity, falling into complacency and arrogance.

Labour ministers felt they could implement unsignalled projects – from Three Waters to a social insurance scheme – without the pressure to take the public along with them. As Duncan Garner said last week, “The majority vote meant no one was acting as a gatekeeper.”

Labour is perceived as out of touch with the public, which always leads to electoral death. Recently, Newshub’s Reid-Research poll asked voters whether they thought the Government was concerned with the issues that matter to Kiwis, and only 29.8 per cent thought they were, with the majority – 62.1 per cent – saying the Government isn’t.

7) Lack of clarity about what Labour believe in

Labour’s popularity declined significantly while Ardern was leader, which led her to hand over to Hipkins. Hipkins was initially able to restore a strong degree of public support, mostly through jettisoning many of the pet projects of the Ardern era. He took the party back up to about 38 per cent support after his “policy bonfire”, which signalled to the public that Labour was re-orientating to more traditional concerns.

The problem was Hipkins wasn’t willing or able to replace the jettisoned policies with anything, and it made it look like the party had no vision or plan for fixing the big problems in New Zealand. Instead, it started to look opportunistic. Leftwing political commentator Chris Trotter reflected: “My view is that Hipkins ‘policy bonfire’ was a mistake for Labour as it’s looking now like the Party has burnt down its own house by abandoning its principles. Hipkins has deserted the party’s core support base in his lust for power.”

Peter Dunne explained last week that: “when it became clear that the bonfire was simply about getting unpopular policies off the table, without replacing them with more popular alternatives, the freefall in Labour’s support resumed. The various policy announcements Hipkins has made during the election campaign have simply raised the retort that why is Labour only promoting these policies now, when it has had the best part of six years in office to have implemented them.”

Policies like GST off fresh fruit and vegetables looked cynical, which was reflected in opinion polls showing the public was largely unmoved by the new policy. As Herald political editor Claire Trevett explained, “the GST policy was seen as an attempt to offer something that looked more generous than it was, purely for the sake of votes.”

Labour’s justice policy announcements show how the party has swung between two radically different approaches in a way that lacks authenticity. In the campaign Labour has been banging the law and order drum – something political commentator Janet Wilson describes as “hypocritical” because they are shedding “what they stand for in a hasty grab for the centre vote.” By promising a crackdown on youth offenders and ram-raiders, Labour has simply appeared to be “National-lite” – and failing to convince liberals or conservatives.

In emulating National on many policies, Labour has allowed its opponents to set the agenda. Financial journalist Bernard Hickey has characterised Chris Hipkins’ pitch to voters as: “Labour’s version of tweaking the status quo in Aotearoa’s political economy is better than National’s.”

8) Labour’s focus on woke politics instead of working class politics

Under Jacinda Ardern’s leadership, Labour morphed more into a more middle-class-orientated party than ever before. Instead of focusing on the issues that working class voters care most about – such as living standards and public services, Labour became more associated with social issues, gender, ethnicity, and what some call “woke” politics. Social justice rather than economic justice became the characteristic of this Labour Government.

On taking over, Hipkins promised to ditch the more liberal focus and go with a “bread and butter” agenda. But despite the rhetoric, Hipkins was never able to deliver on this.

Josie Pagani argued this week that Labour has continued to pander to higher socio-economic voters with many of its policies. The example she uses is Labour’s environmental policies: “You see the symptoms in Labour’s priorities designed to please wealthier, urban, middle classes more than their working-class supporters, from subsidising heat pumps and EVs to planetary-scale ‘light rail’.”

This shift away from policies that might help Labour’s traditional working class constituency went hand in hand with enabling the “professional managerial class”, especially within the state sector. A big part of Labour’s approach has been to grow the bureaucracy and give more power to consultants. As Duncan Garner has explained, “The recession was biting, cost of living had already increased and yet still Labour insisted on setting up the hugely costly Health NZ and Māori Health Authority. We employed consultants not nurses.”

Others in the professional managerial class, from lobbyists to law firms, have been looked after well by Labour. Transport projects were entrusted to consultants to carry out. For example, Michael Wood sunk $50m into an Auckland Harbour cycle bridge that was never built. Likewise, $140m was spent on consultants for the Auckland Light Rail project, which still isn’t anywhere near getting off the ground.

A number of controversial government department scandals also created a perception of extravagance and profligacy. Most recently, spending by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples hit the headlines with its $40,000 farewell for its outgoing chief executive who was shifting to another government department.

9) Labour’s radical reinterpretation of the Treaty

Labour’s most radical and unpopular agenda during the last three years has been its adoption of co-governance in public services and especially the Three Waters reforms. The Treaty of Waitangi has been radically reinterpreted, and new bi-cultural governance policies have been advanced as a result, which have been perceived as separatist.

This approach was very different to that taken in Labour’s first term. Back in 2018 both Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson stated an intention to work with a traditional social democratic orientation that would deliver to Māori as part of a universalistic strategy to lift the fortunes of everyone in need, rather than specifically targeting Māori. Ardern strongly emphasised the need to deal with the long list of social ills that have disproportionately impacted Māori, but said that race-based methods were not the best way of doing so.

However this universal approach was out of favour with Labour’s Māori caucus. After the 2020 election when it came to the much-needed reform of water infrastructure, an attempt was made to do so in a way that would empower iwi leaders.

Chris Trotter has recently explained how Three Waters prevailed within the Government: “The Māori Caucus wanted it because Iwi leaders wanted it, and if they didn’t get it, they might start knocking on Te Pāti Māori’s door. No one else in the Labour caucus proper felt strongly enough about the issue to organise any kind of serious resistance. So, Hipkins allowed Three Waters to be tweaked and re-named, and hoped that the public would be satisfied with a ludicrous name change. They weren’t.”

Very little of this approach has been debated or communicated with the public, leading to suspicions that it’s being implemented by fiat in an elitist and undemocratic way because the public won’t agree with it. And ultimately the public hasn’t felt convinced by it all.

Public surveys show unhappiness with co-governance. Stuff reports that the recent Freshwater poll has 48 per cent of people agreeing with the statement that there “should be a referendum on Māori co-governance, to end the confusion and let every New Zealander have a say”. Only 17 per cent disagreed with the referendum.

Similarly, when asked if there should be more co-governance with Māori in government decision-making, 45 per cent disagreed, and only 28 per cent agreed. And in terms of the state’s use of te reo Māori, 49 per cent said that government departments should be known by their English, not their Māori name (and only 26 per cent disagreed).

10) Integrity scandals

When the history of Labour’s 2023 poll dive is written in the future, much is likely to be made of the fact that four Cabinet ministers were lost in controversial circumstances in quick succession after Hipkins took over as PM. The loss of Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, Meka Whaitiri and Kiri Allan will be seen as the final nail in the coffin of the Sixth Labour Government.

Three out of the four ministers left due to integrity failures. Nash went after he committed a string of integrity violations, the last being breaking Cabinet Responsibility rules by passing on confidential information to political donors. Wood left after his continued inability to deal with conflicts of interest over his share portfolio ownership. And Allan spectacularly resigned when she was charged after crashing her ministerial car into a parked ute. Being the first Cabinet minister to be arrested in New Zealand history, was a damning indictment, especially for a Minister of Justice during a period of heightened concern about law and order.

After these scandals Labour’s popularity fell decisively, pushing the party below 30 per cent in the polls. Earlier scandals didn’t cause too much damage, but according to Danyl McLauchlan, once Wood and Allen left in spectacular disgrace, it was “a slow decline that turned into a dramatic loss of public support.”

Taken together, the departure of five ministers in the same number of months, gave the impression of a government in crisis. Nothing in the election campaign has turned around that reputation.

Labour needs honest soul-searching about its defeat

The Labour government of 2017 to 2023 have achieved plenty of good things, and during this election campaign they’ve had a chance to highlight their achievements. There will still be at least a quarter of the electorate who will vote for them. But half of Labour’s 2020 supporters are obviously less than impressed. For too many, Labour’s achievements are overshadowed by the factors raised above.

After 14 October there must be some honest soul-searching about what went wrong. There will be some temptation to put the blame on Covid or ill economic winds. Those factors are part of the story of Labour’s decline, but if Labour doesn’t look at some of the more difficult factors in their fall from favour, they could face a very long road back to power.

NZ Politics Daily: 28 September 2023

NEWSHUB LEADERS’ DEBATE
Spinoff: Leaders’ debate #2, election 2023: the verdicts
Claire Trevett, Shayne Currie, Audrey Yount and Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Who won Newshub leaders’ debate? The verdicts on Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon (paywalled)
Steve Braunias (Herald): Christopher Luxon bores himself to sleep at Newshub debate (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsrom): Hipkins steps up yet leaders lack human touch in debate
Mark Jennings (Newsroom): More gameshow than gamechanger
Luke Malpass (Post): Debate shows that Hipkins won’t go down without a fight (paywalled)
Newshub: Did Chris Hipkins or Christopher Luxon win the Newshub leaders debate?
1News: Latest Hipkins v Luxon debate: Former Cabinet ministers’ verdicts
RNZ: Newshub leaders’ debate: The new commitments and refusals to rule out
Derek Cheng (Herald): Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon come to life in fiery leaders’ debate
Tova O’Brien (Stuff): The crescendo of Chrises: Epic debate a shot in the arm for the campaign – and Hipkins
Farah Hancock (RNZ): Hipkins vs Luxon: The one word Christopher Luxon said 76 times in Newshub’s debate
Dan Brunskill (Interest): Hipkins goes in for the kill
Mike Houlahan (ODT): Plenty of huff and puff as leaders battle to get their jabs in
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Debate moments: Chris Hipkins says he’s not holding back, Christopher Luxon admits ‘clanger’
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Newshub Leaders Debate: Chris Hipkins hits Christopher Luxon with NZ First candidate quote, Winston Peters responds
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Newshub Leaders Debate: Chris Hipkins, Christopher Luxon reveal if they’ve taken MDMA
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Finally – where has this Chippy been!
Marc Daalder, Matthew Scott and Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Fact check: Did Hipkins and Luxon say anything false?
Lyric Waiwiri-Smith (Stuff): Leader’s Debate: Paddy Gower and the Chrises on the most powerful drug of all – politics

1NEWS VERIAN POLL, NEWSHUB-REID RESEARCH POLL
1News: Poll: Luxon likely to need that coalition phonecall to Peters
RNZ: Major parties dip further, NZ First and Greens up – 1News-Verian poll
Andy Fyers (BusinessDesk): The centre/right bloc leads as NZ First rises (paywalled)
Lloyd Burr (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll: Does Christopher Luxon or Chris Hipkins understand Kiwis’ struggles best?
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll reveals who Kiwis trust more to be Finance Minister

WELFARE
Gordon Campbell: On the cynical brutality of the centre-right’s welfare policies
Hanna Wilberg (The Conversation): Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?…

NZ Politics Daily: 27 September 2023

ELECTION
Gordon Campbell: On whether Winston Peters can be a moderating influence and bashing beneficiaries, again
Jessica Mutch McKay (1News): Measuring the mood on the campaign trail
Richard Prebble (Herald): It’s a National landslide in the electorates, but what about the vote that really decides? (paywalled)
Philip Crump (Newstalk ZB): Luxon woos disaffected Labour voters (paywalled)
The Facts: 77% of Kiwis believe NZ is becoming more divided, & many want more discussion
Danyl McLauchlan (Listener): The winners and many losers of our major parties’ health and education policies (paywalled)
Russell Wills (Herald): Child poverty – the forgotten issue in the NZ election (paywalled)
David Burton (Post): How will workers benefit from election promises this year? (paywalled)
Tracey Lee (Spinoff): The power and potential of the overseas vote in Election 2023
Herald: How Australia could sway New Zealand election
1News: Are the Aussies trying to decide the outcome of our election?
Herald Editorial: Early voting the beginning of the end to long election (paywalled)
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Who’s who in the Election Fringe Festival
Rachael Kelly (Stufff): Liz Gunn’s NZ Loyal to contest election with two on its party list
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): The clear message across seven pollsters
Audrey Young (Herald): What Christopher Luxon really means when he says he’d rather work with Act than NZ First (paywalled)
Claire Mabey (Spinoff): Election 2023: The health policies in two minutes
Anna Sargent (RNZ): First-time eligible voters weigh in on the pressure to decide
Eleisha Foon (RNZ): ‘Lack of civic education’ in NZ schools failing Pacific, Māori students
Kevin Norquay (Post): When an image problem is the last thing a politician wants (paywalled)

WELFARE
Russell Palmer (RNZ):Welfare experts group members criticise National’s beneficiary policy
Mihael Neilson (Herad): National Party sanctions benefit policy goes against evidence – expert, WEAG says (paywalled)
Bridie Witton (Stuff): ‘Punishing people for their poverty’: Advocates see trouble with National’s ‘traffic light’ plan to cut benefits
RNZ: Checkpoint: National says traffic light policy for beneficiaries driven by ‘love’
RNZ: National Party reveals traffic light system for Jobseeker beneficiaries
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): National promises to introduce benefit sanctions with traffic light system
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Luxon’s red light for beneficiaries
Thomas Manch (Post): National to crack down on beneficiaries, Labour warns of poverty
Felix Desmarais (1News): NZ First would put limit on time spent on main benefit
RNZ: NZ First announces time limit for Jobseeker beneficiaries
Michael Gordon (Local Knowledge): Why are Jobseeker benefits still so high?
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Money for everything – and your kids for free
RNZ: Green Party pledges to double Best Start payment, extend to all under three
No Right Turn: Competing on cruelty

NZ Politics Daily: 26 September 2023

NEWSHUB-REID RESEARCH POLL
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll: NZ First in powerful position as ACT support crumbles, Labour’s catastrophe continues
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll: Kiwis think National-ACT-NZ First Government would be chaos
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Poll analysis: Labour at risk of political armageddon, losing high-profile MPs
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Greens the winners in latest poll
RNZ: Peters returns as Kingmaker under Newshub-Reid Research poll
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Winston Peters, New Zealand First and Green Party big winners in new poll, Labour and National down
Chris Knox and Thomas Coughlan (Herad): Poll of polls – Labour has 0.2% chance of being in government, worst result for main governing party since Great Depression (paywalled)
Andy Fyers (BusinessDesk): Election 2023: The centre/right bloc holds lead as NZ First rises (paywalled)

NATIONAL-NZ FIRST-ACT COALITION
Peter Dunne (Post): The potential for chaos all round as Luxon invites NZ First to the table (paywalled)
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Bowing to the inevitable: Winston Peters returns (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Luxon’s call on NZ First could come back to bite him
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Peters, 78 not out, reaches towards history
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): What lies behind Luxon’s change of heart on NZ First?
RNZ: Checkpoint: Sir John Key to Chris Luxon – ‘I would advise him to rule Winston in’
Liam Hehir (The Blue Review): Gambler vs CEO
Grant Duncan: Coalitions of delight
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Christopher Luxon insists he can handle Winston Peters, and he may need to
Richard Harman (Politik): Big money brings Winston back (paywalled)
Audrey Young (Herad): Why Christopher Luxon made New Zealand First coalition call (paywalled)
Derek Cheng (Herald): What Christopher Luxon wins and loses by ruling Winston Peters in (paywalled)
Tova O’Brien (Stuff): Christopher Luxon implies National-ACT-NZ First government would be unstable
Luke Malpass (Post): Luxon moves to deal Peters out of the post-election game (paywalled)
Thomas Manch (Post): What Winston wants if he reaches the Cabinet table (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): NZ First’s Winston Peters back in kingmaker position according to latest poll
Anna Whyte and Glenn McConnell (Post): Poll indicates a call to NZ First could be on the cards for Luxon (paywalled)
1News: ‘Voters will decide’ – Peters on potential coalition with ACT, Nats
Brent Edwards (NBR): Winston Peters is waiting for the phone call (paywalled)
RNZ: National Party confirms it could work with NZ First
Dan Brunskill (Interest): Luxon says he would form a coalition with New Zealand First
Guardian: New Zealand election: Luxon says National open to NZ First coalition
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Winston Peters vs David Seymour: their 15 most venomous insults, ranked
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): ‘Don’t come the dingo with me’: Peters zeroes in on Aussie-owned banks and supermarkets
No Right Turn: A coalition of racism, cruelty, and chaos…

NZ Politics Daily: 25 September 2023

NZ FIRST, COALITION WITH NATIONAL
1News: National’s Christopher Luxon would work with NZ First if he has to
William Hewett (Newshub): National’s Christopher Luxon says he’ll work with Winston Peters, NZ First after election if he needs them
Claire Trevett (Herald): Winston is in – National leader Christopher Luxon will pick up the phone to NZ First leader Winston Peters if he really needs to
Luke Malpass (Post): Luxon to voters: We’ll go with Winston, but only if we have to
Newstalk ZB: David Seymour: ACT leader unsure if he can work with Winston Peters
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Winston Peters gets scrappy as Christopher Luxon goes cold on coalition talk (paywalled)
Lloyd Burr (Newshub): Christopher Luxon tells Kiwis to read between lines as coalition questions continue
Michael Neilson (Herald): Winston Peters in Epsom, David Seymour’s hood, raising potential headaches for Christopher Luxon (paywalled)
Cass Mason (Newsroom): A country for old men
Luke Malpass (Post): Winston Peters and the great coalition jockeying game (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): Pity Luxon as Peters and Seymour react like Mentos and Coke (paywalled)
Ben McKay (AAP): Winston Peters lashes out at corporate Australia on campaign trail
Newshub: The Project: Winston Peters labels Green Party as ‘communists’ but praises James Shaw in game of ‘kiss, kick or marry’ on The Project

ACT
John Campbell (1News): Striving to comprehend the multi-headed creature that is ACT
Tess McClure (Guardian): How David Seymour hopes to move New Zealand to the right
John MacDonald (Newstalk ZB): ACT throws National’s tax plan on the bonfire (paywalled)
1News: Pharmacists fear reversing pseudoephedrine ban could endanger workers
RNZ: ACT reveals seniors policy including reversing pseudoephedrine ban

CO-GOVERNANCE
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): A referendum on co-governance would return a big, fat no (paywalled)
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Labour can’t understand they’ve divided this country
Elise Johnson (Post): A warning from Brexit Britain on divisive referendums (paywalled)
Perry Wilton (Newshub): Major shouting match in Auckland as Stop Co-Governance movement clashes with counter-protesters

ECONOMY, COST OF LIVING
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Forget the ‘squeezed middle’, what’s on offer for the squashed poor? (paywalled)
Max Rashbrooke (Post): The election’s great beneficiary vanishing act (paywalled)
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): ‘Not clear’ why beneficiary numbers stubbornly higher than pre-Covid
TVNZ: Q+A: Exclusive polling: How Kiwis feel about paying for poverty, climate change
Vernon Small (Post): The distorted truth about the economy (paywalled)
Liam Dann (Herald): The economic results are in pre-election, have you made up your mind? (paywalled)
Russell Palmer (RNZ): Duelling fiscal plans: Labour-National economic rivalry comes to a head
1News: Q+A: Robertson, Willis clash on finance policy in fiery debate
1News: Q+A: Willis on house price-income ratio: ‘Targeted to be much lower’
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): Nicola Willis brings the printouts to an ill-tempered Q+A finance debate
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Q+A Review: Nicola Willis destroyed by Grant Robertson in angry Finance Debate
Dan Brunskill (Interest): We asked twenty economists how they would define a recession in New Zealand
Cameron Bagrie (BusinessDesk): So many big promises, so little money in the bank (paywalled)
Brian Easton (Pundit): Has There Been External Structural Change?
Fair Policy Commentary): The planned amendment of the Reserve Bank’s mandate: The National Party’s most significant programme element and no one talks about it
Mike Williams (Hawkes Bay Today): What makes anyone think National could run the economy better than Labour?
Steven Joyce (Herald): Not so much a recession as an absence of growth (paywalled)
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): More interest rate rises ahead? How the experts split
Herald: Westpac index finds consumer confidence plummets further

ELECTION
Danyl McLauchlan (Listener): Market research, rather than principle, is driving the pledges of our mainstream parties (paywalled)
Grant Duncan: Post-truth or recycled lies?
Damien Grant (Stuff): Can we believe political slogans?
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Gone are the days of political leaders being mobbed
Janet Wilson (Post): After the not-so-great debate, look for panic to kick in (paywalled)
Bridie Witton (Post): Can Labour bounce back just weeks out from the election? (paywalled)
Felix Desmarais (1News): Luxon is going 100kph on campaign trail
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): 3 Weeks until Election: TDB Battlefield Analysis
Craig Hoyle (Post): Exclusive Brethren lessons suggest Destiny should beware meddling in politics (paywalled)
Newshub: Don Brash’s Hobson’s Pledge returns fire with attack ad taking aim at Chris Hipkins
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Election 2023 profiles: Who are Green Party co-leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw?
Newshub: Chlöe Swarbrick’s witty response to sign vandalised with ‘woke lesbo’ wins praise
Holly Bennett (Newsroom): I don’t want Te Pāti Māori choosing my electoral roll
Listener: Jane Ussher’s political portrait of Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi (paywalled)
Audrey Young (Herald): Labour MP concedes election, Chris Hipkins’ trust win, Winston Peters sets the tone at minor parties’ debate (paywalled)
RNZ: Focus ion Politics: On the campaign trail, week three: Debates, polls, sausage and cheese rolls
Herald: Beehive Diaries: Chris Luxon’s scorecard, a win for Chris Hipkins, what to watch for next week (paywalled)
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Week in Politics: Leaders’ debate fails to catch fire
Brent Edwards (NBR): TV debates, TV polls, Auckland’s plan and out of recession
Eric Frykberg (Interest): ACT launch implodes, Winston Peters shows responsibility, and the Greens and Labour squabble over solar power
Michele Hewitson (Listener): Pre-election performances career from farcical to fatiguing (paywalled)
Alison Mau (Post): Minor leaders inspire cracking TV, and deserve more voice in election debates (paywalled)
Rob Campbell (Herald): The political parties’ porkies behind the recession, prison and gangs (paywalled)
Earl Bardsley (Post): The risk of becoming the ‘blackout nation’ (paywalled)
Craig Hoyle (Stuff): Why are ACT and Greens supporters more likely to work from home?
Federico Magrin (Stuff): Direct democracy, the political system minor parties are raving about
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Why David Seymour despises TV shows about politics
Spinoff: Sick of tame leaders’ debates? Watch this Youth Wings one instead
Donna Miles (Post): Are you a hobbit, a hooligan or a Vulcan? (paywalled)

ELECTORATES
Bridie Witton (Stuff): ‘My heart couldn’t take it any more’: How Northland has become a hotbed of frustration, anger and distrust
Gabi Lardies (Spinoff): Who dares challenge Chlöe? The race for Auckland Central
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Electorates to watch: Candidates fight for face time in Whanganui
Mihingarangi Forbes (RNZ): Mata Reports 3: Ikaroa-Rāwhiti
Justin Wong (Post): Public service spending in the spotlight at Mana electorate debate (paywalled)
Otago University: Q&A with Ingrid Leary and Ben Peters
David Hill (Local Democrac Reporting): Waimakariri election candidates tackle crime, healthcare and the cost of living

LABOUR
Duncan Garner (Listener): Why Labour only have themselves to blame (paywalled)
Richard Harman (Politik): Game on; Hipkins comes out punching (paywalled)
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Hipkins goes on the attack in rally speech
Molly Swift (Newshub): Chris Hipkins reaffirms stance on wealth tax as Te Pāti Māori reveals it as bottom line during Newshub Nation debate
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): More fiscal holes as Labour faces questions about GST policy
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Labour on attack over free school lunches as poll shows support for taxing wealthy more
RNZ: Labour promises to keep school lunch programme
Thomas Manch (Post): Postcards from the road: A week in the life of a Labour campaign (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Chris Hipkins distances himself from former colleague dismissing bullying allegations against Shanan Halbert (paywalled)
RNZ: Hipkins defends Labour’s handling of Halbert concerns
1News: Chris Hipkins reveals ‘hardest moment’ of the campaign so far
Karanama Ruru (Stuff): One of New Zealand’s youngest candidates wants to hold the door open for young people
Vincent O’Sullivan (Newsroom): Short story of a Labour candidate

NATIONAL
Chris Trotter (Interest): Moving in the direction of the (new) Government
Brent Edwards (NBR): Still no sign of National’s fiscal plan and detailed costings (paywalled)
RNZ: National releases document laying out current economic plan
1News: National to spend at least $30m to reverse speed limit changes if elected
Claire Trevett (Herald): National leader Christopher Luxon takes leaf out of Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s book, declares war on road cones and speed limits
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): National wants to reverse speed limit reductions, minimise use of road cones
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): National promises to reinstate 100kph limit on State Highways
RNZ: Election 2023: National promises to end new speed limit reductions
Jamie Enosr (Newshub): Labour’s Chris Hipkins dismisses National’s speed limit announcement
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Post): National promises ‘laser sharp’ focus addressing competition problems (paywalled)
Steve Braunias (Herald): The Secret Diary of … Truckin’ Luxon (paywalled)

IMMIGRATION
Lincon Tan (Herald): Indonesian overstayers found living in a plywood shed and dilapidated caravan at New Windsor, Auckland property
Michael Neilson , Adam Pearse and Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Govt moves on Dawn Raids, Labour unveils major immigration policy
Trent Doyle (Newshub): Government announces changes to Green List, seasonal employment, Recovery Visas
RNZ: Immigration rebalance: Green List expanded, restrictions on ‘dawn raid’ deportations
NBR: More roles added to green list to cope with skills shortages
Rayssa Almeida (RNZ): Immigration laws need stability, says adviser group
Casper McGuire (1News): Labour, National, ACT announce similar immigration policies
RNZ: Immigration in spotlight as similar policies announced
RNZ: National announces new parent visa category
Eleisha Foon (RNZ): Dawn Raids stories captured for future generations
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Migrant exploitation is the backbone of NZs low wage addiction
Mark Derby (Post): High-stakes rescue finds new life for Burmese refugee accused of ‘high treason’ (paywalled)

HOUSING
Ged Cann (Post): Mega Landlords: National wants to ‘rebalance market’ to help landlords (paywalled)
Max Rashbrooke (Spinoff): Did National really just simply sell off state houses?
John Minto (Daily Blog): State housing fantasies and a tale of two graphs
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): National declines to match Labour’s housing promise as campaign enters crucial week
1News: Labour promises another 6000 public homes if re-elected
RNZ: Labour promises 6000 more state houses if re-elected
Stuff: More public housing to regions over coming years, says Labour’s Megan Woods
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Chris Bishop calls Labour ‘recklessly irresponsible’ over housing promise, Megan Woods says ‘judge us on our record’
David Chaston (Interest): Gird yourself. Home loan rates will likely rise soon – again
David Chaston (Interest): Residential property auction sales rate drops to 43%
Miriam Bell (Post): Small-town tenants hit hard by rental pressures (paywalled)
Miriam Bell (Post): Forget the stereotype of the ‘typical’ landlord (paywalled)
Katie Townshend (Nelson Mail): Plan Change 29: How easy will it be to build six storeys?
Tom Kitchin (RNZ): Tiny homes, big problems

HEALTH
Ruth Hill (RNZ): Wellington doctors told to stop referring women to specialists unless their condition is urgent
Virginia Fallon (Post): ‘We are powerless here’: One night in the emergency department (paywalled)
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Junk food advertising a ‘major contributor’ to obesity
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): How ultra-processed food became a battleground
Rachel Thomas (Press): From car boot care to queues out the door, what broke after-hours healthcare? (paywalled)
Zoe Madden-Smith (Re: News): Nearly half of NZers can’t afford to go to the dentist
Andrew Bevin (Newsroom) The major health crisis ignored by election campaigns
Liu Chen (RNZ): Asian New Zealanders excluded from the mental health conversation
Moana Ellis (Local Democracy Reporting): Patients on beds in corridors: How will Whanganui Hospital cope with a growing population?
Michael Oehley (Waikato Times): How to make a doctor (paywalled)
RNZ: New Covid vaccines may arrive too late for latest variant
Amanda Gillies (Newshub): Blind woman Minnie Baragwanath calls for NZ to do better for people with vision and hearing impairments

THREE WATERS
Andrea Vance (Post): The circus moves on, but no-one is talking about the elephant in the ring (paywalled)
Kelly Dennett (Post): When bread and butter collides with transformation (paywalled)
Press Editorial: The need for water reform (paywalled)
Stuff: Investigation into Queenstown’s cryptosporidium outbreak intensifies, will leave ‘no stone unturned’
RNZ: Cryptosporidium outbreak: Health officials search for infection source

CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT
Eloise Gibson (RNZ): The multibillion-dollar climate hole faced by both Labour and National
Brent Edwards (NBR): Climate change agreement marked by disagreement (paywalled)
Evan Harding (Southland Times): Farming lobby group revs up ‘drive 4 change’ campaign, but Labour hits back
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): The Big Lies Climate Deniers, Groundswell, National, ACT and Corporate Farmers keep spinning about NZ emissions
Grant Miller (ODT): Climate action cards to be laid on the table (paywalled)
Annemarie Quill (Stuff): NZ’s hottest ever summer could be ahead – with fire, drought and sharks
Newshub: New LAWA data shows two-thirds of monitored New Zealand river sites rated poorly for E. coli
Isobel Ewing (Newshub): New Plymouth residents concerned despite milestone in battle to have toxic chemical plant cleaned up
Mike White (Post): Niagara shipwreck continues to deteriorate while politicians dither (paywalled)
ODT Editorial: River proposal go-slow (paywalled)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Simon Brown (Herald): Trams, plans and parking fines: Wayne Brown has some new ideas for Auckland (paywalled)
Mark Thomas (Newsroom): Mayor Brown’s Auckland Deal is the real deal
Kevin Norquay (Post): Why can’t Wellington have nice things? (paywalled)
Trent Doyle (Newshub): Support for Māori wards in Tāmaki Makaurau low as Auckland Council submissions close
Catherine Hubbard (Nelson Mail): Māori ward ‘not true partnership’ but step in right direction, say iwi
Denise Piper (Stuff): Northland council considers security as claws come out over new cat rules

TRANSPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE
Olivia Wannan (Stuff): Are $3 per litre petrol prices driving motorists towards EVs?
Frances Chin (Post): Wellington commuters take full fares in their stride (paywalled)
Finn Blackwell (RNZ): Auckland rail: KiwiRail, Auckland Transport release plans
Krystal Gibbens (RNZ): Hybrid trains on the way for lower North Island
Kate Green (RNZ): Wairoa Airport runway extension gets boost from government

PUBLIC SERVICE
Nikitin Sallee (BusinessDesk): The public service: ‘just do it’ (paywalled)
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Govt department investigates AI job screening (paywalled)

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, PACIFIC
Mitch McCann (Newshub): Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta rebukes Russia, warns of Pacific destabilisation in United Nations speech
Mitch McCann, Reuters (Newshub): Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta to meet US President Joe Biden next week while at Pacific Leaders Summit
RNZ: Niue announces new scheme at UN to fund and protect its ocean
Lydia Lewis (RNZ): ‘We are at crisis point’: Climate warrior calls on US, UK to do more for climate action

BANKS
Nona Pelletier (RNZ): Banking services study reveals negative opinions on state of sector
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): NZ banks are lagging on real-time payments and fraud protections. The Commerce Commission says it could force them to get on with it
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Post): Consumer NZ fears consumers will be underrepresented in banking review (paywalled)
Grant Kemble (Stuff): Banks could do more to open doors to homeownership

NZ Politics Daily: 22 September 2023

ELECTION
Jack Tame (1News): For Christopher Luxon, the Winston strategy has changed
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): Is this the long goodbye for Labour?
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): The Greater Of Two Evils
Gordon Campbell: On chaotic coalitions, drinking water and useless debates
Max Harris (Post): Policies to push back against (paywalled)
Kevin Norquay (Post): ‘There are a lot of people saying, it feels odd… I don’t think I know who I’m going to vote for’ (paywalled)
Political Compass: New Zealand General Election 2023
Tim Watkin (RNZ): The electorate swing, Labour limbo and Luxon-Hipkins two-step
Danyl McLauchlan (Listener): A week of prospects, protests and possibilities (paywalled)
Newsroom: Raw Politics: Hipkins’ strange failure to fire
Dita De Boni (NBR): Great divide between political parties on employment issues (paywalled)
Rebecca Rendle (BusinessDesk): Workplace relations policies – how do they stack up? (paywalled)
RNZ: Law and order debate sees fiery clash of policy
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): James Shaw’s unexpected solution to the cost of living crisis. Does it stack up?
Annie Te One (The Conversation): From ‘pebble in the shoe’ to future power broker – the rise and rise of te Pāti Māori
The Facts: Government confidence at record lows

NEWSHUB NATION POWERBROKERS DEBATE
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Zingers and grins light up multi-party debate
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): In zinger-filled debate, the minor parties prove they’re the most interesting
Mark Jennings (Newsroom): Minor parties get fired up over crime and punishment
Farah Hancock (RNZ): How David Seymour and Winston Peters hogged the mic in the minor party leaders debate
Maree Mahony (RNZ): Cracks appear soon after show of unity from ACT, NZ First leaders
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Election 2023 debate moments: Marama Davidson, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer team up in facing bickering David Seymour, Winston Peters
Newshub: Political commentators on who was victorious in minor party debate
Adam Pearse , Michael Neilson and Claire Trevett (Herald): Fiery small leaders’ debate reveals Act and NZ First could work together
Luke Malpass (Post): The great minor party sorting session ‒ and Winston’s big night (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury Daily Blog): Newshub Nation Powerbrokers Debate: Marama and Debbie beat the snot out of David and Winston

ECONOMY, FINANCE DEBATE, COST OF LIVING
Rob Campbell (Post): It’s not just the economy, stupid (paywalled)
Matthew Hooton (Herald): Why National’s tax fantasy is dead (paywalled)
Richard Harman (Politik): Doubts about Robertson’s good news day (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Peters predicts being in government and a pre-Xmas mini-Budget
Katie Bradford (1News): Will GDP growth be too little, too late for Labour?
Herald Editorial: Economic good news may be too late for Labour (paywalled)
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Five things you need to know about GDP update
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Economy in 2024: ‘Next six months will be painful for households’
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Post): GDP figures shows Reserve Bank may have failed to engineer its recession (paywalled)
Rebecca Howard (BusinessDesk): The RBNZ won’t be spooked by the strong 2Q GDP (paywalled)
Liam Hehir (The Blue Review): Crisis? What crisis?
RNZ: June quarter 2023 GDP result: Economy grew strongly in the three months ended June
RNZ: New Zealand skirts recession with adjusted quarterly GDP figures
Dan Brunskill (Interest): New Zealand dodged technical recession, after all
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): New Zealand posts second-quarter GDP growth of 0.9 percent, no recession
Thomas Manch (Post): Labour lauds GDP figures, campaign rolls on (paywalled)
Lloyd Burr (Newshub): New GDP figures spark row over economy
Newshub: National accuses Finance Minister Grant Robertson of insulting New Zealanders over GDP figures
Jonathan Mitchell (NBR):It’s all a numbers game (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Government launches review of one of NZ’s most important laws, after watchdogs complain about poor accountability (paywalled)
Jenny Ruth: More regulation likely to drive some non-banks to the wall

ELECTORATES
Deborah LaHatte (Whakaata Māori): Poll: Wiill voters punish Meka Whaitiri for waka jumping?
James Perry (Whakaata Māori): Ikaroa-Rāwhiti candidates up for the fight as seat remains open for the taking
Jean Edwards (RNZ): Sarah Pallett, Hamish Campbell and Raf Manji vye for Ilam’s vote
Sinead Gill (Press): Is Christchurch Central safe for Labour or will it swing? (paywalled)
Liam Hehir (Newsroom): Brooke van Velden against the odds in Tāmaki
Tommy de Silva (Spinoff): Can National reclaim Nelson after Labour ended its 24-year run?

ACT
Tim Watkin (Pundit): National, ACT & NZ First: Delivering The Sun Or Just Beach Cricket?
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Public service and KiwiSaver cuts propel Government to a larger surplus under ‘hypothetical’ Act budget
RNZ: Watch: ACT leader David Seymour reveals alternative budget
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Act’s alternative budget takes aim at public debt as well as public servants (paywalled)
Eric Frykberg (Interest): ACT reveals alternative budget
Brent Edwards (NBR: Act calls for responsible management in tough circumstances (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): ACT throw Gen X under the retirement bus

NATIONAL
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Chris Luxon stands firm on spilling any more beans on policy trade-offs ahead of election
Tom Taylor (RNZ): Checkpoint: Relative of victim of gang violence hits out at politicians in meeting
Michael Fallow (Southland Times): National would ‘hustle’ to revive international student numbers
RNZ: National promises to expand international student work rights
Michael Fallow (Southland Times): Luxon gets cheesy in deep south

LABOUR
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Labour’s Shanan Halbert labelled bully by multiple former employees
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Labour MP Shanan Halbert rocked by bullying allegations
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Chris Hipkins stakes job on promise to cut GST from fruit, veges next year
Adam Pearse (Herald): Disaster recovery unearths Chris Hipkins’ vintage Chippy in Hawke’s Bay

HEALTH
Metiria Stanton Turei (ODT): National policy contradicted by dog-whistling trail rhetoric (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Using Ethnicity in Health: Why being accused of racism in NZ is more important than doing anything about racism in NZ
Kevin Hague (Newsroom): The solution to institutional racism is 163 years old
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): ‘Shattered’: Māori health board head says National plans a huge step back
—————
Steve Randerson (Herald): The alcohol industry appears to still have some politicians under its spell
Virginia Nicholls (Herald): How education can positively influence teens’ views on responsible drinking
Kristie Boland (Press): ‘Huge’ amount of unmet need missed when measuring healthcare performance (paywalled)
Rayssa Almeida (RNZ): ‘Utterly demoralising’ – doctors strike over pay and conditions

TVNZ LEADERS’ DEBATE
Richard Prebble (Bassett, Brash & Hide): Who won the Leaders’ debate?
Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Thoughts on the leaders’ debate
Tom Peters (World Socialists): New Zealand election debate points to bipartisan agenda of austerity and war
Robert MacCulloch: Madness at TVNZ – is a formal apology owing to Chris Luxon from the academic “experts”?

PUBLIC SERVICE
Andrea Vance (Post): Environment Ministry pays $1m to consultants for cost-cutting restructure (paywalled)
Phil Pennington (RNZ): WorkSafe chief executive Phil Parkes resigns
Laura Frykberg (1New): Up to 120 jobs could go at WorkSafe, chief executive quits
Brent Edwards (NBR): Unions disappointed in proposed cuts at WorkSafe (paywalled)
Brent Edwards (NBR): NZ First reckons it would bring public spending under control (paywalled)
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): ‘Rich’ Conservation Department is actually stretched and struggling
Maria Slade (NBR): Trade agency to slash budget as Covid funding ends (paywalled)

WATER QUALITY, THREE WATERS
Julia Talbot-Jones and Yigit Saglam (The Conversation): Freshwater quality is one of New Zealanders’ biggest concerns – water-trading ‘clubs’ could be part of the solution
Tumamao Harawira (Whakaata Māori): Muaupoko protests against Lake Horowhenua’s exemption from national water standards
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Lack of water treatment highlights urgency of Three Waters reforms – mayor
RNZ: Queenstown mayor gives update on cryptosporidium outbreak
RNZ: Queenstown cryptosporidium outbreak: Residents face ‘months’ of boil water notice
Joanne Naish and Sinead Gill (Press): Only three Christchurch water supplies have protozoa barriers, but council says risk is low (paywalled)

EDUCATION
Soumya Bhamidipati, (RNZ): ‘Devastated’: Victoria University axes 229 jobs and six courses
Gianina Schwanecke (Post): 140 redundancies, six courses gone at Victoria University as it tackles deficit
George Heagney (Manawatū Standard): Massey University working to reduce big deficit
Tamara Poi-Ngawhika (BusinessDesk): Māori tertiary institution pulls out of startup programme
Tatiana Gibbs (Post): Mum’s plea for equal access to education for neurodivergent children (paywalled)

CLIMATE CHANGE
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): Petone and other communities can’t be protected against climate change, says insurer (paywalled)
Shanti Mathias (Spinoff): The climate change and environment policies in two minutes

BUSINESS
Grant Bradley (Herald): The big winners from the $1 billion taxpayer air freight scheme (paywalled)
Tamara Poi-Ngawhika (BusinessDesk): $2.7m investment in Māori businesses pays off
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Post): Power firms show no immediate opposition to tougher rules on ‘bundled’ plans (paywalled)
Trent Doyle (Newshub): Why thousands of Aucklanders will get a $360 payout this week
Rob Stock (Post): Not guilty verdict in $750m insurance company collapse (paywalled)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s communications boss Kate Lynch quits after barely six months in the job (paywalled)
Erin Johnson (Stuff): Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s chief press secretary Kate Lynch resigns
Krystal Gibbens (RNZ): Let’s Get Wellington Moving plan hits another roadblock
Justin Wong (Post): Porirua City Council rejects financial backing for adventure park (paywalled)
Tina Law (Press): Residents call for immediate halt to ‘unnecessary’ housing intensification plans (paywalled)

ORANGA TAMARIKI
Bill Hickman (RNZ): Oranga Tamariki review: Agency refers 28 complaints over staff conduct to police
Katie Harris (Herald): Oranga Tamariki review: Nearly two dozen residence staff removed and three charged since issues raised in June

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
RNZ: Pacific nations sign up to UN high seas treaty – ‘Ratifying and implementing’ next
RNZ: Statecraft in the Pacific

OTHER
Charlotte Muru-Lanning (Spinoff): Why Winston Peters should take over the Green Parrot Cafe
Piers Fuller (Post): Wellington’s venerable Green Parrot for sale (paywalled)
Newshub: Former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern reveals what she misses most about politics, how life is ‘very different’ now
Shayne Currie (Herald): Media Insider: Kim Hill on the leaders’ debate, leaving RNZ and her extraordinary career; Rupert Murdoch steps down; Radio stars settle with MediaWorks; Facebook news traffic plunges (paywalled)
Krystal Gibbens (RNZ): Courts clogged by self-represented litigants, lawyers say; solutions proposed
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Police Association president Chris Cahill: Time to put pressure back on the gangs

NZ Politics Daily: 21 September 2023

COALITION ARRANGEMENTS
Felix Desmarais (1News): Kiwis want to know if Luxon will work with Peters
Chris Trotter: Calling the big dog’s bluff
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Christopher Luxon doesn’t say what ACT policies National could adopt if in position post-election

ELECTION
Chris Trotter (The BFD): Who wants 20 Years of Woke?
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Chris Hipkins is running out of time, less than one week before first votes cast
Oliver Hartwich: Under NZ’s complex polling system, Labour’s weak polling raises the possibility of “list MP extinction”
Dominic O’Sullivan (The Conversation): Racism and democracy: why claims of ‘division by race’ in the NZ election and Voice referendum need challenging
ODT Editorial: Vetting Zoo (paywalled)
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): The latest charts and data on Election 2023
Michael Johnston (Newsroom): MMP system is complex and secretive
Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): The Detail: When a ‘wasted vote’ isn’t wasted
Brent Edwards (NBR): NZ First reckons it would bring public spending under control (paywalled)
Iain Lees-Galloway: Those who seek to govern us need to talk with us
Gabi Lardies (Spinoff): Shop the fit: Debbie Ngarewa-Packer
Gabi Lardies (Spinoff): How to vote based on your zodiac sign

1NEWS VERIAN POLL, IPSOS SURVEY
Felix Desmarais (1News): Poll: National, ACT, retain slender advantage in path to power
1News: Luxon says foreign buyer tax questions aren’t impacting polls
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): National dips in new poll, but no Labour bump
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog):New TVNZ Poll shows how fragile Right Victory is – step up NZ Left!
Joel MacManus (Spinoff): A new poll reveals New Zealanders back National on almost every important issue

TVNZ DEBATE
Brent Edwards (NBR): News media loses election debate coverage (paywalled)
Peter Dunne: Hipkins and Luxon may be more in touch with the public mood than drama-seeking commentators might like
1News: ‘Beige’ – Economist slams leaders’ ‘lack of ambition’ in debate
Liam Hehir (The Blue Review): Who will fact check the fact checkers?
Robert MacCulloch: TVNZ asked academics to “fact check” the leaders debate & the academics got it wrong
Ella Stewart (RNZ): The falsehood Christopher Luxon was allowed to repeat in the leaders’ debate
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Chris Hipkins said there is ban on fizzy drinks in primary schools, ministry says there isn’t
1News: Fact check: Leaders’ claims in the first debate put to the test
Herald Editorial: Luxon draws first blood in debate, leaving Labour playing catch-up (paywalled)
Liam Hehir (The Blue Review): Are you not entertained?
Lyric Waiwiri-Smith (Stuff): Politics aside, was the Leaders’ Debate good TV?
Ani O’Brien (Plain Sight): The TVNZ leaders debate
Calum Henderson (Spinoff): Every sporting analogy used to describe the first TVNZ leaders’ debate

UPCOMING DEBATES
Gray Gibson (Newshub Nation): Powerbrokers’ Debate: Everything you need to know about David Seymour, Winston Peters, Debbie Ngarewa -Packer and Marama Davidson
Anna Whyte (Post): Minor parties prepare for debate showdown (paywalled)
Melenie Parkes (Stuff): Multi-party debate moderator Jack Tame says smaller parties could have more influence than ever before

NATIONAL
Morgan Godfery (Post): The only way we can pay for tax cuts is with a decade of austerity (paywalled)
Richard Harman: An ill wind (paywalled)
Mike Houlahan (ODT): It’s about the economy – and getting results
Brent Edwards (NBR): National’s plan for a predictable regulatory environment (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): National Party leader Christopher Luxon’s big mistake as he goes for the goat vote
Lloyd Burr (Newshub): National releases new attack ad reworking Labour’s own
Stewart Sowman-Lund (Spinoff): Luxon takes search for missing mojo to Auckland goat farm
1News: Watch: Christopher Luxon tries his hand at goat milking
RNZ: National’s Christopher Luxon fronts up on lunches, housing
Jonah Franke-Bowell (Waikato Times): Who is Ryan Hamilton? (paywalled)

LABOUR
Derek Cheng (Herald): Why Labour’s 30% prison reduction goal made no sense, and axing it makes no sense (paywalled)
Andrea Vance (Post): Labour MP concedes his party will likely lose election (paywalled)
William Hewett (Newshub): Labour commits to building new hospital in Hawke’s Bay
1News: Labour promises new Hawke’s Bay hospital if re-elected
Thomas Manch (Post): Sun and silt as Hipkins heads to Gisborne (paywalled)
Robert MacCulloch: The PM falsely told the AM Show the new Grocery Commissioner can ensure GST cuts are 100% passed on
Charlotte Muru-Lanning (Spinoff):MP Michael Wood speaks candidly about airport shares ordeal

ELECTORATES
The Hui: The Hui panel analyses Tāmaki Makaurau debate – and who they think won
The Hui: The Hui Māori electorate debate – Tāmaki Makaurau candidates
Liz McDonald (Press): Wigram, an electorate with a foot in both camps (paywalled)
Seni Iasona (Newshub): National’s candidate ‘not worried’ about ACT as Brooke van Velden vies for strong blue seat
Tumamao Harawira (Whakaata Māori): Housing, health and jobs key to Te Pāti Māori victory in Tāmaki Makaurau
Amy Ridout (Nelson Mail): Teacher steps in as sparks fly at Nelson candidate meeting

CLIMATE CHANGE, EXTREME WEATHER
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Labour alleges National needs a massive climate tax on households – they’re not entirely wrong (paywalled)
Olivia Wannan (Stuff): National MP who could be next climate minister says ‘social obligation’ can drive a cleaner NZ without cash subsidies
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): David Parker slates National as ‘vandals’ over planned emissions policies bonfire (paywalled)
Kim McVicar (NBR): Business and climate change: ‘NZ on edge of tipping point’
Brent Edwards (NBR): Plea from 50 specialists to politicians to put climate first (paywalled)
Kevin Trenberth (Newsroom): Beyond recycling, what to do about climate change?
Felix Walton (RNZ): New Zealand not alone in failing to meet climate challenge – UN
Amedlia Wade (Newshub): Chris Hipkins doles out cash for cyclone projects as Prime Minister, denies ‘electoral politics’ at play
RNZ: Government approves funding for flood resilience work in Tai Rāwhiti
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): Wairoa Mayor wants National, ACT commitment on town’s post-cyclone recovery
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Political meddling in market won’t lower emissions, says Toyota NZ boss

HEALTH
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Ministers were advised taking GST off fruit and vege would not lower prices
1News: Healthcare rivals cost of living as key worry in some regions
Tova O’Brien (Stuff): National and Labour promise not to let Pharmac fall off fiscal cliff
Ian Powell (Post): Singing a gloomy tune on health (paywalled)
Ian Powell: Getting the health system culture right; aligning moralities
RNZ: Employment Relations Authority asked to step in over senior doctor pay dispute
Rachel Thomas (Post): Patients find lab unlocked but empty during strike (paywalled)

EDUCATION
RNZ: Watch: ACT promises tender process for ‘failing’ schools, stricter early childhood education
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Act promises shake-up of ECE and schools
Gianina Schwanecke (Post): Education Watch: Parties on the foundation of education, early childhood (paywalled)
Soumya Bhamidipati (RNZ): Te Pūkenga halves the number of jobs it plans to cut
Gianina Schwanecke (Post): Te Pūkenga restructure has ‘broken’ people staff say (paywalled)
Gianina Schwanecke (Post): Life as a social worker in Wainuiomata’s schools (paywalled)

ECONOMY, COST OF LIVING
Brent Edwards (NBR): Treasury criticises Productivity Commission report on inequity (paywalled)
Roger Partridge (Herald): The inequality debate we should be having (paywalled)
Mike Grimshaw (Plain Sight): It’s the economy – and the spirit, Stupid…
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: The shadow recession is not going anywhere for some time
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): New Zealand’s GDP growth likely increased in second quarter on robust migration – economists
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Improved current account deficit still leaves NZ vulnerable to credit rating downgrade (paywalled)
Dan Brunskill (Interest): Trade deficit narrows to 7.5% of GDP as exports recover
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Post): Stubborn balance of payments deficit risks higher interest rates, says ANZ (paywalled)
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Balance of payments deficit dips under $30b for first time in a year
AP: NZ set to exit recession, data expected to show
Brianna McIlraith (Stuff): Mum feels like she’s failing as parents cut back on essentials during cost of living crisis (paywalled)
RNZ: Soaring fuel prices likely to hit summer holiday road trips
William Hewett (Newshub): High petrol prices could see interest rates increase – economist

MEDIA
Gavin Ellis: The danger in thinking it is safer to keep your mouth shut
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): NZ media is in a major slump. Will a National-Act government make it worse?
Ben Kepes (The Press): Can we regain what we’ve lost with journalism’s decline? (paywalled)
Roy Morgan: 2.8 million New Zealanders now read newspapers and almost 1.7 million read magazines
Amberleigh Jack (Stuff): Carol Hirschfeld has a new job at TVNZ

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Todd Niall (Stuff): Auckland councillors block top transport job for wealthy businessman who donated to Wayne Brown’s election
Brendon McMahon (Local Democracy Reporting): Smaller councils face ‘considerable difficulty’ to meet audit deadline
RNZ: Queenstown cryptosporidium outbreak: Council served with compliance order for water treatment plant

TRANSPORT
Erin Gourley (Post): Divisive Wellington transport project faces legal threat (paywalled)
Nicholas Boyack (Post): Hutt cycleways cost $33 million per km and rising (paywalled)
Lauren Marrion (Spinoff): A thank you letter to the Robin Hoods of the Auckland Transport outage

WORKSAFE
Laura Frykberg (1News): Fears for workplace safety as WorkSafe job losses loom
RNZ: WorkSafe expected to cut more than 100 jobs

HOUSING
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): The most expensive districts to rent in Aotearoa as supply dwindles and demand surges
Melania Watson (Newshub): Trade Me data reveals the most expensive districts to rent in New Zealand
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Let Auckland decide on intensification, says new coalition
Catherine Hubbard (Stuff): Richmond’s plan for higher density housing

ENVIRONMENT
Manawatū Standard: Iwi fight for Lake Horowhenua to be included in freshwater standards
Debbie Jamieson (Stuff): Otago council a step closer on Manuherekia River changes, no-one happy

MIGRANT WORKERS
Adam Burns (RNZ): NZ govt warns migrant workers of employment scams amid Immigration review
BusinessDesk: NZ to provide financial support to exploited migrants

DEFENCE
Charlie Mitchell (Press): Work begins on $70m military camp upgrade
Simon Ewing-Jarvie: A New Model Defence Force

CRIME
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Defining issues: What is the youth crime problem we’re trying to solve?
Bex Silver (Newsroom): Being ‘tough on crime’ is too easy – and ignores the evidence
Joanne Naish (Press): Dairy owners suspend meetings with police minister (paywalled)
Kristie Boland (Press): Tobacco retailers will feel ‘full brunt of crime’ once city outlets slashed to 13 (paywalled)

OTHER
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): IAG encourages customers whose properties were hardest hit by extreme weather earlier this year ‘to reside elsewhere’
Liz McDonald (Press): Uncertainty remains for on-sold EQC claimants (paywalled)
Katie Ham and Catrin Owen (Stuff): Protesters clash with police after court appearance of Posie Parker juice thrower
Stuff: Parliament protester lit and stoked fire, pelted police with concrete
Hamish McNicol (NBR): NZ Law Society should just do regulation, ADLS president says (paywalled)
Maria Slade (NBR): Sharp increase in scams ‘worrying’: Banking Ombudsman (paywalled)
Sally Wenley (RNZ): ‘Absolutely reprehensible’ – former Dilworth student on sexual abuse at the school
Paul Little (Listener): New Zealanders may be leaving for Australia in droves, but they’ll be back (paywalled)
Andrea Fox (Herald): Power list: Who’s who of New Zealand’s $2.4 billion wine industry (paywalled)

NZ Politics Daily: 20 September 2023

TVNZ LEADERS’ DEBATE
Spinoff: TVNZ Leaders’ debate #1, NZ election 2023: The verdicts
Claire Trevett, Audrey Young, Thomas Coughlan and Shayne Currie (Herald): The verdicts on Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon – Who won TVNZ leaders’ debate? (paywalled)
Farah Hancock (RNZ): Hipkins vs Luxon: The first leaders’ debate by the numbers
Matthew Hooton (The Australian): Low quality New Zealand debate shows leaders’ lack of seriousness (paywalled)
1News: Vote Compass: Who took out the first TVNZ Leaders’ Debate?
Luke Malpass (Post): First blood Luxon: A battle fought in National’s territory (paywalled)
Dan Brunskill (Interest): Leaders debate: The Chris’ning of the next Prime Minister
Felix Desmarais (1News): Luxon exceeds expectations in first debate
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Hipkins vs Luxon: What voters learned from the first head-to-head debate
Richard Harman (Politik): Hipkins – Luxon stalemate (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsroom): First leaders’ debate light on new insights
Maree Mahony (RNZ): Hipkins’ and Luxon’s fast-paced debate fails to get pundits’ pulses racing
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): A few surprising things from the first leaders debate
Derek Cheng (Herald): Chris to Chris in the leaders’ debate: ‘What are you afraid of?’ versus ‘I’m not afraid of anything’
Mark Jennings (Newsroom): The Relieving debate
Steve Braunias (Herald): Searching for an ounce of charisma in the TVNZ leaders’ debate (paywalled)
Grant Duncan: Did the leaders’ debate live up to the low expectations?
Jess Rayner (1News): First Leaders’ Debate: The big issues from Luxon v Hipkins clash
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Election 2023 debate moments: Christopher Luxon misspeaks, Chris Hipkins makes unexpected announcement, calls KiwiBuild ‘unrealistic promise’
1News: Experts give debate verdict: Hipkins waffly, Luxon dog-whistling
Molly Swift (Newsroom): Political commentators give verdict on who won Chris Hipkins, Christopher Luxon debate
Mike Houlahan (ODT): Leaders’ views clash on cost of living, crime
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): First Leaders Debate – A carnival of mediocrity where NZ was the loser
Tova O’Brien (Stuff): Election 2023 first leaders debate: Voters might feel they’re the losers
Anna Whyte (Post): Leaders clash over core policy, find common ground in scrappy debate
1News: Full video: Your Vote 2023, First Leaders’ Debate
———-
Mark Jennings (Newsroom): Debate day is D-Day for Hipkins
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Hipkins brushing up his messages – and memory
Danyl McLauchlan (Listener): What to expect from tonight’s election debate (paywalled)
Liam Hehir (The Blue Review): How to watch the debate without losing your mind
Gabi Lardies (Spinoff): All new 2023 leader debate bingo (or drinking game if you like)
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Chris Hipkins reveals ‘weakness’ as leaders prepare for first debate

MĀORI ELECTORATES
Deborah LaHatte (Whakaata Māori): Neck and neck race for Te Tai Hauāuru
James Perry (Whakaata Māori): Te Tai Hauāuru debate shows commitment to electorate will be the difference on election day
The Hui: The Hui panel analyses Te Tai Tokerau debate between Hūhana Lyndon, Mariameno Kapa-Kinga, Kelvin Davis
The Hui: As it happened: The Hui Māori electorate debate – Te Tai Tokerau candidates
Aaron Smale (Newsroom): The race to represent a battered region
Wena Harawira (Whakaata Māori): Peeni Henare seeks fourth term in Tāmaki Makaurau

ELECTION
Bryce Edwards (Democracy Project): Political Roundup: A Very hollow election
Steven Cowan: The illusion of democracy
Andrew Shepherd (Post): An election campaign of empty silences and emptier slogans (paywalled)
Glen McConnell (Stuff): Surprising amount of common ground found in infrastructure election debate
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Greens want to stop scrapping over small spending bucket
Nick Kelly: Understanding the New Zealand General Election 2023 – Historical trends and perspectives
Serena Solomon (Guardian): Why is Jacinda Ardern absent from New Zealand election campaign?
Graham Adams (The Platform): Is Ardern a liability for Labour?
Audrey Young (Herald): First leaders debate is Christopher Luxon’s to lose (paywalled)
Lloyd Burr (Newshub): Big talk of big cuts on campaign trail ahead of first debate
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Kaupapa Māori polling places to counter voter discrimination
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Greens, Te Pāti Māori and TOP ace disability issues scorecard
Rayssa Almeida (RNZ): Former state care kids quiz politicians on their plans
Ben Thomas (Spinoff): Who is Karl Mokaraka?
Charlie Mitchell (Press): Liz Gunn’s party fails to register nearly all candidates (paywalled)
Stewart Sowman-Lund (Spinoff): Liz Gunn party only registers three candidates
Jonathan Leask (RNZ): Election candidates locked for hotly contested Rangitata sea
Anna Whyte (Post): Why these six candidates want to roam the halls of power (paywalled)

GREENS
Mihingarangi Forbes (RNZ): Mata episode 19: An interview with Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): The Sure Things: ‘Steve from Spotify’ wants to bring activism to Parliament
Joel MacManus (Spinoff): The former Wellington mayor set to swap the bush for the beltway
RNZ: Green Party wants free lunches expanded to 365,000 children
Newshub: Green Party promises to continue, expand free lunches programme paid for by wealth tax

LABOUR
Suze Wilson (The Conversation): Controlling the political narrative is key to winning the NZ election – no easy task for Chris Hipkins
RNZ: Labour’s Chris Hipkins shies from curbing spending promises
William Hewett (Newshub): Labour leader Chris Hipkins ‘concerned’ supermarkets not treating consumers well
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Chris Hipkins intervenes over another inaccurate post from MP, Labour launches new attack ad
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): Labour dumps prison population reduction target
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk ZB): Labour’s finally admitted reducing prison populations was a bad idea
Spinoff: Youth Wings: The Young Labour chair who refuses to be in a centrist party

NATIONAL
Gordon Campbell: On National’s (lack of) plans for El Nino
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Christopher Luxon reveals stance on fuel excise duty as petrol prices soar
William Hewett (Newshub): Christopher Luxon promises to ‘cut red tape’ with economic plan
Eric Frykberg (Interest): Nats promise to cut red tape, deregulate
Stewart Sowman-Lund (Spinoff): Matt Doocey: From National’s ‘toxic’ years to a mental health minister-in-waiting

NZ FIRST
Blessen Tom (RNZ): Indian-origin New Zealand First candidate withdraws from Auckland electorate race
Bob Jones: The Winston Dilemma

ECONOMY
Max Harris (Newsroom): Pulling tax from one part of teetering Jenga tower to place it in another
Richard Prebble (Herald): Mass immigration isn’t working. We need to get more Kiwis into jobs (paywalled)
Tim Hazledine (Newsroom): Show us the (maths behind the) money!
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Post): Take the ideas from left, right and centre and it looks like half an economic plan (paywalled)

HEALTH
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Off the Shelf: Sugar, salt and portion size limits pushed by health officials
Ruth Hill (RNZ): Rest homes forced to sedate dementia patients due to lack of psychiatrists
Adam Burns (RNZ): Donated air purifiers hoped to help asthmatics deal with Bromley’s ‘putrid smell’
Tess Brunton (RNZ): Queenstown businesses angry about delay as gastro cases double
Rachel Thomas (Post): Striking lab workers to picket employer’s future-shaping conference (paywalled)

PETROL PRICES
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): New Zealanders stuck in a ‘car dependency cycle’ as fuel likely to rise to record-breaking prices
Nona Pelletier (RNZ): Petrol prices: 91 octane expected to rise to $3.50 a litre by Christmas
Susan Edmunds and Shilpy Arora (Stuff): Pain at the pump: ‘I can never afford to fill it’

KIWISAVER
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Are you missing out on money in your KiwiSaver?
Dan Brunskill (Interest): Hardship withdrawals and savings suspensions have jumped in the past year as households struggle with the high cost of living
Rob Stock (Post): Big bank ‘dinosaur’ KiwiSaver schemes struggle to hold onto savers (paywalled)

BANKS
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Bank pays nearly $30k after customer falls for fake website scam
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): Show me the (scammed) money: Banking Ombudsman says scammed New Zealanders lost on average $57,000

CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT
Aaron Ryan (Whakaata Māori): Napier: The most climate-change-vulnerable city in Aotearoa
Rob Stock (Post): Country’s largest insurer IAG begins insure ‘retreat’ from flood-prone homes
Barney Irvine (Herald): Five waste and recycling priorities for the next Government(paywalled)
RNZ: Fewer places to swim in Canterbury this summer, thanks to pollution

LOCAL DEMOCRACY REPORTING
Julie Jacobson (Post): Secrecy surrounding mayoral trip to Asia criticised (paywalled)
Ellen Curnow (Westport News): West Coast councillor Allan Birchfield’s spat costs ratepayers $40,000
Kim Meredith (Local Democracy Reporting): Submissions low on introducing dedicated Māori seats to Auckland Council

EDUCATION, DILWORTH SCHOOL
Jessica Roden (1News): Future of NZ’s schools for students with high needs remains in limbo
Alisha Evans (Local Democracy ReportING): Reducing specialist teachers ‘shockingly irresponsible’
Laura James (1News): Calls for former Dilworth leaders to face criminal charges

FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADE
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Why New Zealand will struggle to get a free trade agreement with India
RNZ: Forum foreign ministers address key priorities for the region

CRIME
Blair Ensor (Stuff): Family of bus exchange stabbing victim angry he was deported to New Zealand
Louise Ternouth (RNZ): Checkpoint: AT says anti-social behaviour a growing issue after stabbing
RNZ: Albany Bus Station death tragic, Hipkins and Luxon say
RNZ: November opening planned for community hub tackling crime in Rotorua

OTHER
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Business of Government: another Nats tax hole? OIA wins and fails, and more… (paywalled)
Mana Wikaire-Lewis (Whakaata Māori): Iwi looks at overseas partnerships to build cost-effective mobile houses
Soumya BhamidipatI (RNZ): Kim Dotcom fights decision to release hard-drives, passwords to United States FBI
Jordan Dunn (RNZ): Trans activist accused of assaulting Posie Parker applies to have charge dismissed
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): One positive from the pandemic
Sharon Brettkelly, (RNZ): The Detail: Tarras locals gear up for a fight over airport
Susan Hornsby-Geluk (Post): Room for improvement in workplace gender identity decision-making (paywalled)
Poppy Clark (Stuff): Radio host Barry Soper off air and in hospital for major surgery
Matthew Slaughter (Stuff): Elizabeth Kerekere: The power of activism for the rainbow community

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.