The LIVE Recording of this podcast will begin today, Monday at 12:45pm November 11, 2024 (NZST) which is Sunday evening, 7:45pm (USEST). Image courtesy of Nick Minto, Copyright 2024 Nick Minto; photographed November 6, 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn will discuss:

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

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn encourage interaction while live, so feel free to lodge comments and questions, but remember if you do so your interaction may be used in this programme. We recommend that you subscribe to our YouTube channel and click on notification-bell.

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

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

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

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

Political Roundup: Why Jacinda Ardern’s resignation changes everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls for an early election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has Labour already lost the election?

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

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

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

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

A new PM could reset Labour for re-election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other items of interest and importance today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Roundup: National can’t be allowed to sleepwalk to victory

Christopher Luxon’s National Party are the odds-on favourites to win the general election this year. They have been consistently ahead of Labour in the polls in recent months, and have a firm coalition partner in Act, which is often polling about 10 per cent.

Betting agencies can’t take bets on politics in New Zealand, but in Australia the TAB is paying $1.60 on National becoming the government after the election – implying that National has a 63 per cent probability of winning. That seems to be in line with most political commentary, which sees this election as National’s to lose.

But broadcaster Duncan Garner reminds us this week that MMP mathematics are such that even a good showing doesn’t ensure victory. So, although National is sometimes polling around 40 per cent, it’s worth remembering that when Bill English lost power in 2017, his party had won 44 per cent of the vote. And in 2023, Garner says “National could get a whopping 52 seats and Act 7 and that doesn’t govern.”

National’s policy-lite election campaign

Duncan Garner’s analysis also looked at what he considers Luxon’s big weakness – being unwilling or unable to explain what his party would do in power. He says Luxon will “need to be more decisive and be clear about what National will prioritise and get done. I detect voters are unconvinced by Luxon and may even be suspicious – I’m mainly talking about swinging voters here. And I am still confused about what National’s key policies are, what it stands for, and what it will prioritise.”

Others on the political right are also sceptical about National coming up with a convincing alternative to the current Government. For example, Ben Thomas writes this month that National “will surely have to put up some sort of agenda of change. While some of its MPs have been tweeting change is on the way, National hardly has an agenda to get voters excited. Its platform so far is largely based on scrapping initiatives Labour already has underway.”

In this sense, National has become a good Opposition – adept at criticising the Government and pointing out its shortcomings – but poor at proposing alternatives. As Labour-aligned commentator Mike Munro pointed out late last year, “National appears stuck in ‘oppose’ gear. It’s unprecedented for a major opposition party to have such miserable policy offerings one year out from an election.”

It certainly is odd to go into an election year with the frontrunner offering very little idea of what they would do after the election. We know that National would repeal and reverse a number of Labour initiatives – for example, Three Waters – but we have no idea what they would replace them with.

On the economy, we are in the dark over what their tax cut package would entail, and how they would pay for it. Likewise, their priorities for infrastructure, levels of debt, or where National would make cuts are a mystery.

National’s deliberate “small target” strategy

National’s vagueness and lack of policy is not an oversight but a deliberate strategy. The party is following the maxim that “Oppositions don’t win elections; Governments lose them” – i.e. if there is a change of government this year it’s likely to have more to do with Labour’s failings than with National’s merits. National hopes to stand back and watch Labour lose the election, and be inoffensive enough to be the recipient of voters shifting away from Labour.

This strategy is explained this week by Gordon Campbell: “Ever since Christopher Luxon became leader, National has adopted a ‘small target’ strategy. This consists of offering nothing to distract the media from its focus on the government’s shortcomings and the public’s discontent with its performance. In particular, the strategy involves releasing no policy alternatives whose own failings might then be picked apart, and become the story.”

National’s strategy is much like Wayne Brown’s successful “Fix Auckland” mayoral campaign, which actually proposed very few policies, instead focusing the public’s attention on what was “broken” and needed fixing. Brown didn’t even bother trying to be particularly likeable – instead projecting a sense of “competence” and a drive to just get things done.

Further explanation of why National might want to emulate that relatively negative and policy-light campaign comes from Matthew Hooton, who helped Brown’s campaign and now works in the Mayoral office. Hooton recently revealed that the extensive market research Brown commissioned to help formulate his campaign strategy showed that “the electorate is incredibly angry” and sick of “smug PR messaging from Wellington”. They want less spin and more delivery.

Hooton says that market research showed that the public is fed up with politicians promising big but doing very little: “First by John Key and his substanceless promise of a Brighter Future and then by Jacinda Ardern’s promise of ‘this’ there is a strong sense the whole population has been continually grinf**ked since 2008. People are sick of visions – they were there by 2020 – but, in 2022, now even of plans. They wanted action – of any type”.

National has escaped scrutiny so far

If it is unprecedented that a party of Opposition has gone into election year with so little substantial policy to its name, this is largely because the media, the public, and National’s political opponents have allowed them to get away with this. There simply hasn’t been enough pressure on Luxon and his colleagues to specify exactly why their party should be elected to office in 2023.

This needs to change over the following month, and no doubt it will. National and Luxon must be put under intense scrutiny over what they would do with their power if successful later this year.

Democracy is too important to allow political parties to win elections by default without being subject to proper evaluation and testing. National might well want to avoid releasing too much policy so that it can’t be criticised, but that is unacceptable.

The result of parties keeping their real agenda secret until after the election is to further erode the public’s trust in politics. We saw this most acutely in the 1980s when the Fourth Labour Government kept its Rogernomics plans under wraps until after election day. Likewise, in 1990, Jim Bolger’s National Government came to power on platitudes instead of clarity, engendering a sense of betrayal when they implemented policies that shocked the electorate.

Even after 2020, some parts of the public have been highly aggrieved that programmes such as the Three Waters reforms were not sufficiently signposted before voting took place. Labour sleepwalked to victory that year, with very little scrutiny of what agendas it would pursue.

If National fails to fully telegraph its intentions prior to November this year, and wins, then it is likely to implement controversial programmes without a proper mandate. Alternatively, maybe National just hasn’t worked out what it wants to achieve, and plans to set up multiple working groups to work this out once they are in office – also hardly a satisfactory trend in governance.

None of this is acceptable. The public and media need to start demanding details now or express a lack of confidence in National’s readiness to govern.

Even on National’s flagship tax cuts, the party is saying that the full details won’t be released until about a month before the election. In general, we are told that the details of everything will come later.

Duncan Garner has suggested some appropriate questions for National: “What portfolio would Luxon like, aside from PM? Does he have an interest in anything in particular, a goal, or something he would like to see done by the time he leaves office? Then, of course, what will he dump and what does he want done in the first 100 days?”

Will National step up?

It’s on the economy that Luxon and his deputy Nicola Willis are most vague. It’s not at all clear that, beyond rhetoric, National has any substantial differences with Labour on the economy. There are very few litmus test differences – those sorts of binary policy contrasts that truly differentiate. Most Labour-National economic differences are mere matters of degree – such as levels of taxation, debt, spending, etc. Possibly the only clear litmus difference is on the Fair Pay Agreements, which National outright opposes.

However, National’s vagueness on economic policy is so far serving it well electorally. A survey out last week from Curia Research showed that “45% of New Zealanders put Luxon/Willis as the most trusted economic team compared with 39% for Ardern/Robertson.”

In contrast to National’s hope to sleepwalk to victory, the Act Party has been much more dynamic, showing up National for being middle-of-the-road and complacent. As BusinessDesk’s editor Pattrick Smellie says, “Compared to Act, which squirts out pithy statements on just about every subject and has a huge policy slate, National can often appear either sluggish or bereft of new ideas, and often both.”

Take for example the number of press statements published by the various parties over the summer period so far – according to the Spinoff’s Toby Manhire, “National knocked out two (on an expensive pedestrian crossing and the CO2 shortage)” while Act, “The fastest and most prolific press-release slingers of all the parties in parliament kept it up through the summer break, sending out a staggering 27 of the things”.

Stuff political editor Luke Malpass has written this month about National’s failure to deliver policy details: “While National has delivered broad brush strokes around directions and a few smaller policies – such as boot camps for young offenders, getting tough on young beneficiaries, tax indexation – it has not yet released big ideas about what it will do to turn New Zealand into the country it thinks it should be.”

Malpass pinpoints this as the big question for National – to what extent the party will be a “change agent” or just be concerned with managing the status quo as established by Labour. He wrote last year about how some inside the National caucus are concerned about this too: “what some see as a lack of principle from Luxon – in the sense that National seems to want to be in government but doesn’t actually have an awful lot planned that is different to Labour.”

Elections are supposed to be contests of ideas, in which alternative policy agendas are offered for the public to choose between. Unfortunately, the modern trend is to deemphasise policy, and put all the emphasis on personality and more superficial elements of politics. With National taking this trend to extremes, it risks creating a new level of emptiness in this year’s campaign.

Finally, it’s worth quoting National-aligned commentator Matthew Hooton, who last year bemoaned that National under Luxon looks to be a continuation of electoral cynicism that doesn’t serve the public well: “New Zealand has been governed for a full generation by the whims of the median voter. The results are in on everything from productivity, infrastructure and climate change, to literacy and numeracy, mental health, housing, poverty, inequality, and law and order. From Helen Clark, to Key, to Ardern, each government has been less ambitious, more poll-driven, lazier and more cynical than the one before. So far, Luxon gives little reason to think he would reverse that trend.”

Other items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): National raises ‘unprecedented’ $2.3m war chest from richlist donors before election year
Richard Harman (Politik): Dirty tricks in National Party candidate selection (paywalled)
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Napier hosts caucus retreats for both Labour, National as political year kicks off
Chris Trotter: Is The Prime Minister “Evil”?
Damien Venuto (Herald): Previewing the year in politics – and the election battles ahead
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): Here comes the first really big day of the political year
Aaron Hendry (Stuff): The left has to stop throwing stones at conservatives and learn to listen

ECONOMY, COST OF LIVING, BUSINESS
Rob Stock (Stuff): Some household budgets will be crushed by rising interest rates this year, Westpac says
RNZ: Households’ finances being ‘squeezed’ on several fronts – bank
Amy Williams (RNZ): Cost of living pressures dial up demand for food parcels
Hanna McCallum (Stuff): Concerns about ‘toughest year ahead’ as demand at food banks rise
Anna Sargent (RNZ): Animal shelters bulging at the seams due to cost of living
David Hargreaves (Interest): Sink or swim? How is it looking out there?
David Hargreaves (Interest): National says Govt needs to come back from holiday ‘with a real economic plan’
Felix Desmarais (1News): Business survey highlights ‘increased risk’ of recession
RNZ: Activity, profits dip as gloom continues to swirl within business sector

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Steven Walton (Press): Councillors to debate whether to get paid for directorships or if money should go to city’s poor
Rayssa Almeida and Lucy Xia (RNZ): New Zealand’s new mayors on their first 100 days in office
Max Frethey (Local Democracy Reporting): 181-year-old Nelson street spelling mistake causing a stir
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Wellington continues to leak like a sieve with 2576 pipes on fix list

FREE DENTAL CARE
Josie Pagani (Today FM): Free dental care for everyone is not a pipe dream
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Free dental care a political dream and a financial nightmare
Grady Connell (Today FM): Free dental care ruled out by PM – Dental Association offers solution

HEALTH
Ian Powell and Heather Roy (Newsroom): How Te Whatu Ora can succeed: Overcome a structural weakness
RNZ: Risk of debilitating illness from long Covid could grow – epidemiologist Michael Baker
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Opinion: Hutt hospital, the earthquake risk – and three key problems (payalled)
Senior nurses appointed to Starship to address Māori health inequity

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
RNZ: No need for inquiry into forestry practices following Cyclone Hale, minister says
RNZ: Cyclone Hale: Fund for Tairāwhiti farmers and growers announced

BUSINESS
RNZ: Insurance giant Cigna fined $3.5m over false claims to customers
RNZ: HelloFresh told to stop charging customers to return food they didn’t ask for
RNZ: ‘We’ll be completely out of beer’: Garage Project runs out of CO2 at one site
Rachel Moore (Stuff): Woman came to NZ expecting $15.50 an hour, but got $135 for a week’s work, jury hears

TRANSPORT
William Terite (Newshub): Government’s Clean Car Discount proves successful with record number of electric vehicles bought last month
Lauren Crimp (RNZ): Public transport headaches greet commuters returning to work
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Rise in thin asphalt means roads ‘aren’t built to last’ – ACT
Jonah Franke-Bowell (Stuff): ‘Another smack’ for Coromandel caused by SH25A closure leads to calls for action
RNZ: Transmission Gully: Long-term solution takes shape for cellphone black spots

ENVIRONMENT
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Black sand highway: Sea life suffers as motorists hit the beach
Maia Ingoe (Spinoff): One million species face extinction, but saving the Māui dolphin still matters to me
Kate Green (RNZ): Kiwi scientists involved in drill to uncover secrets of Antarctica’s past

HOUSING
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Waiting for the ‘golden escalator’ of ever-increasing house prices to come back
Herald Editorial: Nimbyism goes bananas as housing intensifies (paywalled)

OTHER
Oscar Francis (ODT): Kamikaze drones may soon be part of NZ’s arsenal
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Google media deals: TVNZ joins the fold
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Where US-China tensions may head in 2023
RNZ: No reason New Zealand can’t be part of Eurovision, EU ambassador says
Aimee Shaw (Stuff): ACT promises speeding ticket-like penalties for shoplifting

With the New Zealand General Election campaign looming, parties in the Labour-led coalition government are openly parading their differences (rather than common-ground) before the voting public.

It’s a situation that can be interpreted as being typical of MMP politics. But it also causes voters to rethink its record-level support for its most favoured party Labour, and, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

This week’s June 25 Colmar Brunton poll reveals what we suspected: New Zealand First has collapsed, down a further 1.1% to 1.8%, while Labour holds impressively above 50% support. National has rebounded from a bruising 29% in the May Colmar Brunton to 38% support. The Green Party is up 1.3% to 6%. ACT is up 0.9 to 3.1%, and, of the parties outside of Parliament, the Maori Party is on 0.9%.

It is clear, that battle for the political centre-ground shows New Zealand First has been squeezed out by National – this under the new leadership of social-conservative and traditional stakeholders’ choice, Todd Muller.

It also explains why New Zealand First leader Winston Peters this week began tactically to signal that his political mongrel is back. Peters’ has unleashed a determination to create distance between his party and those of his coalition partners Labour and the Greens.

Peters exits the week openly antagonistic toward articles of the coalition Government’s legislative agenda – a move that’s caused Labour to file plans for its 2017 election promise (to build light rail in Auckland) and to further negotiate with New Zealand First points of its ‘fair commercial rent reductions and compulsory arbitration plan’. The latter is an important cog in the Government’s post-Covid stability plan. The former is simply a kick in the guts from New Zealand First – a party that Labour has often resisted irritating through this three year term.

But considering Muller’s and National’s rising fortunes (and it must be said, the collapse of New Zealand First) is it time for Labour to abandon Peters to the proverbial wolves? Is there political currency in calling a spade a spade – to admit to voters that New Zealand First is destabilising the coalition Government and that disloyalty must be dealt with before a largely supportive public gets fed up and votes accordingly on Polling Day?

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE STRATEGY

Normally, early in an election year, we would expect smaller parties in the Labour-Greens-New Zealand First coalition to begin speaking loudly to their base. But the Covid-19 lockdown poured water over that.

Now there’s desperation among the Greens and New Zealand First MPs. They will be well aware that political history involving MMP shows small parties in government often lose their political voice and, on election day, are bypassed by the voting public.

New Zealand First, in particular, is demanding to be heard. I spoke about this on Radio New Zealand today.

When you stand back and observe the coalition, its dynamic, its purpose, its stability (up until now…) it is clear, Peters’ actions are strategic while destabilising.

Winston Peters insists his party is principled with commonsense as the central premise. But the reality is, Peters is sending a signal to centre-voters (and conservatives who believe Labour is going to win the 2020 General Election) that he and New Zealand First will be their insurance policy. That he, post-election, will stop any non-centrist/conservative policies from getting off the ground.

His tactics soak up attention-time when explaining his party’s behaviour. His stance demands to be heard, to be relevant through the election campaign – despite the 2% poll showing. The goal is for Peters to re-emerge this September as a King or Queen maker in post-election negotiations.

But at this juncture, should Labour tolerate this destabilisation? Should it permit Peters to play his strategy out? Or, should Labour create outcasts of Peters and his MPs?

That strategy, as does Peters’, comes with risk. Labour could be seen to fail its post-Covid recovery plan and elongate the insecurities that election campaigns create.

New Zealand First risks being regarded as a destructive element in an otherwise popular Government – where some see Labour as having been kept back by New Zealand First and desiring of a government post-election where Jacinda Ardern can be a true natural-born leader without being shackled by coalition sensitivities.

The Greens, if they play their hand well, may counter New Zealand First by demonstrating its loyalty to Ardern’s style of leadership and campaign as a necessary and true friend of Labour’s.

When the cards fall, New Zealand First risks standing alone as a political irrelevance – but it’s a risk that Peters is prepared to take. Some will say, at 1.8% he has nothing to lose.

THE CAUSE AND EFFECT

The Green Party and New Zealand First came out of lockdown to realise Labour had become a political juggernaut.

Their respective voices were drowned out by the Labour machine. As we emerged from Alert Level 4:

• • Labour, was well on the way toward eliminating Covid-19 from our communities
  • Labour had delivered HUGE financial support to people and business
  • Labour had initiated fiscal stimulus programmes (many favourable to NZF)
  • Jacinda Ardern became the most popular Prime Minister in a generation.

BUT… as National slowly got its act together, after a series of well-documented stumbles, National’s new leadership team put its running shoes on and, suddenly, competition for New Zealand’s centre-votes intensified.

From June 17, National created in some measure the perfect storm (please see last week’s EveningReport editorial: Snakes and Mirrors which lays bare how National placed politics ahead of the public’s health).

Since then, it has continued to create a sense of chaos, insisting its old foe, the Labour-led Government had bungled its Covid-19 controls at the border and at isolation and quarantine facilities. In effect, National successfully politicised the handling of the pandemic – a certain danger that overseas experience shows is at odds with the public interest when fighting against Covid-19.

But among the political noise, National did expose a relaxed culture among those officials, the gatekeepers, charged with ensuring our Covid-19 testing regime was robust. Politics aside, it was clear, the country and the Government had been let down. But National was able to juxtaposition Labour as the cause of the fiasco.

Despite the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately transferring management of isolation and quarantine facilities to the military – a move that was swift, decisive, and characteristically Ardern – the perfect political storm created uncertainty and fear among the population.

Remember, politics is a commodity and day after day for over a week, the public has heard calls from National that the Minister of Health David Clark should resign. Many media, scenting controversy and political blood, polished up their competitive-bias to seize the moment too. After all, political relevancy isn’t the only show in town.

That is the backdrop to New Zealand First’s advance.

HAS LABOUR HAD ENOUGH?

Labour, for its part, has decided enough’s enough.

This week, Labour revealed New Zealand First was opposing legislation destined to advance before The Parliament AFTER it had supported it through Cabinet. With New Zealand First acting contrary to its interests, Labour’s leadership has decided a passive-aggressive bare knuckle fight is necessary.

As the party with its political hand firmly on the Government’s tiller, Labour is now openly identifying legislation that can be filed until after the election while pushing legislation that SHOULD be addressed with urgency.

If Labour does believe New Zealand First has gone beyond the Rubicon, and it appears it is moving toward that position, then it will be in Labour’s and the nation’s interests to paint Winston Peters and his party as disruptive and disloyal to a handshake made in good faith.

If it does, it will likely be New Zealand First, not Labour, that will be further punished at the polls. And frankly, in the public’s interest, the General Election can’t come soon enough.

The National Party heads into its annual conference in Christchurch this weekend amidst continued speculation about its leadership, whether the party can win in 2020, and questions about the ideological direction of the party. 

This week’s leaked opinion polling results won’t help the mood, and it won’t help Bridges’ hold on the leadership. Last month the Newshub Reid-Research poll put National on only 37 per cent. Such a low number would normally have ratcheted up talk of Bridges’ demise, except for the fact that TVNZ’s Colmar Brunton poll came out the same night, showing National was incredibly buoyant, and in fact had overtaken Labour, on 44 per cent.

That’s why this week’s leak of UMR’s polling was significant. This also put National on 38 per cent, suggesting that terrible Newshub poll was probably the correct one. You can see details of the poll here in Tova O’Brien’s report: Labour’s secret internal polling reveals National below 40 percent. She explains why her media outlet is reporting on the leak of an internal poll: “The data was not leaked by the Government. Newshub would not normally run an outside poll, but three years of data like this hasn’t been leaked to us before.”

And this morning Newshub have published further information from the UMR polling, showing that 60 per cent of those surveyed have either an unfavourable or very unfavourable opinion of Simon Bridges, compared to 26 per cent who are favourable – see: Labour Party poll leak: Simon Bridges’ favourability drops again.

Other journalists also reported on the rumoured polling numbers, with Barry Soper saying the Labour-commissioned UMR poll put Labour on 42 per cent, the Greens on 9 per cent, and “New Zealand First has also increased slightly” – see: Can Simon Bridges survive another unfavourable poll?

According to Soper the leaked poll was likely to give Bridges another push: “it’s National that’s bleeding and it looks set to haemorrhage, with growing whispers within the party that it’ll be Simon Bridges’ blood being spilled before too long. The party has dropped beneath the psychological barrier of 40 per cent, now sitting on 38. It’s the focus groups that’ll concern National, with Bridges having about as much traction as a bald tyre.”

Bridges’ leadership debated

Despite the poor polling there are a number of commentators suggesting that Bridges’ leadership is actually safe. The Herald’s Claire Trevett recently argued that the lack of an obvious replacement is helping Bridges: “the lack of a clear successor guaranteed to lift that polling further, and a wariness of instability. The question of when National should move comes second to the question of whether National should move. Then there is the who. It needs to be somebody MPs can be sure will fare better than Bridges. That may seem like a low bar, but Bridges cannot stand accused of not throwing his all into the job” – see: One poll to bury Simon Bridges, another buys him more time (paywalled).

She wonders if there really is the will in the National caucus to make the necessary leadership change, and says MPs will be highly aware that a successful changeover needs to be clean and quick: “leadership changes should be dealt with like a sticking plaster and ripped off quickly to shorten the pain. They cannot afford to have a drawn out, multi-challenger contest such as they had last time.”

National insider Matthew Hooton appears to agree, suggesting that the MPs are unlikely to change their leader because they simply can’t agree on a replacement, and the most obvious successor, Judith Collins, is just too strongly opposed by some colleagues – see his column, Meet the National Party leadership contenders (paywalled). He says that “the prospect of a Collins leadership is opposed adamantly by inhouse detractors such as Maggie Barry, David Carter, Nikki Kaye, Anne Tolley and Michael Woodhouse.”

Hooton says that National MPs worry that, although Collins might well be a much more successful leader than Bridges, she might also be worse. He likens this to the fear that British Conservative MPs had about Boris Johnson, which “kept Theresa May in office for the past year”.

Similarly, he points to the type of conversation that he says Labour MPs were having in 2013: “Sure, David Shearer is a disaster, but do you have any idea how bad it could get with David Cunliffe?” And he concludes: “Right now, it seems National MPs prefer to sleepwalk to certain defeat in 2020 the way Phil Goff’s Labour did in 2011, instead of taking the risks Labour did in 2014 and 2017 with two very different candidates, Cunliffe and Ardern respectively.”

Other leadership options are discussed by Hooton (Todd Muller, Nikki Kaye, Mark Mitchell), with the suggestion that their ambitions are also blocking the rise of Collins to the leadership at the moment: “Until a ticket emerges with one willing to serve as deputy to another, Bridges is safe.”

In a more recent column, Hooton also examines the one big issue that might determine whether National has any chance of returning to government next year – how National orientates to New Zealand First – see: Simon Bridges’ big call on Winston Peters (paywalled).

Hooton suggests that National has two broad options. Do they try to kill them off and declare boldly that National would not do a coalition deal with Peters? Or do they announce New Zealand First to be their preferred party for coalition. The latter option, Hooton says, would make National look like a more viable option for getting into government, since Peters is likely to once again be the deciding factor, and it might also start fostering divisions in the current government.

Bridges’ hold on the leadership is also thought to have been enhanced by his recent caucus reshuffle, along with the departure of Amy Adams. According to veteran political journalist Richard Harman, the National leader “used his caucus spokesperson reshuffle to shore up his own position while he left his potential rivals unrewarded” – pointing to the poor outcomes for rivals Judith Collins and Todd Muller – see: Bridges shores up his position.

Harman explains: “Most notably, National’s highest rating ‘preferred Prime Minister’, Judith Collins has lost her Infrastructure portfolio though she retains housing… Further down the caucus, Climate Change spokesperson, Todd Muller, was not promoted. That was despite his high profiler work on developing a bipartisan consensus on climate change with the Minister, James Shaw. Muller has spoken on this at every one of the party’s regional conferences this year, and it appeared that the party more or less regarded him as a frontbencher. And he is perceived by many, particularly in the rural and provincial wing of the party as a potential future leader. Bridges has him at Ranking 31 though he has gained the forestry portfolio.”

He reports that some “party insiders saw it as ‘petty’ and part of a deliberate strategy to confine Muller to the back benches.” Harman also reports: “There was some talk within the caucus of running a Collins/Muller ticket against Bridges, but it would seem unlikely that Muller would have been comfortable with that.

The announced departure of Amy Adams the same week might have also been a welcome relief to Bridges, but while a leadership rival was removed it was also widely seen as a vote of “no confidence” in the chances of National returning to power anytime soon. Mike Hosking, for example, wrote that “the only conclusion you can draw is she sees defeat” – see: National’s exodus shows the party lacks belief.

It’s all part of a bigger problem, Hosking suggests: “This all adds to National’s ongoing problems. Their leader, their numbers, and now their retention of talent. They simply don’t look like they’re on a roll or anywhere close to it. They don’t look like the home of the winners.”

National’s harder line on climate change

Some commentators believe the issue of climate change has become the frontline issue for National – not just in terms of its election agenda, but also as a proxy for the internal leadership rivalries.

Claire Trevett has written about how Bridges’ current plan to get ahead of Labour is to emulate the successful Australian Liberal Party election campaign under leader Scott Morrison: “ScoMo’s campaign was an inspiration for Bridges and he has made it clear he expects to emulate it. Morrison’s campaign was more like an Opposition campaign. It focused on attacking his rival’s policies more than promoting his own. And it worked a treat. The past two weeks have been something of a test run for Bridges to try the same as he embarks on his bid to galvanise the ‘quiet New Zealanders.’ It helps that one of Morrison’s social media whizzes was one of Bridges’ staffers and she has now returned to Bridges” – see: Simon Bridges’ plan to topple Jacinda Ardern – ScoMo (paywalled).

She points out that National has converted the Liberal’s tagline against Bill Shorten of “The Bill Australia can’t afford” to “New Zealanders can’t afford this Government” in campaigns focusing on “fuel tax increases, cost of living increases such as rent, and the car tax.”

Trevett says “Bridges needs the election to be fought on hip pocket issues rather than personality or leadership.” He’s now targeting National’s messages to tradies, farmers, families, and those reliant on cars.

This might even work according to long-time Bridges critic, journalist Graham Adams, who notes that a harder line on environmental issues might actually yield votes for National – see: Simon Bridges searches for a miracle.

Adams points to one aspect of Morrison’s win in Australia, which might have been of interest to Bridges: “Scott Morrison’s win was aided by a significant swing against the Labor Party in Queensland sparked by the giant Adani coal-mine project, which the Coalition government supported but Labor had long been ambivalent about as it weighed its implications for jobs against its contribution to carbon emissions.”

Adams elaborates: “Bridges is bound to have noticed – and perhaps Scott Morrison reminded him – that when jobs are at stake, people will often vote for their immediate financial survival rather than the planet’s putative long-term prospects. On the campaign trail, Bridges will be able to point to many aspects of the government’s policies around sustainability and climate change that will harm employment.”

And in this regard, Adams points to the Government’s ban on new permits for offshore oil and gas exploration, as well as the more recent decision by “Greens minister Eugenie Sage to stop Oceana Gold buying 178 hectares near its mine in Waihi for a tailings reservoir that would have extended the life of its mine for as much as 12 years (and supported 350 lucrative jobs).”

There are definite signs that National is now taking a less liberal line on climate change issues. This view is well canvassed by Simon Wilson in his scathing opinion piece, Why National is our biggest climate change threat (paywalled).

Here’s his main point: “As long as National holds to this position, to me it demonstrates it is unfit to govern. National says it knows we have to combat climate change but undermines every effort to address the issue. Sneers at plans to promote rail. Refuses to endorse the Zero Carbon Bill. Claims it will reintroduce new rights to fossil fuel exploration. These past two weeks, it’s done its best to destroy the Government’s proposals for vehicle and agricultural emissions. Both those emissions sources should be beyond politics by now.”

It appears that there’s an internal strategic element to National MPs now taking harder lines on climate issues – because it’s become a proxy for who should lead the party into the 2020 election.

Newsroom’s Bernard Hickey explains: “It has become a proxy for an internal National caucus fight over the leadership, with both Paula Bennett and Judith Collins competing to take a harder line than Todd Muller, and forcing a weakened Bridges to back away from his previous support of measures to address climate change. Muller even contradicted Bridges in a weekend interview.” In order to appeal to traditional supporters, “National’s leadership contenders are now competing to see who can talk loudest about climate change measures being a ‘tax’ on poorer drivers and farmers.”

Finally, with National’s apparent loss of direction and ideological coherence, there are some big questions about where the party should go next, with some suggesting that emulating some of the strengths of Donald Trump and other successful conservatives and rightwingers might be what’s needed – see Martin van Beynen’s What a populist National Party would look like.

Today’s content

Foreign affairs – Australia
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Ardern in Oz: Little progress but much adulation
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Home and away: Jacinda Ardern’s trip of two halves
Brigitte Morten (RNZ): Ardern can take a few lessons from Australian Labor’s defeat
RNZ: Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton dismisses Jacinda Ardern’s demands to stop deporting New Zealanders
Jason Walls (Herald): Jacinda Ardern vows not to give up fight on Australian deportations
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): PM Jacinda Ardern rules out retaliation over Australia deporting Kiwis
Jason Walls (Herald): Australian PM Scott Morrison appeared to be unmoved by Jacinda Ardern’s lobbying
1News: Australia’s Kiwi deportation policy ‘corrosive to the relationship’, Ardern says during Oz visit
Tom Cowie (The Age): ‘Corrosive effect on our relationship’: Jacinda Ardern criticises Australia’s deportation laws
Jason Walls (Herald): Unofficial catch-up: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern meets with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison
Collette Devlin (Stuff): ‘Unjust’ deportations focus of bilateral talk between Jacinda Ardern, Scott Morrison
1News: Jacinda Ardern talks Trump, fear, March 15 and Te Tiriti at Melbourne Q+A session
Rebekah Scanlan (News.comAU): Jacinda Ardern’s awkward TV moment with Australian presenter Lisa Wilkinson
Donna-Lee Biddle (Stuff): Deported bikie outlaws are threatening to inflame gang violence in small town NZ
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): The politics of kindness doesn’t work on Australians
Jane Bowron (Stuff): There’s plenty of concern about Australia’s northern exposure
—————
Herald: Minister of Defence Ron Mark: Flight PM was on ‘at end of its life’
Albert Redmore (Newshub): No plans to replace ’embarrassing’ Government planes
Scott Palmer (Newshub): PM’s press trapped in Australia as another flight breaks down
RNZ: Grounded: Journalists stuck in Melbourne as replacement flight delayed
Jason Walls (Herald): NZDF plane that Jacinda Ardern used to travel to Australia breaks down
Collette Devlin (Stuff): ‘Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s plane breaks down in Australia
1News: Jacinda Ardern temporarily stranded in Australia after air force 757 breaks down, again
RNZ: PM’s Australian visit extended as Air Force plane breaks down
David Crowe (Herald): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern humbled by giant Melbourne mural
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Jacinda Ardern will not follow Australia’s hard-line response to extremist content
Nicholas Reece (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern prime minister of Australasia? If only it was that simple
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Judith Collins would rather have Scott Morrison as Kiwi PM than Jacinda Ardern
Herald: ‘Diplomatic incident’: Clarke Gayford wades into Pavlova row while on tour with PM in Australia
—————
Shaminda Kanapathi (RNZ): Offshore detention anniversary ‘life destroying’

Foreign affairs
Audrey Young (Herald): What Winston Peters hasn’t been doing in Washington on US visit is important (paywalled)
Richard Harman (Politik): Embracing differences
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Ardern draws line in sand on US Free Trade Agreement (paywalled)
Zane Small (Newshub): PM Jacinda Ardern calls on United States to play larger role ‘within our region’
David Crowe (The Age): ‘I disagree’: Ardern takes issue with Trump over racism furore
Point of Order: No, Peters won’t come home with an FTA – but high-ranking Americans have been listening to him
—————
Bruce Munro (ODT): Global Insight: Leaders need to up their game with Boris, Donald
Elspeth Sandys (Herald): Our ‘unique and valuable relationship’ with China (paywalled)

Government
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern has some unfinished business
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern puts a stake in the ground ahead of the 2020 election
Damien Grant (Stuff): Winston Peters has been a malign influence on NZ politics, it’s time Simon Bridges finished him off
John-Michael Swannix (Newshub): Backstory: NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft on escaping abuse and reconnecting with her whakapapa

Greens
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): Emissions, electric vehicles, CGT – Greens make pragmatic decisions (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Stuff): After a dreadful 2017, can the Greens do better in 2020?
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Stuff asks, ‘Can Greens break 5%’
Chris Trotter: A Fool Rushes In

Week in Politics, Parliament
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Week in Politics: Farmers join ETS and new plan to cut road deaths
Claire Trevett (Herald): Beehive Diaries: Jacinda Ardern heads to Oz, Youth Parliament burns (paywalled)
Vera Alves (Herald): Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley chairing group to fight bullying in Parliament
Mike Houlahan (ODT): Being busy is not always being effective

Climate change
Finn Hogan (Newshub): The Nation: Climate change revolution is now inevitable but we can still steer it – expert
Eric Frykerg (RNZ): Government under fire for how it released climate change report
Rod Oram (Newsroom): ‘Let true farming leaders lead’
Sally Rae (ODT): Zero-carbon target will cost farmers, raise prices – report
Geoff Simmons (Daily Blog): Response to Peter Williams Climate Denial
James Renwick (Newshub): Climate change deniers’ arguments are ‘fact-free’
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): What Peter Williams climate denial epitomises & countering the whole ‘NZ gas emissions are tiny’ defence
Cherie Sivignon (Stuff): Don’t panic over Tasman district coastal hazards, says mayor
Jamie Morton (Herald): Climate Voices: 15 Kiwis’ hopes and fears in a warming world (paywalled)
Tom O’Connor (Stuff): Shouting not the way over climate change
Scott Willis (ODT): Driving down emissions
Sarah Thomson (Spinoff): So, you’ve declared a climate emergency. Now what?

Electric vehicles
Audrey Young (Herald): National leader Simon Bridges says Government has done nothing to switch its own car fleet to electric
John-Michael Swannix (Newshub): The Pitch: National’s climate spokesperson supports Govt electric vehicle policy, despite party opposition
Ben Strang (RNZ): Simon Bridges says EV uptake too slow
Thomas Coughlan (Stuff): Simon Bridges apologises to Julie Anne Genter for getting EV figures wrong
Boris Jancic (Stuff): National Party presses the attack against Govt’s green car policy

Environment and conservation
Mitchell Alexander (Newshub): 29 farm animals allegedly killed by 1080 since 2008
Julie Collins (Newsroom): Taking on Anne Salmond over forests
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Nationwide groundwater testing results overdue for months
Matthew Littlewood (Timaru Herald): Ecologist Mike Joy expresses doubts over Lake Benmore/Ahuriri water quality ‘investigation’
1News: Planned controls on the hazardous gas methyl bromide open to public feedback
1News: Sephora slammed by city council after mass disposal of confetti
RNZ: Cosmetics store waste dumped in Auckland drains without consent
Amber-Leigh Woolf (Stuff): New Zealand landfills are becoming full of unloved clothes as ‘fast fashion’ grows
Te Kuru o te Marama Dewes (Māori TV): Funding boost to future proof Waiapu
RNZ: ‘Non-charismatic’ fungi’s future under threat

KiwiSaver, Super
Herald: Man with Down syndrome ‘dancing’ after winning change in KiwiSaver rules
1News: Government makes law change after down syndrome man’s fight to access his KiwiSaver early
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Boomer bureaucrats trying to steal Gen X Super
Duncan Garner (Stuff): No-one will mess with the pension now … will they?

Local government
Tom Hunt (Stuff): 133-year-old transaction gets legal standing in Shelly Bay saga
Dominic Harris (Stuff): Cream at the top for public sector chief executives
Martin van Beynen (Stuff): Why the fuss over a mere $495,000 pay packet?
Anan Zaki (RNZ): Council pay controversy: Public should have a say – councillor
Todd Niall (Stuff): Can Auckland’s election be a generation game?
Todd Niall and Brittany Keogh (Stuff): Young candidates’ secret Facebook page as they unite for local elections
Brittany Keogh (Stuff): Young people sick of being ‘at the kiddie table’ in local government
Bernard Orsman (Herald): What does Auckland Council spend your rates money on? (paywalled)
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland’s $2.4 billion transport budget chews up 30 per cent of rates (paywalled)
Lizzie Marvelly (Herald): Vote beyond Goff, Banks, Tamihere for Auckland mayor (paywalled)
Stephen Forbes (Interest): Ex-Auckland City Mayor John Banks says he may run in this year’s mayoral election as the cut-off date for local body candidates fast approaches
Bill Ralston (Listener): We’re in for fireworks if John Banks runs for mayor
John Roughan (Herald): Auckland – a city well short of super (paywalled)
Kate Hawkesby (Newstalk ZB): Where are the women in Auckland mayoral race?
RNZ: Advocate for homeless Carol Peters seeks seat at Whangārei council
Damian George (Stuff): GWRC chairman Chris Laidlaw rules himself out of local body election race
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Greater Wellington Regional Council new home on Cuba St confirmed
Skara Bohny (Nelson Mail): Two more put names forward for Nelson City Council election

Media
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Mediawatch: Coy candidates playing the media
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Mediawatch: Full credit to the media?
Stacey Kirk (Stuff): Conflict, scandal, eventually progress – it’s a hard road making a difference, but that’s politics

Health
Nicholas Jones (Herald): Sepsis warning for pregnant women: Hospital staffing ‘inadequate’, watchdog finds (paywalled)
Nicholas Jones (Herald): Middlemore Hospital baby deaths: Midwife resignations as Oranga Tamariki ‘uplifts’ cause ‘significant emotional stress’ (paywalled)
Laura Tupou (Newshub): Scathing review slams Middlemore Hospital’s pregnancy care
Laura Dooney (RNZ): Auckland children urged back to school despite measles outbreak
Sophie Trigger (Herald): Seeking Salvation: Anxiety and depression at the ‘forefront’ in winter
Herald: Waikato DHB agrees to mediation with family of Nicky Stevens who died while in Waikato DHB care
RNZ: Waikato DHB to enter talks with Nicky Stevens’ family
Natalie Akoorie (Herald): Ex DHB head Malcolm Stamp escapes justice in nepotism case – unless he returns to Australia
Scott Palmer (Newshub): Vaping industry ‘increasingly agitated’ by Government’s vaping stance
Isaac Davison (Herald): ‘Not good enough’: Father with sick infant waits eight hours at Middlemore Hospital for doctor (paywalled)
Libby Wilson (Stuff): A baby after death: Ministry of Health asks if posthumous reproduction is acceptable to Kiwis
RNZ: Auckland District Health Board admits privacy breach over text reminders
Te Aniwa Hurihanganui (RNZ): Hamilton clinic offers both western and Māori healing
Dan Satherley and Heather McCarron (Newshub): Charging foreign patients before medical treatment would be ‘medieval’ – Collins
Heather McCarron and Lucy Warhurst (Newshub): Foreigners’ unpaid medical debts revealed
Damian Rowe (Stuff): Clinical psychologists to strike amid staff shortages in Southland

Medicinal cannabis, cannabis referendum, synthetic drugs
Scott Palmer (Newshub): ‘Huge error’: Cannabis expert’s warning over medicinal cannabis prescriptions
Karoline Tuckey (RNZ): Medical cannabis ‘a remarkably useful drug’
Laura Walters (Newsroom): Govt knuckles down ahead of ‘reeferendum’
Chris Fowlie (Daily Blog): Science will save cannabis referendum from Reefer Madness
Peter Lyons (ODT): How cannabis referendum is framed will be critical
Phil Quin (Stuff): Without Helen Clark’s help, cannabis reform will go down in flames
Derek Cheng (Herald): Drug decriminalisation? Govt rejected having no criminal penalties for synthetic drug use (paywalled)
RNZ: Why are synthetic drugs so deadly?
1News: NZ First pushes back on Police Minister’s music festival drug testing initiative
Denise Piper (Stuff): Northland’s methamphetamine demand reduction programme could go nationwide

Operation Burnham
David Fisher (Herald): Military told to front up over inconsistent Afghan raid accounts
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Operation Burnham: New Zealand Defence Force to be questioned on denial of civilian deaths

Police
Brad Flahive (Stuff): Only 10 per cent of police misconduct allegations upheld
Tim Brown (RNZ): Police breath-testing inside people’s homes, Dunedin lawyer says
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Reputation of police at stake with breath-testing claims – National spokesperson
No Right Turn: More police misconduct
Derek Cheng (Herald): Demands on Police to deal with ‘high’ threat level add up to $2 million (paywalled)
Natalie Akoorie (Herald): Marketing for new police non-emergency number 105 costs taxpayers $262k
Mike White (North & South): Top investigator urges police to speak up about wrongful convictions
Heather McCarron (Newshub): Nurses axed from police station, National claims
Albert Redmore (Newshub): Auckland police officer charged with careless driving, remains on duty

Gun buyback
Heather McCarron and Dan Satherley (Newshub): Buyback nets more than 10,000 weapons and parts in first week
Harrison Christian (Stuff): Police pay $1.75 million to gun owners in buy-back scheme
Liu Chen (RNZ): Over 2000 guns handed in at buyback events this weekend
1News: Police hold collection events across the country as part of the buy-back and amnesty scheme
1News: Auckland gunowners hand in 400 firearms today as national tally tops 2000
Imogen Neale (Stuff): More than 400 illegal guns handed over at Auckland’s first buy-back event
Gerald Piddock (Stuff): Gun owners hand over semi-autos at Waikato’s first buy-back event
Hamish McNeilly (Stuff): Former police ministers ‘impressed’ with Otago gun buyback
Elena McPhee (ODT): 132 guns handed over in buy-back
Tim Brown (RNZ): Ninety people hand in guns at first southern gun buyback

Housing
Nita Blake-Persen (RNZ): Checkpoint: Govt spends record amount on emergency housing
Brittney Deguara (Stuff): Reducing immigration won’t magically lower house prices, experts say
Jenée Tibshraeny (Interest): Property developers and community housing providers want the Government, through its new Kāinga Ora entity, to be legally required to work with them
Matthew Theunissen (RNZ): Homeless and away from home: Rough sleepers want to go back to Manurewa
Chris Hutching (Stuff): New houses have cladding and joinery that lasts just 15 years
Amy Ridout (Stuff): Tenants living in ‘filthy’ homes battle to get action
Northern Advocate: Kaipara news: Huge rent rises throughout district puts pressure on families

Primary industries, biosecurity
Tim Newman (Stuff): Government announces changes to biosecurity and animal tracing
Tracy Neal (RNZ): Govt unveils changes to biosecurity and animal tracing
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Climate change, underfunding to blame for fruit fly incursions – Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor

State care of children
Leigh-Marama McLachlan (RNZ): Insight: Babies in Oranga Tamariki care – safe or seized?
Leigh-Marama McLachlan (RNZ): More residential homes could stop Oranga Tamariki uplifts
Muriel Newman: The Best Interests of the Child
Meriana Johnsen (RNZ): ‘Systemic inequality’ in Māori involvement in child protection

Transport
Patrick Gower (Newshub): Exclusive: Police bust of drivers using phones catches one every three minutes – including government CEO
Belinda Feek (Herald): Drug driving in NZ: Victim’s father calls for tougher drug drive testing laws
Melanie Earley (Stuff): Drug driving: Grieving father speaks about the harm it has caused
1News: Ad campaign aimed to tackle drug-driving has families speaking up
Bernard Orsman (Herald): Auckland’s gridlock nightmare holding steady but will get a lot worse, says Automobile Association
Todd Niall (Stuff): AA: Will Auckland’s transport plans reduce congestion?
RNZ: Most Wellington bus commuters say new network worse than before
Deena Coster (Taranaki Daily News): Court rulings aside, all eyes will be on iwi regarding future of Mt Messenger bypass
Aaron Dahmen (1News): Reports of sediment, mud running into Auckland stream from major motorway project
Clive Matthew-Wilson (ODT): Speed limits do not alter behaviour
RNZ: Grounded planes: ‘Possible in-flight break-up’ cause for concern

Education
Nicholas Boyack (Stuff): Call for debate on ‘white flight’ from our low decile schools
Josephine Franks (Stuff): On-the-job teacher training: the solution to the teacher crisis?
Evan Harding (Stuff): Primary principals fight on for more pay
RNZ: The Detail: Why we need school leavers to pick up a hammer

Economy
Hamish Rutherford (Stuff): When interest rates fall below zero, things could get weird
Albert Redmore (Newshub): Economist delivers warning over possible zero interest rates in NZ
Liam Dann (Herald): Global debt is soaring, why should we care? (paywalled)
Liam Dann (Herald): Nation of Debt: Dairy danger as repayment risks rise (paywalled)

Christchurch mosque shootings
Jonathan Mitchell (RNZ): Defence Force spent about $600,000 in response to Christchurch terror attacks
MIchael Neilson (Herald): Christchurch mosque terror attack accused applies to move trial out of city
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): Inquiry into Christchurch terror attacks extends deadline for public submissions

Youth Parliament
Zane Small (NewshuB): Youth MP Lily Dorrance not discouraged despite ‘heartbreaking’ experience
No Right Turn: Make it 16

Other
Bevan Rapson (North & South): Serving us right: Will the latest public-sector reforms go far enough?
Dan Satherley (Newshub): Only two-thirds of Māori filled out the census
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): Assessing NZ on Air, 30 years after the world’s most radical public broadcasting experiment began
Anna Bracewell-Worrall (Newshub): Greens call out Labour over failure to increase benefits
John Gibb (ODT): Doubts about Archives NZ’s future
Lynn Williams: More on Testosterone
Vicki Anderson (Stuff): Racial profiling of Māori partner in shops ‘happens all the time’
Simon Collins (Herald): Burkini-clad Muslim women turned away from Henderson pool
Talisa Kupenga (Māori TV): Māori Wardens welcome $3.7mil govt investment
Meghan Lawrence (Herald): Variety Appeal looks to remedy too many Kiwi kids sleeping on the floor
RNZ: Andrew Little reopens talks with Ngāpuhi on treaty settlement
Henry Cooke (Stuff): For the United Nations to succeed it needs to escape the acronym soup
Maria Slade (Spinoff): Finance companies: No regulation please, we’re the good guys
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): First Union leading rivals for biggest average pay claims, says bargaining firm
RNZ: Government says new food safety tools will save businesses money
Jonathan Mitchell (RNZ): Talisman Sabre gives New Zealand military chance to work with allies
Ruwani Perera (Newshub): The Hui: How the Mothers Project is helping women behind bars
Duncan Steel (Listener): What New Zealand can do about the militarisation of space
Madison Reidy (RNZ): Rejected Resolution, AMP A$3.5b deal their own fault – RBNZ
Jenée Tibshraeny (Interest): Did sloppiness kill the A$3.3b AMP Life deal? The RBNZ speaks out  
Anna Whyte (1News): ‘It’s not OK women have waited this long’ for abortion law reform – Marama Davidson
Peter Calder (Listener): Once were Anzacs: The epic history of Māori soldiers in WWI
Jamie Tahana (RNZ): Dawn raids remembered in exhibit 40 years on
Meg Williams (Spinoff): The museum protecting, and celebrating, New Zealand’s lesbian history

It’s a change that could well end up ensuring Act’s survival – and maybe even its growth – at next year’s election. By repositioning the party as some sort of antithesis to what Seymour sees as the “woke” liberal establishment that is now recasting New Zealand politics, Act is possibly making itself more relevant than it’s been for a long time.

The issue has a growing potential to win votes. As Graham Adams argues today, “In hitching his wagon to the star of free speech, Seymour has no doubt calculated that it is a sleeper issue that will draw a swag of new voters — even from among those who would normally have to hold their nose to cast a vote for Act in the light of other policies they may find distasteful” – see: Can defending free speech boost David Seymour’s fortunes?

Adams also argues that a focus on political freedoms fits with Act’s traditional libertarian philosophies: “It’s a no-brainer for Seymour to stand up for free speech. Act has always been a party dedicated to keeping the long arm of the state out of our lives (and pockets) in a way that National often only pretends to be. It is a topic — like assisted dying — that is perfectly suited to Act’s liberal philosophy.”

Of course, at its core, Seymour’s new-look Act Party is still the same economically rightwing party it has always been. At the conference in the weekend we saw the usual re-assertion of those values and principles with the return of Roger Douglas style policies around flat-tax, education vouchers, and talk of reducing the bureaucracy. The splash of pink that’s been added to the party’s logo shouldn’t be taken to indicate much more than an attempt to soften the party’s old-fashioned image.

There’s some reason to be sceptical about Seymour’s motives for Act’s re-orientation towards the Zeitgeist issues of free speech and hate speech. In the past, Act and Seymour have certainly descended into political desperation and opportunism at times. Their last annual conference in August was embarrassing in how much the party pandered to populism and social conservatism. At the time, I wrote that the party was in danger of losing the last semblance of any coherent appeal or political soul – see my column, The death throes of the Act Party.

However Seymour’s stance on free speech appears to be genuine. He’s been pushing such positions on political liberty for quite some time. Furthermore, there’s something very different about this latest reorientation. Partly it’s because the ideological landscape has changed so much in the last few months. This is a response to the Christchurch massacre, but also due to the growing “culture wars” and debates over personal behaviour and speech.

Of course, the Government has also announced its intention to bolster hate speech laws. Clearly Seymour is aware of a growing divide around issues of political freedoms and is strongly positioning himself on one side. Such divides relating to the “culture wars” need to be taken seriously, as they could yet have a big impact on New Zealand politics.

In Seymour’s view, which he expounded at the weekend, the political left has actually become quite illiberal and authoritarian in nature. This is best conveyed in Nicholas Jones’ article, ‘Intolerant left’ wants to censor your thoughts and speech, Act Party leader David Seymour says.

In this, Seymour suggests the political left has now given up on the principles that they used to hold on political freedoms: “For a long time, we could rely on the liberal left to uphold freedom of expression. They may have wanted to take your property, but at least they’d let you have your thoughts and opinions.”

As this article explains, Seymour has announced a new “Freedom to Speak” policy to reform the current laws around hate speech. Apparently, a member’s bill “would repeal parts of the law that makes some speech unlawful if it is threatening, abusive or insulting and likely to ‘excite hostility’ against a group of people or bring them into contempt on the ground of their colour, race or ethnicity. Today, Seymour said the bill would remove from the Human Rights Act the words ‘abusive’ and ‘insulting’ and leave only ‘threatening’ as a crime.”

Seymour explains: “It should never be a crime to insult or abuse someone with language because nobody should ever be punished on the basis of subjective opinion.”

Seymour also went on Newshub’s The Nation on Saturday to explain his new “Freedom to Speak” legislation that he intends to submit to Parliament as a private members bill – see: Nazis and racists ‘offensive’ but shouldn’t be arrested – David Seymour.

As the article accompanying this interview explains, “David Seymour wants Kiwis to have the right to be offensive without having to worry about getting arrested. Instead, he hopes ‘contempt and ridicule’ will stop racists from spreading their poisonous views.”

In the interview, Seymour also takes aim at the Human Rights Commission, explaining that he would abolish it, saying “As an electorate MP, I have been to the Human Rights Commission and asked them to help with constituents, and they’ve run for the hills”.

Liberal/Illiberal backlash

There’s been a strong reaction to both Seymour’s proposed legislation and his shift to campaign on free speech issues. Newshub has reported the head of the Māori Council, Matthew Tukaki, arguing that Seymour’s bill is a “protection racket for those who think it’s their right to call me a n****r”, and furthermore, “I say to David Seymour if you were black and someone called you a n****r, or a fat black bastard or a black c**t, you’d want to have some protection and right of legal challenge” – see: Māori leader ‘sick and tired’ of free speech advocates looking for ‘excuse to call me the N-word’.

As well as Tukaki associating Seymour with racism (“This is not the apartheid-era South Africa where he gets to pick and choose what names people call people of colour, like myself”), this article reports Barrister Thomas Harre arguing that the courts need to be given the power to decide whether certain statements are “freedom of speech or something that should be punished”.

Another lawyer, Thomas Beagle, the chairperson of the NZ Council for Civil Liberties, suggests that Seymour’s reform of the speech laws would be bad for civil liberties: “The problem we’re seeing these days is that people are using speech to stop other people speaking, they’re using it to suppress certain groups” – see Ollie Ritchie’s David Seymour faces backlash over Freedom to Speak Bill.

Beagle also says: “I think it could be a dangerous approach because there’s a lot of speech out there which is very harmful for people, and when we look at laws around changing that we need to worry about the harm as well as the freedom of expression”.

Plenty in the media have condemned Seymour’s stance on free speech. On Twitter, for example, a number of journalists have been showing their disgust and disagreement with Seymour’s stance. For example, Stuff journalist Philip Matthews (@secondzeit) has tweeted: “I don’t think David Seymour is a Nazi or a racist but there’s no doubt he’s trying to (and will fail to) exploit an opportunity presented to him by the murder of 51 Muslims. I wish he’d rethought it.”

In contrast, the AM Show’s Duncan Garner has lent support this morning: “I think it’s dangerous to have limits to free speech – it’s a hot debate right now. Act Leader David Seymour made some good points over the weekend, and I think the state has to be very careful it doesn’t pass too many laws and rules around what we can and can’t say” – see: Government’s clampdown on free speech dangerous for all of us.

An ongoing campaign for Seymour

The weekend wasn’t the first time that Seymour has been outspoken or controversial about speech or political freedoms. He’s written a number of opinion pieces in recent months about his concerns. For example, last month he explained how Now more than ever we must defend free speech. In this he makes the case that free speech is vital in a democracy, because it helps solves problems and allows open debate. By contrast, he argues that hate speech laws are counterproductive: “laws which criminalise offensive opinions are likely to create resentment and anger rather than cure hate.”

He poses three challenges for those in favour of increased hate speech laws: “Here are three important questions for those favouring strong hate speech laws: “How is hate speech to be defined? Who gets to define it? And how can we trust those people not to use hate speech laws to suppress ideas they don’t like?”

For another useful example of Seymour putting forward his arguments against an opponent, see TVNZ’s Q+A debate: MPs David Seymour and Louisa Wall clash over Israel Folau case during hate speech debate.

A much more contentious clash involved Seymour arguing that Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman is “a real menace to freedom in this country” due to her campaigns on hate speech. This has caused a strong response, not just from the Greens, but also from Judith Collins who condemned Seymour’s language – see: Act leader David Seymour taken to task for Golriz Ghahraman comments.

At the time, Ghahraman was being subjected to threats from white supremacists, which required an upgrade to her parliamentary security. For the Act leader’s response to all this, see Belinda Feek’s David Seymour: I’m not racist, that’s ‘absolutely absurd’ (paywalled).

Seymour has claimed that the clash with Ghahraman has led to increased offers of help for his party – with a 30 per cent increase in membership and improved fundraising. According to one report: “Seymour attributes his public ‘free speech’ spat with Green MP Golriz Ghahraman as an unexpected driver of donations. He told Stuff that Act received ‘tens of thousands’ in donations afterwards. The number of people who joined Act and donated money over that week was the party’s best week since he had been leader and likely for a decade before that, he claimed” – see Collette Devlin’s Are these the last rites for the Act Party or its rebirth? ().

Finally, where is the National Party in all this? And does Seymour also criticise the main party of the right for their stance on free speech? For the best discussion of this, see Graham Adams’ Simon Bridges is hobbled in hate-speech debate.

For the two very different poll results, see Jessica Mutch McKay’s National back in front while Labour takes a dive in latest 1News Colmar Brunton Poll, and Tova O’Brien’s Poll: National nosedives into dreaded 30s, could trigger leadership coup.

This has caused a lot of head-scratching and some interesting reactions and attempts to explain the discrepancy. I went on RNZ’s Morning Report to put forward some explanations – you can listen to my five-minute interview here: NZ political polls: Which one is right?

I suggest that there are three main possible explanations for the bizarre discrepancies: 1) general polling methodologies have become unreliable, 2) the time period in which the two surveys were undertaken might have produced different results, and 3) one of the results might simply be a “rogue poll”, which happens occasionally, even for reputable market research companies.

I argued that of the two polls, it seems more likely that the 1News Colmar Brunton poll is the aberration, simply because it’s less in line with the previous trends, in which Labour’s polling had been improving and National’s declining. Of course, there’s no way of knowing and, in fact, both polls could be rogue. Therefore, possibly the best that can be taken from the situation is to average the two polls, which produces a result of: Labour: 46.4, National: 40.7, Greens: 6.1, and NZ First: 3.9.

All partisans are going to have their own view of which of the two poll results to believe. Unsurprisingly, the National Party deputy leader has quite blatantly indicated that she doesn’t like the message in the Newshub poll, going on the AM Show today to say: “I just don’t think that that’s true. I just don’t believe your numbers… I’m sorry, I really don’t believe the numbers you put out last night are a true reflection of where it’s all at… It’s way better than that” – see: ‘I just don’t believe your numbers’: Paula Bennett in denial after horror poll.

The same article gives an explanation of the methodology of Newshub’s polling company: “Bennett suggested the methodology Reid Research uses could be to blame. Unlike most other polls, a quarter of Reid Research’s sample is found via the internet – making it easier to reach younger demographics. ‘It’s a certain demographic that do the online polling’, said Bennett. But all legitimate pollsters weights the results they get to reflect the demographics of the voting public, regardless of how they’re sourced.”

According to Claire Trevett, National MPs will now be insisting on seeing the results of the party’s own commissioned internal polling, which can then be used as a “tie-breaker” to determine which of the two public polls is accurate: “When National’s caucus meets tomorrow, MPs will want to see the results of the party’s own polling, by Curia Market Research. Those results may be critical in determining Bridges’ immediate future. They are delivered to the leadership team every Wednesday, but MPs are not shown the results every week. They are shown them once every sitting period. This week marks the start of this sitting period. If Bridges does not volunteer those results, MPs will – quite fairly – demand to see them” – see: Do polls chime tick-tock for Simon Bridges? (paywalled).

National’s chief pollster, David Farrar, suggests a “rogue poll” is likely: “the results are dramatically different. They are so far apart, that statistically it can’t be margin of error… You basically can’t reconcile these polls. One (or both) of them seem to be outside the 95% confidence interval, i.e. is the 1 in 20 ‘rogue’ result” – see: A tale of two polls.

Farrar also points out the potentially important timing of the two polls: “The only other plausible explanation is that as the [1News] poll started a few days after [Newshub], Labour had a massive drop in support after those first few days”.

The Spinoff’s Alex Braae expands on this: “the Newshub poll started being conducted just before the Budget and teacher strike, and the One News poll started a few days after. There’s a small possibility those events swayed significant numbers of voters away from the government. But it’s a huge reach, and would also probably require both being at the extreme ends of their respective margins of error. Apart from that it’s possible differences in methodology, sampling or weighting has played a role, but we can’t say that for sure” – see: New polls bring joy, confusion for political obsessives.

Braae also makes the important point that the poll discrepancy “is a really nice example of how polls are effectively just a single sampled snapshot in time, and because of that no individual polls should be taken as gospel.”

Nonetheless, given the huge discrepancy in the poll results, increased distrust about polling is likely to result. After all, in other parts of the world recently there have been some well-known examples of polling being in disrepute. As media-specialist Damien Venuto says today, “These questions are particularly pointed in the aftermath of the Colombian referendum, Brexit, the Trump victory and the recent Australian election – all notable examples of pollsters getting their predictions wrong” – see: Why polls get it so wrong so often (paywalled).

Venuto puts special emphasis on the traditional problem of “shy Tory syndrome” in which members of the public are disinclined to tell pollsters of their unfashionable voting intentions. On this, he quotes Colleen Ryan, of research firm TRA: “People are very poor at telling the truth… This doesn’t mean that they’re lying, but they do say things that they think others would like to hear”.

He also raises the question of whether the public or the media are becoming too-poll-driven: “Should we really be firing politicians on the basis that they haven’t done well on a poll?… If politicians are consistently looking to appeal to the masses and win points in polls, there’s a real risk that they’ll lose the hearts of the key constituents they actually need to appeal to.”

In this regard, it’s also worth noting the advice of newspaper columnist Damien Grant, who recently argued that the polls are “Overanalysed and self-fulfilling” and “The whims of the electorate are as erratic and inexplicable as the sleeping patterns of a new-born. We shouldn’t try to read too much into them” – see: Polls are as effective as chicken entrails to divining the will of the people.

Here’s his main point: “We act as if they have meaning and so they have meaning. The commentariat is all a twitter over the latest jump in support for Labour and the corresponding slump for National and NZ First. It’s noise. If a commentator knew what would cause a poll result, they could have predicted it. They didn’t. The last election was a case study in the pointlessness of relying on polls, commentators or indeed elections as a guide to who will seize the levers of power. Our electoral process is, and has always been, a random-number generator with pundits trying to ascribe rational explanations to white noise.”

Perhaps there’s just a need for new and different polling techniques to be implemented, which is what a former Labour Party president and polling company owner suggests – see: ‘Market research industry in crisis’: Ex-Labour Party president Mike Williams on poll results.

According to Mike Williams, “It’s difficult that landlines are dying out, it’s hard to get hold of cellphone numbers, some of these people are now doing online polling”. But he suggests that it might be time to go back to more traditional market research methods: “The only [solution] I can think of, and it’s really expensive, is to actually go back to face-to-face polling, going back 30 to 40 years of the Heylen poll.”

Of course, there are no real alternatives to using polling to gather the public mood. There might now be some greater interest in finding out what Labour and National’s own internal polling says, but reports of these should always be taken with more than a grain a salt. Henry Cooke reports: “The internal polls are more trusted, but don’t seem to be agreeing either. Labour’s is understood to have National below 40 and themselves in the high 40s, while National’s is understood to have them neck with the trend in their favour” – see: Duelling polls offer good news for both main parties, bad news for Simon Bridges.

Finally, it’s always worth retaining some scepticism about how all these polls are reported. After all, sometimes the numbers involved are badly conveyed and poorly contextualised. And what about the crucial number of “don’t knows” and “don’t cares” that are hardly mentioned by the opinion poll stories? For more on all this, from the previous round of opinion poll debate back in February, see Colin Peacock’s TV political poll hype hits new heights.

The Labour-led Government’s decision to hold a referendum should be celebrated – even by those who wish to oppose liberalisation. It allows a societal debate on an issue of importance for many people. The Green Party should also be thanked for progressing the question.

That doesn’t mean the newly-announced referendum process for next year has been well-designed. Unfortunately there seems to be plenty of room for things to go wrong. There is certainly going to be confusion and uncertainly as a result of how the Government has decided to proceed with the referendum.

For the single best item on the referendum announced on Tuesday, see Henry Cooke’s Explainer: The cannabis referendum and why it isn’t binding. This clearly provides all the detail on what we know about the referendum and what is being proposed.

For example, Cooke explains that the proposal is about “legalisation” rather than “decriminalisation”: “It sets up a full legal process for the production, sale, and consumption of cannabis. Decriminalisation does none of this – instead just removing the penalty for consumption and possession, rather than actively setting up a regulated market.”

Plenty of other details are provided about aspects of the proposal to do with sharing cannabis with friends, using it as payment for a tradie (you wouldn’t be allowed to), and the legal control of products like cannabis edibles, lotions, and resins.

But the more important part is the issue of whether the referendum would be a binding one or just an “indicative” one. And Cooke explains that this particular referendum will only be “indicative” to whatever government is elected next year. And there will be plenty of potential for that government to ignore the referendum or indeed to change the proposed reforms, so that voters could end up getting something different to what they are voting for.

Cooke points out that Justice Minister Andrew Little has tried to argue otherwise – to make out that the referendum will in fact be binding – but “This does not conform with what basically anyone else describes as ‘binding’ – including his own justice ministry.”

The fact that significant changes to the proposals could still occur after the public have voted in the referendum is confirmed in the advice of the Ministry of Justice to the Government, which was quite explicit: “There is also a risk that the legislation, if introduced, could be changed significantly by the next Parliament or Government before it is enacted.”

This is examined by Thomas Coughlan, who writes: “It’s not unusual for legislation to change during the legislative process, particularly as interest groups and the public give their input at select committee. Many of these changes are minor and to do with the drafting of the bill, however some can be substantive. David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill is likely to be changed substantively; at first reading it applied to people with terminal illness or a grievous and irremediable medical condition, but it’s likely to be restricted to just terminal illness when it returns to Parliament for its second reading” – see: Non-binding referendum open to many changes.

This article also quotes constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler suggesting that voters cannot trust that the referendum will lead to the changes: “It’s exactly as binding as any other political party promise prior to an election”. The article also reports that “Edgeler noted that it was possible a party, likely National, could interpret a ‘yes’ vote as a vote for change, but enact substantively different legislation.”

Andrew Little also admits that changes to the proposed cannabis rules – such as the age threshold of 20 years – could occur after the public had voted, saying “For departure from the policy there would have to be a very compelling case to do so… I can’t believe there would be any compelling case to reduce that, there would have to be a compelling case to increase it”.

Coughlan’s article quotes Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern being tighter about post-referendum changes being made to the rules: “On the principles that have been determined we need to stick to those so that the public have some assurance so that what they vote for would then either not proceed or does proceed… We need to give the assurance to the public is that the core principles and substantive policy decisions will remain the same”.

Green Party Drugs Spokesperson Chloe Swarbrick is also reported as believing that “it was unlikely that any party would want to substantially alter legislation put to the public in the 2020 referendum”. Swarbrick says “There would be substantive political cost” for any party making substantial changes to what the public had voted on.

Nonetheless, it seems voters are being asked to trust the politicians. Blogger Pete George is unhappy with this: “They are asking voters to trust that politicians will honour the will of the voters, some undetermined time after the next election. That doesn’t fill me with confidence. It looks like the Greens have got as much as they can, but NZ First are not as committed to voters deciding via referendums as they have made out, and Labour have allowed a Clayton’s binding referendum to be proposed. National don’t look trustworthy on this either, with the positions of Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett shifting at a car barking rate” – see: Cannabis referendum – trust the politicians?

Blogger, No Right Turn, thinks the exercise has turned into a farce, suggesting that the Labour Party has gone with a non-binding referendum as a soft-option in which they don’t have to pass contentious legislation that might lose them votes: “they don’t want to pay the political cost of actually making it happen, preferring for change to happen by magic instead. And so instead of a binding referendum with certainty not just about the proposal, but that it will actually happen, they’re giving us a glorified public opinion poll with no certainty at all. And under those circumstances, I’m not sure why anyone should bother participating in the farce” – see: Not binding.

He also argues that the decision by the Government to make the referendum non-binding was a strategic one, designed to encourage people to vote for Labour, New Zealand First or the Greens, or risk the referendum result being ignored by a National government: “In other words: if you want cannabis legalised, you have to re-elect the government. And so a binding referendum has been transformed into a naked scam for votes, so Labour Ministers can keep their jobs and their one-percenter salaries. They are treating the public with utter contempt here. And we should punish them for it” – see: The fix.

Other commentators are actually very happy about the non-binding nature of the referendum. Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking argues that it means a vote for change might not actually result in change: “the good news in the government’s cannabis vote announcement is we are voting on proposed legislation that will be enacted only if this lot gets back into power. It potentially won’t be enacted as voted, or indeed at all. It’s important to understand the nuance of all of this. What we will vote on, and what will pass in the Parliament, are two very different things. And that is, of course, if there is a yes vote. And this is where New Zealand First will once again save us – they will ‘CGT it’ if the three pronged coalition is re-elected” – see: There’s hope we can stop the legalisation of cannabis.

The Government has deliberately decided to go for the more confusing and uncertain option. Cooke explains in his article: “The way to avoid this situation would have been to pass a bill enacting the law changes now, but include a clause that means it only has power if the referendum returns a ‘yes’ vote. This is called a ‘self-executing referendum’ and is how the referendums on MMP and the flag were designed. A ‘self-executing’ referendum was the preference of the Green Party during negotiations.”

That’s why a lot of commentators are seeing this as a major loss for the Greens. Barry Soper says the result of the referendum passing will be uncertain: “what finally ends up in the mix is anybody’s guess. So this isn’t the binding referendum the Greens signed up for when they agreed to give the Government the numbers to take office” – see: So-called binding cannabis referendum latest dead rat for Greens to swallow.

Claire Trevett suggests today that the Greens naively and mistakenly trusted New Zealand First would support the referendum being binding (in a trade-off for the Greens voting for the “waka jumping law against their own principles”) – see: Cannabis referendum ‘stoners tax’ could be golden haze for the Government (paywalled).

According to Trevett, New Zealand First then vetoed the referendum being binding. She says that a Cabinet meeting in December of last year actually made the decision to make the referendum binding, but Winston Peters was overseas at the time, and when Cabinet next met the decision was reversed.

Here’s the key part: “What seems likely is that NZ First realised it would have to vote in favour of that legislation to legalise cannabis rather than treat it as a conscience issue. That is something many of its MPs would not easily stomach. It also noticed the Greens’ agreement did not promise a binding referendum, but simply a referendum. Words matter, as Peters constantly says. So what was delivered was the promise of draft legislation which may or may not be pursued in the next term.”

This is a big problem according to former Cabinet Minister Peter Dunne. In a column looking back at the history of government-initiated referendums, he says that this “will be the first Government-initiated referendum not to have an immediate definitive outcome. Despite being styled as a binding referendum, it will, in reality, be no more than an indicative vote” – see: Sophistry and bollocks on the referendum (paywalled).

Dunne outlines a lot of the uncertainty and confusion that could result from the way the referendum process has been established, especially in regard to what happens with the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill currently before Parliament.

He laments that this was entirely unnecessary: “All this uncertainty creates a potentially extraordinarily confusing situation, which could have been avoided had the specific law been in place before the referendum, to be triggered by a positive vote. Everyone would have known not only where things would stand once the law changed, but it will also occur immediately, removing instantly the uncertainty likely to accrue from the inevitable post referendum delay and confusion the government’s current approach will surely cause.”

In conclusion, Dunne ponders whether this will be just another in a list of promised reforms that haven’t worked out under this government: “Is cannabis law reform therefore about to join welfare, tax reform, electoral reform and a raft of other things this Government says it would ‘love’ to do properly, but, when the crunch comes, just cannot ever quite manage to bring together in a cohesive and comprehensive way?”

Finally, for the two must-read constitutional analyses of whether it’s a problem that the cannabis referendum isn’t binding, see Graeme Edgeler’s What we know about the cannabis referendum in 10 easy questions, and Andrew Geddis’ Sorry, but the cannabis vote is going to look a lot like the flag referendum.

The Greens were going to be the principled core of the Labour-led Government, but instead are regarded by many as having been largely ineffective and submissive in power. This is leading supporters and others on the political left to ask some difficult questions about the direction the Greens are going in, and whether they will start to have more influence over the Government.

Former chief spin doctor for the Green Party, David Cormack, is worried, suggesting in his Herald column yesterday that the party has lost its courage, visibility and radicalism in power – see: Do the Greens deserve to be re-elected?

Although largely an encouraging pep talk for the Greens, Cormack’s column is fairly brutal in pointing out that Green MPs “have largely rolled over and acquiesced” instead of pushing an agenda for leftwing or environmental change. And not only have they been weak and moderate, they have failed in their promise to hold the Labour-led Government to account.

This could all change, Cormack says, but only if Green MPs decide to “step up” and actually fight for change. He argues they have a lot of potential leverage if they are courageous enough. With Labour having sold out so much, he suggests “You’ve got the chance to be the only real leftist party. Do you have the courage to take it?”

Responding to this analysis, blogger No Right Turn asks: When should the Greens get their Winston out? His answer is that they should play hardball to get the Zero Carbon Bill passed: “That is the Greens’ reason for existence, what they are about as a party. They need to deliver, for their supporters, and for the planet. And if their partners refuse – if Winston uses his veto, or Labour collaborates with National to water it down into more time-wasting, ineffective bullshit, then I fully expect the Greens to pull the plug and topple the government. Because the future is at stake, and it cannot afford for us to piss about on this.”

Another Greens-friendly political commentator, Martyn Bradbury, has also become increasingly distraught at his party’s actions – or lack of action – while in power. Today he blogs to say that the party is “in serious danger of not being returned to power in 2020 which is an absurdity when you consider climate change is the most pressing issue our species is collectively facing. The Greens have gone backwards in the last 3 elections and always over poll before an election, so if they are at 6%, slipping below 5% is a real possibility” – see: 18 months till election 2020 – how is the NZ Political landscape?

Bradbury says “As someone who has voted Green my entire life, it will be a deep sadness to watch them squander their legacy so meaninglessly.” He proclaims “The experiment of Marama Davidson as leader has been a dreadful mistake while James Shaw is about as effective as a day old corpse in a deodorant advert.”

What’s the cause of the Greens’ intense malaise? For Bradbury, it’s their increasing focus on identity politics and causes other than the environment: “The alienating middle class woke identity politics is terribly popular on Twitter, but in real life the woke politics of proclaiming all men are rapists, demanding white bros delete themselves from social media, attacking lesbians for not accepting Trans demands, insisting white supremacy violence is the fault of all white people, arguing free speech is white cis male privilege and reclaiming the word cunt is about as electorally attractive as a cup of cold vomit.”

It’s poor leadership, Bradbury says, and he recommends the party goes back to a focus on climate change. See also his recent blog post, Forget National’s leadership meltdown – what about the Greens?

Economist, environmentalist and TOP leader, Geoff Simmons, has some similar criticisms about the effectiveness of the Greens in government, suggesting that James Shaw has become a very weak environmentalist: “he is forced to back the tentative actions of his Government on two of our biggest environmental crises, fresh water and climate change. Don’t even mention fishing” – see: Greens toothless and divided.

For Simmons, too, it’s the Greens’ preoccupation with “identity politics” that is their weakness: “Quite frankly I think we have bigger fish to fry with our housing crisis and polluted fresh water. Regardless, I’m not sure activism really moves the debate forward in that space. I’m sure it plays well to part of the Green Party base, but does it help our society change for the better? These sorts of debates currently end up being used to shut down constructive conversation, not encourage it. Reasonable people are too scared to even ask questions or voice an opinion, for fear of a social media pile on.”

As co-leader, Marama Davidson has become the leader of the activist Greens, and a counterpoint to James Shaw’s more Establishment-style. Thomas Coughlan recently interviewed Davidson for his profile: Davidson: very Green, very outspoken and a lot to prove.

Coughlan explains that Davidson won the co-leadership contest against Julie Anne Genter precisely because she was the MP to “put a halt to the apparently unstoppable inertia dragging the party to the centre”. Davidson “was popular with the party’s activist left, who lobbied strongly for her to put her hat in the ring in the hope she would counterbalance Shaw’s perceived corporate-ness and pull the party back to the left.”

This profile examines whether she has been successful in that goal. Coughlan relays that critics say Davidson has merely continued to distract the Greens from core campaigns, especially when she spoke out about her intentions to “reclaim the C-word” for the public: “Observers felt it showed a lack of focus from the Green leadership as the campaign drew ever more attention, diverting people from the party’s work elsewhere. Less time thinking about climate change, more time thinking about, well, the c-word.”

According to this interview, Davidson has pulled back from such campaigns, suggesting the fault lay elsewhere: “Brown women in politics have a certain double standard judgment that I’m not going to change that means I have to be extra mindful”.

Davidson is certainly campaigning to dump the Greens’ fiscally-conservative support for the Budget Responsibility Rules. This campaign might see the Greens move to the left. But, Coughlan says, this would present significant challenges: “The looming question for the Greens is whether or not they can force the larger party’s hand – getting them to release, or even loosen the purse strings in any future Government. Doing so would require some intense political posturing. The Greens would essentially ask Labour to risk tarring themselves with the brush of profligacy and fiscal irresponsibility — something the party has worked for years to avoid.”

Earlier this year Davidson came out with a strong statement against the Government’s fiscal policy settings: “We are sitting on a surplus, we have the lowest cost of borrowing in recent history, and our country has crumbling infrastructure successive governments have kicked the can down the road to future generations.”

She announced the Greens were having a review of these settings, which would continue for a number of months, resulting in a new policy for the 2020 election – see Henry Cooke’s Greens to review self-set debt rules before 2020 election.

For more on this, as well as a discussion of other ways the Greens might reposition themselves for next year, see Henry Cooke’s The Greens are looking forward to 2020 already, and the possibility of a world without Winston. According to this, “The election is next year, and the Greens are getting ready by staking out positions on the left.”

Really, the party is going to have to score some greater wins on environmental issues, and especially on climate change. Even the National Party is finding that it can try to out-green the Green Party, with Simon Bridges recently saying: “If you look at the current Green Party and the current government, you’ve got a situation where we’re not getting cameras on fishing vessels, they won’t do the Kermadecs… They’re not making sufficient progress. For those who voted for Labour and the Greens because they thought they would get a greener government, well I’m not seeing evidence of that today” – see Joel MacManus’ Simon Bridges: Green Party isn’t making ‘sufficient progress’ on the environment.

There will also be continued pressure from the fledgling Sustainability New Zealand Party, who will seek to point out where the Greens might be letting down the environmental cause. For example, Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage’s decision to rule out gene editing – which might otherwise be used as “a breakthrough science solution for predator eradication” is being criticised by the centrist rival party – see Finn Hogan’s Vernon Tava calls out ‘anti-science’ Green party.

Of course, the Greens have had some big wins. Richard Harman pointed these out at the start of the year: “the end to irrigation funding; the ban on offshore oil exploration; the move away from funding motorways; funding for conservation measures and a more aggressive scrutiny of foreign land purchases” – see: Once were radicals – the Greens in government.

According to Harman, the Greens first year in government has actually been very good. He says that their operating style is far from radical, but from his point of view that’s a plus: “Yet paradoxically for a party which has its roots in the protest movement and still likes to propose radical change, its approach to politics proved to be remarkably conservative. They are not given to big bold political gestures and unlike NZ First who seem to prefer confrontational politics, their whole strategy has been to move slowly and cautiously closer to the centre of power. It is a strategy which is beginning to pay off.

Finally, to view how satirists have portrayed the Greens, see my blog post, Cartoons about the Green Party in Government.

Simon Bridges’ hold on the National Party leadership is still in trouble, with destabilising factors making his continued survival unlikely. I wrote about this several weeks ago, reporting that a series of gaffes and leadership mis-steps had set off a fresh round of questioning about whether Bridges can continue in the role – see: Simon Bridges’ beleaguered leadership. 

Since then there’s been nothing to suggest he will recover from a narrative that is turning against him. In fact, the narrative is only picking up steam. Politik’s Richard Harman has written about how “It is almost inevitable that Bridges will face a challenge; perhaps an informal backroom one first, then if that fails a full caucus spill” – see: Pressure increasing on Bridges leadership.

According to Harman, multiple sources have told him that Judith Collins “has the support of just over half the caucus to take the leadership. Politik has spoken to a range of National MPs and party officials on a non-attributable basis and heard pretty much the same story from most of them; something has gone wrong. There are questions about Bridges’ political judgement”.

In addition, “there is a list of charges against him which centre on his relationships with the rest of the caucus; his abrasive manner and his practice of confining decision making to a tight inner circle of MPs and advisors.”

Other political journalists have since confirmed National MPs are being flagrantly disloyal to Bridges and destabilising his leadership. According to Newshub’s Jenna Lynch and Tova O’Brien, “National MPs are speaking out against their leader and Newshub has been told of agitation behind the scenes. The National Party Caucus is now proactively coming to Newshub with concerns about Simon Bridges’ leadership, and Newshub has been told people are doing the numbers for Judith Collins. There are mixed views, but a number of MPs have told Newshub that Bridges’ handling of recent problems hasn’t been up to scratch, with one MP even describing it as ‘incompetent’.” – see: National MPs speaking out against leader Simon Bridges.

They say it goes further than just gossip: “As for any signs of a coup, on Tuesday MPs anonymously told Newshub: ‘It’s happening.’ One MP said: ‘For some time, MPs have been concerned about the direction of the leadership.’ Another described the caucus as ‘unsettled’, while another said ‘numbers are firming for Judith’.”

So when could a leadership coup occur? They say, “Newshub has been told if it does happen, it could move quickly or in the next three to four months. Newshub has also been told it could happen at caucus, or it could just be executed by a group of MPs behind closed doors.”

Then, to make matters worse, yet another bad opinion poll result was published. The 1News Colmar Brunton survey put National eight points behind Labour. Some commentators felt National’s 40 per cent rating was enough to keep Bridges safe. According to Henry Cooke, “It is the “4” before the poll number which is magic. The difference between 40 per cent and 39.5 per cent in a regular poll is a handful of people, but it is a hugely important distinction, psychologically. If National is above 40, even well behind Labour, it is still in serious running for the next election” – see: The magic number keeping Simon Bridges safe, for now.

Cooke also argues that Bridges’ position is bolstered by few contenders wanting to take over in the leadup to what could be a looming defeat in next year’s election: “the helpful fact that National were probably always doomed to lose the 2020 election, meaning plenty of contenders might be happy to watch him do so.”

1News’ political editor Jessica Mutch McKay supports the theory that the poll ratings mean survival for Bridges: “What I’m hearing when I’m speaking to MPs is that if he’s got a four in front of the party vote, he’s doing OK and can breathe a small sigh of relief”. She also says that while she “has noticed a language change regarding Mr Bridges” amongst National MPs, “we don’t get the sense there is a big move at the moment” – see: Desire among National MPs for stability may save Simon Bridges after latest poll dip.

Similarly, reflecting on National’s latest poll result, the Herald’s political editor Audrey Young says: “it has not sunk so low that it would force a leadership change yet. And no one would launch a coup on the back of a national tragedy which undoubtedly has had an impact on the polls” – see: Poll relief for Simon Bridges may only be temporary. Young does, however, suggest that the growing polling gap between Labour and National is a problem, and “it is easy to see that trend continuing.”

For Newsroom’s Sam Sachdeva, the problems go beyond poll numbers: “Bridges is simply not passing the sniff test; he has begun to resemble a clumsy, Clouseau-esque waiter stumbling from one disaster to the next” – see: Bridges looks for small mercies as slide continues.

Sachdeva mulls over whether Bridges is now capable of turning things around: “the Easter and Anzac break is a chance for him to step away from Parliament’s pressure cooker, reset his strategy and figure out how to best damage the Government rather than his own party. Unfortunately for him, there’s been little this year to suggest he’s capable of doing that – and once an Opposition leader starts to spiral (think Andrew Little) it’s difficult to pull out of that nosedive.”

Although National’s poor poll ratings are much better than what Labour normally received in opposition, the crucial problem is that the gap between the collective polling of the parties of Government and Opposition is now huge. This is the point made by Matthew Hooton on Friday, who says that the latest poll actually spells a disaster that National MPs don’t seem to be fully aware of: “Bizarrely, some on the centre-right seem to take comfort from the most recent 1 News Colmar Brunton poll — completed before Ardern took the CGT off the table — putting National and Act on 41 per cent. They seem to overlook the fact that this puts them a full 17 points behind Labour, NZ First and the Greens, who were on a combined 58 per cent. To put this in perspective, gaps of more than 15 points between opposition and governing blocs are exceptionally rare in New Zealand” – see: Jacinda Ardern on track for triumph in 2020.

The decision by the Government to abandon the CGT proposals also makes life particularly difficult for Bridges and National, and likely that the current administration will be easily re-elected next year. According to Hooton, “By and large, National MPs remain in denial about how hopeless their position is” and, “Sadly for centre-right voters, it looks as if National will need to repeat its trauma of 2002 and Labour’s of 2014 before it wakes up to the magnitude of the task and difficulty of the decisions required to become a viable alternative government again.”

If that column wasn’t bad enough, especially coming from someone who was previously supportive of Bridges, then Hooton’s column from the week before is even more important to the debate. In this, Hooton essentially calls time on the current leader in his devastating assessment of Bridges’ achievements so far – see: Simon Bridges runs out of mates.

Hooton, who is a National Party insider, paints a picture of National MPs plotting and openly discussing Bridges’ terminal leadership, and reports that “dissatisfaction with Simon Bridges has reached a critical point.”

It’s not only the poor poll ratings, the failure to foster any new policy stances, and the continued leadership mishaps, but a fundamental issue of personality and trust: “Bridges’ real problem is that, like the population at large, too many National MPs just don’t like him that much. When Bridges was revealed to have called National MP Maureen Pugh ‘f***ing useless’, the suspicion was that this was not an uncharacteristic lapse, but typical of how he speaks privately about too many of them. Publicly calling a long-serving National press secretary, who had even survived working in Nick Smith’s challenging ministerial office, ‘an emotional junior staffer’ further suggested Bridges doesn’t proffer the same loyalty to his team that he expects to be afforded.”

Bridges’ temperament is also under the microscope in Graham Adams’ column, Lack of humility is Simon Bridges’ fatal flaw. According to this analysis, “Bridges’ bullishness was mostly an asset for him when he first became leader in February last year.” But since then “his aggressively confident and self-assertive style” has failed to charm the public, and instead only landed the leader in more difficulties.

Looking back, Adams pinpoints when this should have been apparent: “his high-handed approach to those beneath him in the pecking order was clearly evident at his first press conference as leader when he indicated to his deputy, Paula Bennett, that he needed a glass of water. He pointed at a jug on a low table and uttered the immortal command — ‘Give us some water will you, love?’ Bennett — who just a few months earlier had been deputy prime minister and Bridges’ superior — looked flustered but she bent down and poured him a drink while he continued to hold court in front of the cameras.”

That bullishness was only display again recently when combating questions about his leadership – see Zane Small’s report, I’ll ‘absolutely’ be staying as National leader – Simon Bridges.

The media is certainly now putting the pressure on Bridges over his leadership. Broadcaster, Eric Young, pressured him last week about the apparent lack of public support that Judith Collins was giving to him, pointing out to Bridges: “She came on The AM Show just last week and refused to use you by name. She pledged her support to the leader of the National Party without once using your name” – see Michael Daly’s Simon Bridges pressed on his relationship with Judith Collins.

Attention is also now increasingly focused on the likelihood of Judith Collins taking over as leader. For the best report on the internal National caucus machinations around Collins, see Tova O’Brien’s Anti-Judith Collins camp within National Party may stop her becoming leader. She says: “Caucus is supposed to be a kind of hermetically cone of silence, so the fact that the caucus is leaking, the fact that MPs are proactively coming to us and agitating against Simon Bridges and the fact the people are doing the numbers for Judith Collins is a real problem for Simon Bridges”.

However, it is not clear that Collins has any claim on the leadership in the bag yet,  and O’Brien reports the existence of a growing Anyone But Collins grouping: “There are a lot of people in that caucus that just do not like her and do not want her to be the next leader of the National Party.”

In the latest Listener, Bill Ralston writes about the destabilisation of Simon Bridges, and appears to hope that he can hold on: “The prospect of Judith Collins rising to the top of National does not fill me with joy. To date, she has had a chequered career and there’s no reason to suppose that dark pattern will not continue should she become leader and, God forbid, prime minister.”

For Ralston, Collins is too reminiscent of Robert Muldoon: “both combative political personalities, both conservative, both ruthless. Dear Lord, no. I’ve lived through that once before.”

According to RNZ’s Guyon Espiner, the fear of Collins could be what saves Bridges: “If National is feeling cautious, that will help him. If they feel like taking a risk, that removes another reason for Bridges to stay. I have a liking for cricket analogies and I’ll end with one. Judith Collins is the next batter up. She has the pads on. She is a big hitter. She could crush, crash or burn. National needs to decide if it’s going to keep going with the night watchman or send in The Crusher” – see: Simon Bridges ‘entering the danger zone’ following popularity drop in polls.

And Matthew Hooton has an entirely similar cricket analogy: “What may save Bridges are continued worries about his only credible successor, Judith Collins. If National MPs fret that Bridges is a Blair Pocock, they worry that Collins is a Brendon McCullum. Give her the top job and there is a very good chance she’ll smash her opponents all around the park. But there is nearly as good a chance she’ll be out for a duck.”

Finally, how would Judith Collins go as National leader? For the pros and cons, see Toby Manhire’s Why Judith Collins should be made National leader (And why she shouldn’t), as well as my earlier column for RNZ, on The case for and against Judith Collins leading National.

Exactly a year ago, on 6 March 2018, the government census was carried out. It was a “digital-first” census, with citizens expected to primarily use the internet to answer the compulsory questions about their lives. And it was soon apparent that huge numbers of New Zealanders had been missed out by the exercise – likely to be at least one in ten. 

But we are only now finding out how much of a debacle that event was, along with increasing knowledge of the seriously negative implications for our society and democracy. And to make matters worse, there’s a distinct lack of political or bureaucratic accountability for what has happened.

A number of newspaper stories have been published today about the anniversary of the 2018 census debacle. The most important is Thomas Manch’s 365 days and still counting: Census 2018 results nowhere to be seen. In this, he explains that “The 2018 census data release has been delayed three times due to low response rate” and “Statistics New Zealand remains tight-lipped about when the long-delayed results will be available”.

The article explains that the census operation resourcing was inadequate, especially in terms of the number of field staff hired to help people get their census filled out: “Newly released information shows Stats NZ employed 1800 enumerators, or field staff, to knock on doors and uncover those who failed to complete Census 2018. This was a substantial drop from the 7000 boots on the ground during Census 2013”.

A number of economists and statisticians explain the growing awareness of the severity of the “shambolic” census operations. For example, University of Auckland statistician Andrew Sporle is quoted saying: “It’s a bit of a disaster, we don’t know how bad, but we know it’s a disaster.”

Sporle explains that the data, once it’s eventually released, “will provide increased uncertainty in matters from the Government’s wellbeing targets to the number of Māori electorates.”

Manch looks at the Māori electorates in another article today, Māori electorate seat at risk due to Census 2018 debacle, and says that, due to the way Statistics NZ have run the census, there are likely to be much fewer respondents reporting that they are of have Māori descent, which could lead to one of the Māori seats disappearing.

One specialist is cited as saying that although the 2018 census participation rate is estimated to be about 90 percent for the general population, “the response rate of Māori may be as low as 80 or 70 per cent in some corners of New Zealand”. In addition, “more than 20 new iwi won’t be properly counted” in the census, and this is a problem because “census data was particularly important for smaller iwi trying to do good with fewer resources”.

Societal consequences of the census debacle

There are plenty of other serious implications if the census 2018 data is unreliable, as is increasingly expected. For example, planning and funding for health and education is highly reliant on this population data, and some hospitals and schools might receive inadequate resourcing as a result. Much of this is explained in Cate Broughton’s article today, Health boards, schools may lose funding as Ministries forced to use 2013 census data.

In this, University of Otago’s health systems expert Robin Gauld explains how hospitals might be negatively impacted: “It could have fairly profound implications for a DHB off a $1 billion dollar budget – if you’re a per cent or two off, that’s $10 or $20 million dollars, the difference between surplus and deficit.”

The article points out that this is likely to have a particularly adverse impact on poorer communities, with Child Poverty Action Group’s Alan Johnson quoted: “What you will get in places like South Auckland is there might be 10,000 – 15,000 people missing from the count – well the DHB won’t be getting funded for them so them and everyone else in that area will struggle with less funding.”

Currently the problems with the census data means that government departments are having to rely on 2013 census data. In terms of schools, the president of NZEI, Lynda Stuart, says: “If they are looking at using 2013 census data then yes potentially schools’ [funding levels] could stay the same and yet communities do change so it’s obviously highly problematic”.

So will the census debacle have a negative impact on social wellbeing? Certainly, the Government is making much of putting “wellbeing” at the centre of Grant Robertson’s upcoming Budget, but there must be questions as to the credibility of an approach that emphasises the need to measure social indicators when measures are so inadequate.

Furthermore, the Government has admitted that Robertson’s Budget won’t make use of the latest data: “Crucial funding decisions in Budget 2019 will be made without data from Census 2018” – see Thomas Manch’s Census data won’t make Budget 2019. National’s finance spokesperson, Amy Adams, says that this is “highly unusual”, but the Government has claimed that they never intended to use the new census data in the Budget.

Adams has also asked whether hospitals and schools which receive inadequate funding based on old data will eventually have their correct funding restored and backdated once the new data arrives.

Electoral consequences of the census debacle

The other major census headache is the upcoming general election, which is constitutionally-mandated to be run on the basis of electorate boundaries being redrawn in light of the census. The exercise of the boundary re-drawing is carried out by the Representation Commission (which effectively involves the Electoral Commission and representatives of the Labour and National parties). But if they don’t have access to the latest census data, or if the census data is deemed unreliable, then the whole exercise could collapse or lead to messy court proceedings.

This is best covered by Henry Cooke in his article, Statistics New Zealand confident census data will be ready for 2020 election boundaries. In this, National’s Electoral Reform spokesman Nick Smith challenges the robustness of the likely census data for the election, and says: “It is totally unsatisfactory to be determining electorate boundaries that can effectively determine who will be the next Government on the basis of guesswork”.

If National doesn’t have confidence in the census data being used to re-draw the electorates then the party could take legal action or simply pull out of involvement in the Representation Commission, which would collapse the whole process. This article says that National want the 2013 census data to be used instead, and “National was not ruling out ‘alternative action’ if this did not happen”.

A big issue is the matter of when Statistics NZ manages to get the data to the Electoral Commission, which is currently unknown. National’s David Farrar explains the problems with the timetable: “This would normally have been September 2018, so we’d have new boundaries by March 2019 – well before the election. If Stats NZ can’t release census data before say December 2019, then we’d have final boundaries in June 2020. That would be a disaster. Selections would have occurred by then. You can’t change boundaries just three months before an election. Parliament would probably have to legislate to delay the new boundaries until after the 2020 election. Ideally new boundaries should be finalised before election year. That means Stats NZ really needs to get the data out by June 2019. Any later than that and it will create a real headache for the boundaries review” – see: The census disaster gets worse.

Blame game and unaccountability

Given the anniversary of the 2018 census debacle, there is now a renewed interest in working out exactly what went so wrong a year ago and who is to blame. Journalists have had great trouble getting answers on any of this, because both the Government and Statistics New Zealand have been uncooperative and uncommunicative about what has happened.

But with the help of the Official Information Act, Newsroom’s David Williams has accessed 189 pages of information from Statistics New Zealand, which help illustrate the process during which the disaster unfolded – see his must-read account of “a digital-first experiment gone wrong”: Bungled, costly census to produce less ().

Williams has also been seeking comment from officials and politicians. He says “Stats NZ said no one was available for an interview.” And the Minister of Statistics James Shaw is asked “about his confidence in the integrity of the census data”, to which he rather weasily replies: “I am confident Stats NZ is making every effort and applying as many options as possible to deliver robust Census data.”

And a Statistics New Zealand official is interviewed, who says: “There is no accountability or responsibility being taken internally for what is turning out to be the worst census in over 50 years.”

For a very in-depth and interesting account of the census debacle, see the Otago Daily Times feature story, And then there were nine, by Bruce Munro, which was published in the weekend. This is, so far, the ultimate exploration of what went wrong.

Kathy Connolly, Stats NZ’s census general manager, answers questions put to her about whether the debacle was a result of the previous National Government running down the public service and replies “no comment”. Was the debacle due to Stats NZ being asked to “Go do a cheap census”? Again: “No further comment”.

There is also great debate in the article between Labour and National politicians about underfunding and oversight. They both blame each other, of course.

Munro also reports: “What exactly happened is hotly debated, but not loudly. Most of those close to the action will not talk on the record. At an operational level, when it came to rolling out New Zealand’s first largely online census, several wheels fell off, they say. There wasn’t enough publicity. Statistics New Zealand relied on the diminished postal system to get initial information to people. There were not enough forms. Fewer people were employed to follow up on those who had not filled out their form.”

In the end, the results of the census debacle are likely to impact negatively on the marginalised of society. In this regard, the views of the University of Otago’s professor of public health, Peter Crampton, are reported: “those for whom good social policy is of the highest priority” will be undercounted. The result will be a worsening of their position: “If these groups become invisible in the census then policy-making becomes doubly difficult and some of the least advantaged communities are at risk of becoming further marginalised.”

The decision by Statistics New Zealand to slash the number of census field workers is “beyond comprehension” according to economist Brian Easton – see his opinion piece today: Census mess can be resolved with a new one in 2021. But Easton argues that it’s quite feasible for the Government to get a robust new census up and running for the early date of 2021.

Finally, have Statistics NZ staff been spending too long “checking their privilege” instead of checking the pulse of the nation? Just before Christmas it was discovered that the government agency had their staff carry out a game to determine who was ‘white’, ‘Christian’, ‘able-bodied’, ‘male’, ‘heterosexual’ and had ‘no speech impediment’ – see Dan Satherley’s Stats NZ defends hosting ‘Check Your Privilege Bingo’ game.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

There’s no doubt about it. The latest political poll is terrible news for the National Party and Simon Bridges. The only question is whether it signals the end of Bridges’ leadership of the party. 

The Newshub Reid Research poll was described last night by Newshub political editor Tova O’Brien as being a “massive hit” for National and “a dark day for Simon Bridges”. The poll showed Labour to be up 4.9 percentage points to a record 47.5 per cent, and National down 3.5 points, putting them on only 41.6 per cent, which was apparently a record low for the Newshub/Reid poll. You can see all the detail in Tova O’Brien’s story, National plunges to worst result in over a decade – Newshub poll.

According to O’Brien, the poll results are “a game-changer, and for Simon Bridges it could be ‘game over’.”

This was reinforced by a second factor – the fact that Bridges was now in third place as “preferred prime minister”, down 3.9 points to just 5 per cent. In contrast, Jacinda Ardern was now on 41.8 per cent. The real problem for Bridges, is that Judith Collins was slightly ahead of him in this poll – leapfrogging him by going up 2.5 points to 6.2 per cent. You can see these details in O’Brien’s item, NZ prefers Judith Collins to Simon Bridges as Prime Minister – Newshub poll.

A third factor making this bad news for Bridges was that the poll also showed voters deemed his performance to be very poor. O’Brien reports: “Just 21.9 percent of people think Simon Bridges is performing well – more than twice as many think he’s performing poorly (50.8 percent). The rest don’t know. By way of context 68.3 percent of voters think Jacinda Ardern’s performing well, while just 16.8 percent think she’s performing poorly” – see: Simon Bridges’ trifecta from hell.

To illustrate how bad this is for Bridges, O’Brien compares this to previous Labour leaders: “To find a Leader of the Opposition doing this badly, you have to track back through our poll archives to 2010. Only Phil Goff did as badly as Bridges, with his abysmal Preferred PM rating of 5.1 percent. That means even the disastrous duo of Davids – David Shearer and David Cunliffe – were given a greater vote of confidence than Bridges. That’s really saying something.”

The Newshub political editor therefore predicts that Bridges’ time as National leader is nearly up, saying “His ousting is starting to look like a case of when, not if.” She says that the only factor keeping him in the position is his colleagues’ fear of making things worse by starting a process of leadership changes: “The Nats are very conscious that leadership changes can be extremely damaging for a party, and things can spiral out of control very quickly (see the Labour Party circa 2008-2017).”

The Case for Bridges being in trouble

Talking on The AM Show this morning, Newshub’s Duncan Garner also said that this fear of “a Labour-style leader-go-round” would be a stabilising factor for Bridges, but the polls are heading closer to a “trigger point” whereby he will be gone: “Three more polls with Collins ahead of Bridges, and if National’s support dips into the 30s, Simon will be gone” – see: Polls can change a leader.

Garner says that although the Newshub poll wasn’t putting National into “crisis”, “last night’s poll was an earthquake moment, and that’s because the earth has moved.” He says: “It’s a damn awful position for Bridges. It’s just dreadful for him. Polls actually mean diddly-squat this far out from the election, except polls can change the leader. Hands of National MPs are hovering over the red button – but they’re yet to push eject. Until now there has been no mood to ditch Bridges.”

Newstalk ZB’s political editor Barry Soper has said that with the latest poll, Bridges is now unsustainable as leader, and “the writing is essentially on the wall” – see: New poll reveals dire results for National and Simon Bridges.

Soper doesn’t see the National caucus waiting for another poll before moving against Bridges: “They had an opinion poll, that was their internal polling, at their caucus last week. That apparently was still in the 40s, but Simon Bridges’ own polling was not shown to his caucus”. According to this article, “Soper says that is rare, as the leader’s polls is usually shown to the caucus. He says this also happened at the final caucus meeting last year.”

Stuff political editor, Tracy Watkins, is also pessimistic about Bridges’ fortunes, saying although National’s internal polling is supposedly higher, public “polls have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. And that is what Bridges will fear most” – see: Poll hit for National Party and leader Simon Bridges.

Watkins says that although National being on 41 per cent “might not look like much of a crisis”, having Bridges’ own polling sinking so badly will threaten to take the party down with him. What’s more, with Judith Collins surpassing him, “there is now someone voters see as a more credible leader than him.” And she reports that “momentum has been quietly building behind Collins within the caucus.”

Watkins also points to a morale problem amongst National MPs, given that they might have expected many of their campaigns against the Government to be producing better public support: “That is what will hit National hardest. There is nothing more demoralising to Opposition MPs than seeing their bullets hit without making an impact.”

The Case against National panicking

Not everyone agrees with such negative readings of the latest poll. Herald political editor Audrey Young has pooh-poohed all the talk of a crisis in National: “The latest Newshub Reid Research poll was more dramatic in its presentation than in its results. It may cause a murmur in National but is not the sort of result that will throw the party into crisis or into a coup mentality” – see: Polls will have to be a lot worse for a lot longer before knives are sharpened against Simon Bridges.

Here’s her main reasoning: “There is too much variation in the results to be sure of a trend, although it makes sense that a party led by a popular leader doing a great job for New Zealand in Europe at the time the poll was taken would receive a decent lift. But polling 41.6 per cent for National is not crisis territory. Judith Collins being ahead of Bridges as preferred Prime Minister by 1.2 points is not surprising seeing as it has been predicted for the past year. But this is not the sort of result that triggers talk of resignations or coups. National’s party vote polling would have to get a lot worse for a lot longer before the knives are sharpened for Bridges.”

Two political commentators from the left and the right agreed that Bridges is safe for the moment, and that National would be extremely unwise to get rid of him at this stage – see Newshub’s National would be ‘morons’ to change leaders at the moment – commentators.

Appearing on The AM Show, rightwing pundit Trish Sherson declared: “I think if you were in the National Party, you’d be an absolute moron to be panicking around this”. In agreement, leftwing commentator Chris Trotter said, “If they don’t learn from the Labour party experience, they are fools, because a revolving door approach to leadership is just going to drive you down.” He also questioned whether Collins has the ability to capture the necessary centre ground of politics.

Similarly, Tim Watkin cautions against reading too much into Collins’ six per cent support in the latest poll: “What is Collins’ ceiling? It’s all very well to get six, 12, even 18 percent of New Zealanders excited. But can you imagine her on 41.8 percent, as Ardern is today? Or the 40+ percent Key so consistently achieved? Can she generate the popularity of a John Key or win over a coalition partner? There’s the rub” – see: Newshub poll: If this is the winter of Bridge’s discontent, he can’t be too discontented. And on the six per cent polling, he adds, “It’s hardly a momentous number in itself and not a number from which you’d launch a coup.”

Watkin also puts forward some strong arguments for why we shouldn’t be surprised that National has gone down in the polls at this stage, making the case that politics is “seasonal” and National is currently in its Autumn or perhaps Winter. Therefore, all the sudden “talk of knives, fretful meetings and calamity” is premature.

The Spinoff’s Toby Manhire also has a useful discussion of National’s polling and where they might be going – see: Judith Collins just leapfrogged Simon Bridges. Does she now try to crush him?

Manhire says Bridges could have expected a better poll result, but his colleagues might be best to wait it out: “It’s all the rougher because he’s actually had a decent last few months. After the whiplash of the Jami-Lee Ross saga he seemed to emerge stronger, or at maybe just somehow liberated. Tax was obviously a sensible focus for his first major initiative of the year. He might not have won much media attention at Waitangi, but his speech at the powhiri was impressive. He can reasonably point out that 42% is hardly a nosedive – under MMP that remains a healthy result. And we’ve barely begun the second act of the term. As everyone agrees, 2019 is the year that Labour must deliver on its promises, with or despite its oxygen-hungry government partners. Bridges will be urging his colleagues to let him get stuck in.”

Finally, to get a sense of Bridges’ last year as leader of the National Party, and all the ups and downs, see my blog post Cartoons about National Party leader Simon Bridges.