Bridges is National’s spokesperson for finance and infrastructure.

Kanongataá-Suisuiki said in a Facebook post that she had tested positive on a day 3 test of home isolation, after her daughter had contracted the coronavirus.

In a social media post, she said she had lost her sense of smell and taste, but was “feeling ok”.

Last week, Environment Minister David Parker reported testing positive, and said he had minor symptoms and was “not feeling too bad”.

He had not been in the Beehive since the previous week, so was not with other MPs or staff while infectious, he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It followed Judith Collins’ tumultuous exit as leader last week, after she summarily demoted Bridges last week.

Shellshocked, MPs went into a hastily called caucus the next morning and cast a vote of no confidence in her. Deputy Shane Reti became interim leader and the vote for leader was set down for today.

“It is a tremendous privilege to lead our great party, and I thank my colleagues for the confidence they have placed in me,” Luxon said in a statement shortly after the vote.

Luxon, a former chief executive of Air New Zealand between 2012-2019, also said that he was pleased Nicola Willis had been chosen as his deputy.

“She will do an incredible job and we will be a formidable team.”

They face a National Party reset at a critical when New Zealand has been facing its toughest covid-19 lockdown after initially weathering the first waves of the virus last year.

Evangelical Christian
Luxon, who describes himself as an Evangelical Christian and has expressed his opposition to policies such as abortion and cannabis legalisation, said he had entered politics because he was a problem solver who “gets things done”.

“I have built a career out of reversing the fortunes of under-performing companies and I’ll bring that real-world experience to this role.”

Video: RNZ News

Luxon said he and Willis would be working hard to earn back New Zealanders’ trust and confidence “and deliver for them”.

He also promised that the party would be unified under their leadership.

“We are the new National Party that New Zealand needs.”

Luxon’s main rival, former leader Simon Bridges, tweeted his support for Luxon with just over an hour remaining before this afternoon’s caucus meeting where the party voted on the new leader.

“This morning I met with Chris Luxon and had a great discussion. I am withdrawing from the leadership contest and will be backing Chris. He will make a brilliant National leader and Prime Minister,” he said.

This morning I met with Chris Luxon and had a great discussion. I am withdrawing from the leadership contest and will be backing Chris. He will make a brilliant National leader and Prime Minister.

— Simon Bridges (@simonjbridges) November 30, 2021

Few words for media
“Luxon had few words for the media as he arrived at Parliament this afternoon.

“Great day for the National Party, it’s really wonderful today … I’m looking forward to going to see my caucus colleagues,” he said.

Other National MPs were saying little as they arrived at Parliament throughout the morning and early afternoon.

Covid-19 Response spokesperson Chris Bishop, who had been raised as a possibility in initial speculation about the leadership, also backed Luxon.

“He’s gonna make a great leader of the National Party, he’s gonna make a great prime minister, I can’t wait to serve in his team. It’s an exciting day for New Zealand, big reset moment for the National Party.”

He said Bridges would remain in the party.

“Simon’s gonna be a critical part of the National team going forward, he’s got undoubted political skills, I’m really looking forward to serving with him, he’s gonna make a great whatever role he gets from Christopher Luxon and National just resets now.

Go forward together
“We go forward together and we’re gonna change the government in two years’ time.”

Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey said it would mean a new direction for the party.

“I’m looking for a fresh start and a new vision for the party, and a new vision for the country. I’m looking forward to that, it’s exciting.”

List MP Melissa Lee said she thought Luxon was “very experienced in life”.

“He is very new but the thing is that he’s not daft. He’s a very intelligent man, I think he has led companies before and although it is actually a very different feel, that experience does speak to his life experience and I think he will make a great leader.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Te Aniwa Hurihanganui, RNZ News Te Manu Korihi reporter

Members of Parliament sitting on New Zealand’s Epidemic Response Committee say the chair, opposition National Party leader Simon Bridges, is to blame for the lack of Māori voices at the committee meetings.

The committee is tasked with challenging the government’s response to the covid-19 coronavirus epidemic, but in six weeks only two Māori organisations have been invited to speak.

Labour’s Ruth Dyson said she and other MPs had proposed a number of Māori spokespeople and organisations to appear at the committee, but most of those proposals had been ignored by Bridges.

READ MORE: Al Jazeera coronavirus live updates – US death toll surges to more than 70,000

“At the end of every meeting we have a discussion about further questions, further submitters, what we want to do and what key issues we want to see, and we have consistently raised the issue of under representation of Māori voices,” she said.

“We have put in written proposals to the chair of the committee, the honourable Simon Bridges, specifically linked to topics that have been agreed on like health, like education, like sport… We’ve made genuine proposals and to date they have not been successful.”

Dyson said Māori input at the committee was incredibly important.

‘For all of NZ’
“This is for all of New Zealand and we have to make sure that the most vulnerable, most disadvantaged, and likely most negatively impacted if things went badly wrong, should have their voices heard when we’re considering these issues,” she said.

“We will continue to raise these issues, but in the end the chair sets the agenda.”

Te Roopu Whakakaupapa Urutā, a group of more than 50 Māori health experts and policy specialists, and the iwi chairs forum criticised the committee earlier this week for ignoring their expertise and leaving them out.

However, that message seemed to have fallen on deaf ears yesterday when the committee met with the education sector and did not hear from a single Māori education provider.

In a statement, The Kōhanga Reo National Trust said it was disappointed the committee had not approached them to speak at the committee.

“Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust was not invited to participate in the Epidemic Response Committee’s education-themed select committee. It is disappointing the committee excluded Kōhanga Reo from the process. The trust is always ready to share our experiences especially when there is an opportunity to improve the lives, health and wellbeing of our mokopuna.”

Bridges cannot assure Māori will appear
Bridges said it was still his aspiration to hear from more Māori at the committee, and he was considering a day dedicated to hearing from Māori.

“It’s always the aspiration to hear from more folk at the committee, I can tell you quite clearly I probably have 50 proposals from really significant bodies and agencies who want to come along.”

But he could not give any assurances Māori would appear at the committee any time soon.

“It does depend a bit though on how long the committee goes for, we’re full this week of course,” he said.

Pressed on why only two Māori leaders have spoken to the committee, Bridges told RNZ Morning Report the committee had had a busy agenda and some leaders had spoken.

“I’m very focused on what Māori leadership are focused on.”

He agreed more should be on the committee but he couldn’t say when he would invite them.

“Look, I’m not going to decide the committee agenda in a radio interview.”

Green Party to keep pressing
While Dyson said Bridges had rejected proposals to have more Māori leaders on, he told Morning Report Dyson had never personally raised the issue with him.

Green Party co-leader and committee member Marama Davidson said she would keep pushing to make sure more Māori voices could be heard.

“We’re hearing more and more that the committee would actually benefit from at least a whole day of focus purely on the Māori response and Māori leadership to Covid-19… That is something we will continue to raise and ask for,” she said.

The Epidemic Response Committee is meeting with the New Zealand Cancer Society, Funeral Directors of New Zealand and representatives of the palliative care sector today.

No Māori group working in these fields have been invited.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A thorn in the side of National, former MP Chester Borrows punctured his party’s “law and order week” before it even started, by framing its new crime and punishment stances as ignorant and dangerous. Appearing in the media early in the week, he painted National’s discussion document as populist, opportunist, and a knee-jerk response where a more sophisticated one is desperately needed.

On Monday Borrows published a must-read opinion piece, lamenting that “Kiwis are addicted to punishment” and suggesting politicians keep feeding this by trying to outbid each other on nonsensical crackdowns on crime – see: ‘Tough on crime’ rhetoric is cheap, easy and terrifyingly effective.

Borrows, who is a former Minister of Corrections, is advocating that political parties take an evidence-based approach to law and order solutions. Of course, he’s the head of the Government’s Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group. He says his invitation to the launch of National’s new discussion document must have been lost in the post: “Funnily enough, even though I am a card-carrying member of that organisation, and my subscription has been banked, I have not received my flyer or invitation for this event.”

He suggests National’s stances on law and order issues, such as opposing the Government giving some prisoners the right to vote, are based on an electoral strategy of sinking NZ First: “National Party leader Simon Bridges has vowed to reverse the law. Not based on evidence, of course, other than the evidence that these policies buy votes and probably votes National already holds. But they will also buy votes from New Zealand First and those votes are gold.”

Bridges has responded to the former Minister of Corrections, saying “We’re not as far away from your prescription as you might think” – see: A response to my old mate, Chester Borrows, on crime and justice.

Here’s Bridges key point: “I hope Chester takes the opportunity to read the law and order policy document I released today because he might just be pleasantly surprised. Chester listed nine things he wanted to see. We have five of them in our document. Five more than Labour has plausibly come up with, despite being in government.”

Borrows also went on TV1 Breakfast to talk about the issues on the morning before the release of National’s discussion document, arguing that instead of getting “tougher on crime”, “we should get smarter on crime” – see: National’s former courts minister defies party’s tough-on-crime rhetoric – ‘It hasn’t worked’.

Borrows said: “We need to take a sensible approach to this. The tough on crime stuff hasn’t worked… We need to ask ourselves the question whether we want to have policy that’s evidence-based or policy that just tickles the ears of those who might vote for us.”

When asked if National was dog-whistling on these problems, Borrows said: “it’s sad to see the go back to the rhetoric because I think in Government there was a bit more understanding about that… We have to be less reactive and far more innovative and concentrate on what we know works instead of being so afraid of our own shadow that we’re going to stop ourselves from doing anything that looks like innovative or looks like it could be successful.”

The National Party document contained 43 proposals the party is considering adopting as policy for the next election – you can read these here: National is the Party of law and order. This explains the various policies including banning gang patches in public, making prison work compulsory, refusing parole for murderers who don’t give the location of a body and, most controversially, creating an elite police unit to crack down hard on gangs.

Reactions from commentators have been quite scathing. Richard Harman claimed the party was making a major shift to the right: “National Leader Simon Bridges yesterday broke with years of liberal traditions in his Party and swung it sharply to the right with a new hardline law and order policy. This follows on an increasing shift to the right under Bridges with policies like his promise to pull New Zealand out of the UN Compact on Migration” see: Simon: That’s not what English, Joyce and even Collins said.

He pointed out that previous senior National figures had been noticeably less gung-ho about policies that would lead to higher incarceration rates, citing examples such as Bill English’s statement that prisons were “a moral and fiscal failure”. And he pointed out that “National has not provided an estimate of how much their crackdown would increase the prison population by, nor the cost of building new facilities.”

Barry Soper also sees the new proposals as fairly cynical, saying “We’ve heard it all before – smash the gangs, dismantle their fortresses, ban the patches – and we’ll no doubt hear it all again in three years’ time as we enter another election year” – see: Simon Bridges takes ‘tough on crime’ to a new level.

He points to some of the potential civil liberties issues with the suggested clampdown on gangs: “This country has a Bill of Rights – and that means no matter how unpopular the organisation you belong to might be, or even if you have broken the law, everyone is entitled to be treated the same under the law. You are innocent until you are proven guilty.”

Soper suggests a different target: “Consider this: more than half a billion dollars a year is generated by organised crime in this country – and many of those who generate it prefer a Pierre Cardin suit to a patch. It might not be as electorally popular, but perhaps it’s time to cast the law-and-order net wider.”

Similarly, Heather du Plessis-Allan argues a more sophisticated approach is necessary to combat the real reasons people are joining gangs: “The only way you stop kids from wanting to join up is if you give them an alternative. A chance to be good at sport, a job to earn cash, anything other than this nonsense” – see: National’s gang plan is welcome, but will it work?

Nonetheless, in lieu of such progressive policies, she considers National’s proposals “a welcome idea”. Also, “it’ll play well with voters”.

The idea of creating an elite anti-gang policing unit modelled on an Australia version has received the most criticism. For the most comprehensive critique, see Laura Walters’ Strike Force Raptor unit won’t stop organised crime. According to this, “an Australian gang expert says a lot of resources go into the unit’s work, with little reward”.

An even harsher evaluation came from an Australia academic who previously worked as an undercover detective dealing with the gangs. Mike Kennedy calls the Australian experience a “disaster” and says Bridges “needs to pull his head out of whatever it’s stuck in because … [gangs] exist. They’re always going to exist. They just go underground” – see Craig McCulloch’s Australian ex-cop blasts National’s ‘Strike Force Raptor’ plan.

Perhaps the most even-handed evaluation came from the Herald’s Derek Cheng who points to the mix of liberal and conservative policy in the document, but concludes: “the overwhelming impression is one of an election-year document that seems to make no apology for populism” – see: Populism alive and well in National’s law and order proposals (paywalled).

Cheng points to some of the more liberal or evidence-based policies in the new document: “These include having mental health nurses at police watch houses and attending incidents alongside police and paramedics. Social Investment attempts to use data to find those most at risk from an early age and intervene accordingly. More and earlier treatment for remand prisoners and more education, training and work to help keep prisoners from re-offending seems to be one area where National and Labour can agree. Such proposals show National’s document attempting to appeal to the evidence as well as the voter.”

Similarly, John Weekes also points to the criticisms and limitations of National’s proposals but says overall its not as reactionary as it’s being painted – see: National’s crime gurus must heed lessons from abroad to break cycle of repeat offending.

Here’s his key point: “The discussion document, running across thousands of words and dozens of pages, is not as repulsive as some commentators describe. Despite pandering to ‘tough on crime’ platitudes, references to law and order being in ‘National’s DNA’, and occasional unself-conscious bluster, the party has published some nuanced proposals. These include concessions a ‘social investment’ approach is needed to save at-risk youth and help first-time offenders. The ‘no body no parole’ idea will thankfully not affect many people, but is hard to oppose.”

But there certainly are some strong negative reactions. Collette Devlin pointed to some of these in her article, Experts: National’s law and order proposals sound good but have no substance.

The most notable of these was from University of Auckland Criminologist Ron Kramer, who labelled them “transparently pathetic” and “overblown propaganda”. On the Strike Force Raptor proposal, he said: “It’s just rhetoric. It’s completely empty… it’s a completely erroneous way of thinking about the problem… In fact, it’s probably going to make life more miserable for a lot of people. This kind of criminalisation just stigmatises and creates a permanently excluded group of individuals from society.”

On the gang patch ban, Kramer stated: “It’s not evidence based. It’s not about what actually works. It’s just pure political rhetoric and the public should demand better… I don’t think it’s going to do anything. I think all this law and order discourse is just all about political posturing to win votes… It’s all just stupid policies to appease popular anger and resentment… I’m surprised people aren’t so sick and tired of this political bulls…”.

Simon Bridges responded to the article on Twitter, saying “So who are the ‘experts’ plural who know so much about criminology in this piece? Some sweary bear Ron Kramer, gang apologist Denis O’Rielly, Chester Borrows & Mob Pres Sonny Fatupaito. Really?”

Kramer’s university hit back on Twitter: “for the record, the ‘Sweary Bear’ you refer to is Dr Ronald Kramer, a senior lecturer in criminology at the university. Dr Kramer has a PhD in sociology from Yale, has been published in the British Journal of Criminology and elsewhere and is a respected commentator. #expertbear” – see 1News’ Auckland University retaliates after Simon Bridges calls academic ‘sweary bear’.

Bridges also hit out at a tweet from Newsroom editor Tim Murphy, who wrote: “Is there anything more unimaginative in opposition policy-making than ‘work for the dole’ ‘get the gangs’ or ‘hard labour for prisoners’?” Bridges’ response was: “Is there anything more unimaginative than a middle-class journalist sneering predictably about a centre-right political party arguing for policies in line with its long-held principles?”

Finally, the one part of the document that has caused the biggest stir is the name of Australia’s elite anti-gang squad, with plenty of parody about this online – see Zane Small’s National’s ‘Strike Force Raptor’ idea sparks Twitter meme extravaganza.

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Will New Zealand have its first Māori prime minister next year? That’s what Simon Bridges is suggesting, and despite scepticism from critics and commentators, there’s good reason to take him seriously. The National Party annual conference in the weekend went well for the party, and there are other signs to suggest the chances of “Prime Minister Simon Bridges” are looking stronger than ever.

In his keynote speech in the weekend, Bridges seemed to relish the fact that his ordinary background, along with that of other colleagues such as Paula Bennett, is picked on by opponents. Amongst other points, Bridges said: “It is the National Party that has shown that a young Ngāti Maniapoto boy from West Auckland, who talks like a boy from West Auckland, the son of a Baptist preacher and a teacher, can grow up to become the first Māori leader of a mainstream party in New Zealand, and the first Māori Prime Minister of our great country.”

Replying to this last point, political journalist Sam Sachdeva wrote: “To call the last clause premature would be an understatement to say the very least… the odds are firmly stacked against Bridges. Tougher battles await the National leader” – see his column, Bridges rebuilds confidence after trying year.

Sachdeva’s column is a very good examination of the place that Bridges and National are in at the moment, and it concludes that over the weekend the leader “has at least bought himself some more time” to fight the battles necessary to succeed. Even talk of leadership coups seems to be off the table, given Bridges stronger performance lately.

Sachdeva believes that leadership rival Judith Collins “will have to wait in the wings a little longer, after Bridges’ Sunday speech seemed to create a mixture of excitement and relief, winning over even those sceptical of his performance to date.”

Other journalists observing the National conference considered it a success for both party and leader. The Herald’s Derek Cheng gave a strong review of Bridges speech, saying “He needed a king hit for his keynote speech, and he delivered one” – see: Simon Bridges delivers speech to rapturous audience at National Party conference (paywalled).

Cheng reported a strong reception from the party: “The rapture in the auditorium after his speech was far more convincing than on Saturday [for his previous speech], and the consensus, even among the sceptics in the party faithful, was that it was easily his best speech. ‘By a long shot,’ said one MP. Another said that it had transformed some doubtful delegates into believers.”

Similarly, Richard Harman says the conference “ended up going far better than sceptics within the party feared it might” and that “for the meantime” the question of Bridges’ leadership seems to be off the table – see: Most of the Nats survive the weekend.

And Harman also wrote yesterday that “It looks as though the ongoing low-key leadership challenge to National Leader Simon Bridges has fizzled out”, pointing to the promotion yesterday of another alleged leadership rival, Todd Muller – see: Bridges gives Muller huge promotion.

Harman argues that Muller’s promotion – in which he gives up his Climate Change portfolio, taking up the more prestigious Agriculture from departing MP Nathan Guy – indicates that Bridges no longer regards the new agriculture spokesperson as a threat to his leadership: “That Bridges has felt confident enough to give him such a big lift up the caucus rankings suggests that he must believe that till the election at least, Muller poses no threat.”

Harman also says that Muller “was believed to have the backing of some senior members of the caucus. But many of those who supported him believe it is too early for him to take the leadership now; that he is not widely known enough among the public”.

However, for a very different theory on the promotion, see Thomas Coughlan’s Todd Muller promoted in National Party reshuffle, but climate change demoted. He argues the wider National Party has become dissatisfied with Muller’s role in the climate change portfolio: “At the party’s conference over the weekend, Muller was hit by allegations that the party was moving too fast on climate change. Many members still do not believe in climate change, and it appeared there was still a strong voice within the party that doesn’t want to move on the issue. This appeared to have fed back to the party leadership, which is solely responsible for reshuffle decisions.”

Successful conference and announcements

National’s announcement of a new cancer agency policy has been judged to be very successful. RNZ’s Jane Patterson thought it was clever politics: “No-one will argue against the merits of a plan to tackle cancer, so it was a smart move of National’s Simon Bridges to unveil a plan hitting the government where it hurts. It has also put the coalition on the back foot, getting out a solid policy weeks before the Health Minister David Clark makes public his own action plan” – see: National’s cancer agency promise a smart political move.

Even some of National’s biggest critics seemed to have praise for the announcement. For example, despite seeing the policy as inconsistent with National’s time in government, David Cormack welcomed the policy as a sign that National wasn’t going too rightwing under Bridges: “it’s a particularly good thing when you consider that New Zealand’s largest right-of-centre party is wanting to put more money into socialised healthcare. All around the world, democracies are battling with right wing reactionaries… While here in New Zealand we get a commitment to fund more social healthcare” – see: It’s National v National on cancer (paywalled).

And Cormack pointed out that this seemed to be a trend under Bridges, as the big policy announcement at his previous conference had been for smaller class sizes. Similarly, political journalist Henry Cooke, pointed out how interesting it was that these types of policies were so well received by the National Party membership: “This is not the kind of stuff to you would expect to get the National Party faithful standing and applauding. It’s not a law and order policy or tax cut or a primary sector subsidy – it’s new health spending. This is the kind of thing Labour does. In fact, Labour promised to set up a similar cancer centre in opposition and haven’t got around to doing it yet” – see: National ventures into vacated Labour territory with cancer announcement.

Cooke also suggests the cancer policy will be electorally successful: “The inequity in care across the country is a real issue and one that will rankle National’s rural base, as care is generally better in larger cities. Not many Kiwis think people in Australia should be able to get life-saving drugs cheap when we can’t. And with the spectre of the provincial growth fund in the background Bridges now gets to ride around the country comparing what he calls a slush fund to his own cancer drugs fund, making the implicit argument that both the Government and National want to spend more money, National would just spend it better.”

Strong polling and a “pathway to power”

The best news for National actually came after the conference, with Monday’s 1News Colmar Brunton poll putting National on 45 per support, which was up one point, and two points ahead of Labour.

According to Claire Trevett, this strong result, taken before the conference and cancer treatment announcement, will be seen by Bridges “as vindicating his decision to focus on cost of living attacks – and to pit his party’s policies against Ardern’s personality” – see: Relief for National’s Simon Bridges, none for Winston Peters in new poll (paywalled).

She also points out that “National’s campaign against the Government’s fuel tax increases and proposed ‘car tax’ to help fund subsidies for electric cars was also at full tilt as the polling was under way.”

For the National Party’s own pollster, David Farrar, the results are a “remarkably good result for National after 21 months of opposition” – see: Latest poll. He points out that the numbers appear to put National in striking range of winning the next election: “All National needs to do is take 2% off Labour or 1% off the Greens and they’re in Government.”

There is still a “pathway to power” being seen by National supporters, which is a crucial motivating factor. And Peter Dunne has written further in the weekend about what National might need in order to win: “current electoral mathematics offer National some hope. Assuming it holds all its current seats, regains Botany, and sees Act over the line again in Epsom, it would need to win just 4 of the 17 seats New Zealand First and the Greens hold currently to be able to form a government. If the Greens keep their seats, and New Zealand First falls out, National would need to win just 4 of the 9 New Zealand First seats to have a majority” – see: The next election is not over yet.

Dunne’s calculations, however, suggest that Winston Peters might still be the barrier to a National win: “if New Zealand First remains in the mix, Labour’s re-election prospects are boosted considerably – with National most likely left to ponder at least three more years of rebuilding.”

On this topic, broadcaster Kate Hawkesby argues that ruling out New Zealand First would help Bridges with his own leadership image, making him look more decisive, but also increase National’s chance of governing next year – see: National leader Simon Bridges need to be more decisive – and rule out Winston Peters.

Here’s her main advice to the National leader: “he should see the wood for the trees, realise Winston’s never dealing with him in a million years and rule him out. I am of the ‘rule him out’ camp… So forget them. There is no deal. Let them fall below the 5 per cent. And in ruling them out, Simon Bridges gets to look like a decisive and principled leader who shows strength, and takes action.”

Mike Hosking provides similar advice to Bridges: “What he could do, and for the life of me I can’t work out why he hasn’t, is cut Winston Peters out of the equation. Rule New Zealand First out, and in doing that you take away his kingmaker status, and I would guess potentially suck up a point or two of support which would almost certainly put him below the five per cent threshold” – see: National leader Simon Bridges is not a rock star, but he’s hardly a shambles either.

John Key also turned up at the conference and gave his advice about New Zealand First: “It’s not for me to say, and ultimately every leader has to make their own call. But I think Winston Peters’ colours were pretty clearly identified a long time ago, certainly on display in 2017 when he made a smaller party the Government” – see Derek Cheng’s Sir John Key to Simon Bridges at National Party conference: Don’t get disheartened.

Bridges is reported in this article saying that he’s still optimistic about other minor parties emerging that might help National govern: “I’m not saying I have a clear sense that will happen. But with the right candidates and the right people, it might happen… And there’s still a Māori Party that has a couple of per cent on any kind of week. I think there will be options”.

National’s pathway to power has also been greatly enhanced by an improved performance recently by Bridges and his colleagues. This is well detailed by Audrey Young in her column, National heads into conference in a state of limbo over leader Simon Bridges (paywalled). Young says: “Bridges is performing better in the media. Bridges had an excellent week this past week. He was an even match for Jacinda Ardern in the House over the cost of living, which is not an unimportant arena”.

And in general, under Bridges National is making life difficult for the Government: “he and his team have been very good at picking issues and creating messages that resonate with voters and get under the Government’s skin. It began with the scores of reviews, commissions and working parties set up by Jacinda Ardern and continues over cost of living issues, roading, and taxation. As time progresses and official statistics show increases in state housing waiting lists, rents, numbers on job seeker support, hardship grants, hospital waiting lists, cancer treatment times, the scope for National is expanding daily. Bridges has been especially successful on taxation.”

In the end, however, it might all come down to fate and some good caucus and party membership discipline according to Liam Hehir – see: National’s path to victory in 2020. He says that whether Bridges becomes prime minister next year might simply be down to the performance of the Greens and New Zealand First.

However, despite some of these more positive evaluations of National at the moment, some commentators are still predicting doom, with National insider Matthew Hooton leading the pack with a devastating appraising on Friday – see: National stumbling to defeat (paywalled).

Hooton says that the leadership issue is still the main problem: “Bridges’ unfavourability ratings are at levels seldom seen by pollsters. Those conducting focus groups say it is difficult to even get a conversation going on the possibility of him being Prime Minister, so improbable do voters consider the idea. Sadly for him, voters simply won’t take seriously anything Bridges has to say, so National has no effective means of communicating policy to the public, even if it had any.”

He concludes: “Could things really get worse under new management, whether Collins, Muller or even Nikki Kaye?”

Finally, for recent cartoons on National and its leader, see my blog post, Cartoons about National Party leader Simon Bridges (updated).

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.

Accusations have surfaced alleging the current National Party leadership conspired to politically destroy Jami-Lee Ross – this after details of his affair with a fellow party MP became known to them. The allegations raise serious questions. Those questions include: what did National’s leader and deputy leader know and when did they find out?

A sworn-to timeline of events is now essential so that the public interest can be satisfied. This must be a crucial element that is cemented in to the methodology of Simon Bridges’ inquiry into the culture of the National Party. Above all, it must be independent and publicly accessible.

The inquiry must examine the National leadership team’s actions and culture, test whether they acted in a proper and timely manner, and assess whether their actions considered a concern for the welfare and mental health of an MP they had previously supported, promoted, and embedded within their leadership team.

It follows that allegations suggesting a “hit job” was orchestrated from inside the National Party leadership must also be independently explored.

If the inquiry finds that either the leader, or deputy leader, was part of a destructive and inhumane attack on Jami-Lee Ross – while it was known that he was at high risk of being pushed over the edge, was ill, and verging on suicide – and that they acted without reasonable regard for his welfare, then it must be accepted by the National Party caucus, its membership and the public, that this National leadership team is at the very least morally bankrupt.

This inquiry ought to be conducted amidst a background whereby Ross declared his role in the destructive side of politics; following the orders of Sir John Key, Bill English, Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges. Ross was afterall a ‘numbers man’ for Bridges, and benefitted from the patronage that the Bridges-Bennett leadership team offered.

There are a number of ‘ifs’ in this analysis, but the public interest demands that they be considered.

The allegations have surfaced on the blog-site Whaleoil which is owned and edited by controversial writer Cameron Slater.

Some may dismiss the allegations on the basis of tribalism, or ignore the allegations because Slater was centrally involved in National’s so called Dirty Politics as revealed in 2014. But the nature of the allegations are as serious as they get in politics, and, if accurate played a part in the sudden deterioration of Jami-Lee Ross’ mental health, the sectioning of Ross for his own protection, and the erasion of credibility of a potential political opponent who was determined to continue as a critical member of New Zealand’s Parliament.

This analysis’ argument suggests any such bias, on behalf by Cameron Slater’s opponents, ought to be ethically and morally put aside until such a time as the truth and facts are tested. Such an inquiry, preferably judicial but essentially independent, must be robust and critical in its analysis.

To reiterate; numerous elements of this saga elevate the issues to a matter of serious public interest.

And it must be noted at this juncture, that the party’s leader Simon Bridges insists he has acted appropriately and denies taking part in any political “hit job”.

Let’s examine what Evening Report has learned from contacts close to events.

Alleged details of events between Saturday-Sunday October 20-21

There is a txt-chain of events that investigators can forensically examine that are central to understanding who was involved in the sectioning of Jami-Lee Ross.

If the txts are examined they will determine if it is fact that the National Party MP, with whom Jami-Lee Ross had a three-year affair, rang the Police and that as a consequence of that call the Police used mental health laws to take Jami-Lee Ross into custody and contain him within the mental health unit at Counties Manukau Health.

Txts will also show whether it is fact that the female MP then called Simon Bridges’ chief of staff at 9:15pm on Saturday October 20 informing him of the events. If so Bridges’ office was aware of an alleged suicide attempt. Investigators would then be able to assess whether a txt message from Jami-Lee Ross’ psychologist, who Evening Report understands messaged Jami-Lee Ross at 9:28pm on Saturday October 20, asking if he was ok, and that the psychologist had minutes prior received a txt message from Jamie Gray, Simon Bridges’ chief of staff.

It is a matter of public record that Simon Bridges appeared on NewsHub’s AM Show on Tuesday October 23, denying all knowledge of events on the Saturday night – that is until a wider grouping within the National Party became privy to what had happened to Jami-Lee Ross.

It appears reasonable to form an opinion that Bridges’ chief of staff would have informed the leader of such an event. If he didn’t, why didn’t he inform Bridges?

The sectioning of Jami-Lee Ross ended a week where many National Party MPs, and a wider network of those loyal to the party, appeared to be actively orchestrating a coordinated campaign to destroy the so-called rogue MP’s political chances and to discredit his claims of corruption within the National Party leadership. Had Jami-Lee Ross abused his position as the senior whip within the party? It certainly appears so. Did he abuse the power he was afforded? Media reports would suggest this was so. Did he have an affair with at least two women? Yes. But it appears that the public attacks began, not at the time when senior members of the party were informed of Ross’ actions, but, once Ross began to attack the leadership. This is significant.

An Opposition’s Role As The Public’s Advocate

As senior representatives of New Zealand’s Legislature, leader Simon Bridges and deputy leader Paula Bennett can arguably be regarded as the public’s advocates within Parliament. Their job is to keep the Executive Government on its toes, challenge its policy and rationale, to be Parliament’s keepers of the public’s interest.

As such, the public deserves to know if the leaders, as a team or individually, conspired to destroy the political chances of an MP and former colleague, who they considered to have gone rogue, and who they knew was suffering a crisis of mental health so serious that it could have ended in death.

It is in consideration of the public interest, that this editorial is written.

We now know as fact, Jami-Lee Ross had a three year affair with a South Island-based National MP.[name withheld]. Like him, she has two children and was married.

While the affair was going ‘well’, contacts inside the National Party have told Evening Report that Jami-Lee encouraged Bridges to promote his lover above her standing and reputation in caucus, well above some high profile MPs like National’s Chris Bishop who are respected among colleagues and media and seen to have been doing their job well. The promotion was seen to give leverage, to sure up the numbers to stabilise Bridges’ and Bennett’s leadership team at a time when they sensed support was delicate.

Meanwhile, Jami-Lee Ross continued to pull in big donations from wealthy Chinese residents in his Botany electorate. As a reward, Bridges embedded him into his inner core, the top three. Politically, this is really an unsound move by a political leader. With Ross being senior whip, he is supposed to be directed by the leader to pull MPs into line, to do the leader’s bidding, and to do this without necessarily knowing the deep and dark details underlying the leader’s moves.

In effect, with Jami-Lee Ross becoming a central figure, knowing all the details, the dirt, the strategy and tactics, it centralised too much power into the whip position and elevated a real danger of a whip using the position for his own gain. To reiterate, this appears a seriously stupid move of Bridges and Bennett to pull a whip in on their machinations. And, in a significant contact’s view, it appears they risked this because Jami-Lee was pulling in the donor money.

Jami-Lee Ross had been on the rise for a time. Former Prime Minister John Key promoted him to the whips office. Then PM Bill English secured Ross’s rise by maintaining and elevating his whip role. Bridges and Bennett further empowered Jami-Lee Ross by cementing him into the whip position, a move that suggested National’s power-politicians were well satisfied with his service.

It’s hard to tell how far back it was when Jami-Lee Ross began to record Bridges. And, at this juncture, it’s difficult to know if he recorded Bennett as well. The public is left to fathom whether it was when his affair with the National MP went sour and perhaps Ross sensed Bennett having become close to her.

In any event, when Jami-Lee Ross fell out with his colleague and lover, sources say Bennett played a crucial role in the analysis of his conduct, in particular women who had allegedly been burned by Ross. Two women, contacts inside National state, were staff of the National Party leader. The MP (whom Ross had a three-year affair with) and the two staff members are said by National Party contacts to be the subject of NewsRoom.co.nz’s investigation into Ross’ activities, an investigation that is believed to have spanned up to one year in duration. Evening Report raises this aspect as the public interest demands to consider whether it is reasonable to believe that two staffers in the leader’s office never told nor informed Bridges, or the chief of staff, that they were cooperating in a media investigation into the leader’s chief and senior whip?

Contacts state that Bennett gained the women’s confidence, received information so it could be prepared as part of a disciplinary process. Did Bennett choose to engage media with this information? If so, once media received the information, what involvement did the deputy leader have or continue to have, or engage with, the complainants and media?

Sources inside National state Bennett then seeded info about Jami-Lee Ross having had an affair. They point to her having hinted at behaviour unbecoming of a married member of Parliament during an interview before TV, radio and print journalists. Did she do this without Bridges knowing or being forewarned.

If true, in effect, this would have driven the narrative ahead of the leader. If so, it is reasonable to fathom that a senior politician would know Bridges would be forced to defend the character-attack campaign that appeared orchestrated and designed to destroy Ross. Amidst the firestorm, National MP Maggie Barry spoke out against Ross with significant indignation. This will have been digested by the public that National had expelled a human predator from its midst. It also gave the impression National’s female caucus members were unified. However, respected MP Nikki Kaye kept out of it. Why?

Next, Bridges was forced to field political journalists’ questions about breaking the old convention that you keep affairs and family issues under the covers.

Bridges was then compelled to inform media that he had “told off” his deputy leader for giving credence that an affair had been ongoing between Ross and a Nat MP. This made Bridges look even weaker.

The future of National’s leadership

National Party contacts suggest Bridges is positioned where he will be forced to absorb the political fallout for what is seen by some as a character assassination campaign gone wrong. One contact states that once Bridges is rendered useless, and the issue dies down, Bennett herself will be well positioned to remove Bridges as leader in 2019.

It is reasonable to form an opinion that senior National MP Judith Collins will also be available if the leadership were to fall vacant. Her popularity is again on the rise.

At this juncture, for Bridges and Bennett, it appears wise for them to expect more National Party dirt to emerge before the end of the year. Evening Report’s sources say: “ample dirt lingers just below the surface.”

For a party that once stated it had no factions, it certainly seems its personality factions are now in all-out political warfare.

Judith Collins’ star has been rising since she returned to the front-bench in opposition. And it has been bolstered by a favourable Colmar Brunton Poll. It’s fair to suggest she has laid heavy hits on Labour’s Housing Minister Phil Twyford. As a consequence, her standing within the caucus has improved. On investigation, it is clear she has not had the loyalty of Jami-Lee Ross since he was promoted by John Key. He, along with Mark Mitchell, then supported Bill English for the leadership. Bennett and Mitchell are politically close. It does appear that moves by some media to connect Jami-Lee Ross’ revelations with a Judith Collins plan as not based on fact.

While there’s an expectation among interested public that Collins will be the next leader, she will need the support of what’s left of National’s social conservatives and those loyal to Nikki Kaye.

For Collins to succeed, she will have to be seen to inoculate the party from damaging information that may be in the possession of Jami-Lee Ross. All the while, she, like Bennett, needs Bridges to continue to fail as a leader.

It is fair to accept, the recordings and damaging information are now with Cam Slater and Simon Lusk. It is also reasonable to suggest that Bridges is a disappointment to some who once supported his bid for leadership. Cam Slater is clearly appalled at what he refers to as a “hit job”.

Slater is adamant that he is not motivated by an agenda, nor by a pitch by a fiscal conservative faction to gain leadership of the National party. Rather he said, he is motivated to help an old friend who the current leadership moved to destroy. He added on his blog-site, if the current leadership continues “to lie” he will continue to reveal the truth.

Meanwhile, Jami-Lee Ross is being reassured and cared for by a mutual friend of his and Slater’s who is a pastor with the Seventh Day Adventists.

Contacts say, with regard to Jami-Lee Ross and his National Party former lover and colleague, the three year affair was a relationship that in the end didn’t deliver what either banked on – despite promotions and connections and having benefitted politically from their association.

It’s fair to say, Jami-Lee Ross was out of his experiential depth and in part abusive from the point of view of how to handle political power, networks and consensual relationships.

Two other women who laid complaints about Ross, worked in the leader’s office.

Bridges is adamant he didn’t know about the abuse of power nor the complaints. Did Bennett know? At what point was she privy to the information?

One National Party contact said: “It defies reasonable belief that Bridges didn’t know.”

It is right that Bridges has initiated an inquiry into National’s culture. But that in itself falls short or what the public interest demands. Why? Because the inquiry reports back to Bridges, who as leader may well be one of the protagonists. Also, the report will not be released to the public which leaves it as a golden prize, the holy grail, for any journalist and, irrespective of who it damns or exonerates, will become a currency for any MP with leadership ambitions.

As it now stands, Bridges’ worst nightmare must be not knowing what Jami-Lee Ross recorded and at what point did he begin taping the National Party leader’s conversations.

If those recordings contain further embarrassing or damaging content and references, then he will be finished as leader. Bridges, as leader, even if he has a clear conscience, must be wracking his memory as to past conversations and comments while knowing the conversations may be in the hands of people with whom he has lost their trust.

And the question remains unanswered: Was Paula Bennett recorded as well?

If her actions are found by inquirers to have led an orchestrated political response to Jami-Lee Ross’ revelations, whether that be at the behest or otherwise of the current leader, then this will destroy any higher ambitions that she may have ever contemplated.

It follows, that if the report concludes that the rot inside National extends to its current leadership, then it may well be that Judith Collins will become the leader of the National Party, unopposed.

Whatever the future holds for the National Party, it is in everyone’s interests that an independent judicial investigation into this National affair be conducted in a spirit of openness and propriety.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Evening Report invites any individual connected to this analysis to have a right of reply. Footnote: Interview between the author and Jami-Lee Ross on his role as a new National Party MP (August 13 2012):