Two centre-right governments in English-speaking nations, both clients of Crosby Textor, yet opposite responses to tobacco regulation. The incoming NZ Health Minister Dr Shane Reti expressed concerns about a black market in tobacco sales if the ban was to be implemented. Reti also used the straw man argument that the tobacco ban was a factor driving recent ram rads of shops in New Zealand.
Worst of all, a key motivation for repealing the 2021 NZ tobacco legislation is to fund tax cuts. Before the election, it was clear that the National Party’s tax policy was unrealistic, just as Liz Truss’s tax cuts were in the UK. So the new government’s answer, remove restrictions on tobacco sales and use the revenue to fund tax cuts rather than funding the health system that tobacco tax revenue should be used for.
The decision in 2021 to introduce the smoking ban was a courageous one. Smoking causes many deaths each year and places a strain on the country’s health system. Smoking is addictive and we should do all we can to discourage young people from taking up this habit. This being said, putting a total ban on tobacco sales of people born after 2009 is well-meaning, but would likely have unintended and profoundly negative consequences.
There is a considerable body of evidence showing that prohibition does not work. Attempts at banning the sale of alcohol in the USA famously resulted in black market moonshine being sold. Attempts to stop the sale of narcotics in the so-called war on drugs have been a resounding failure. While it still may not be a popular view, the evidence shows that banning substances rarely stops consumption. Worse, it drives manufacturing and sales underground giving criminal gangs a great source of income and power.
The weird thing about the NZ ban is that in 2020 there was a real possibility that marijuana would be legalised. Run in parallel with the 2020 general election, the referendum on legalising marijuana was held. The result was 48.4 % in favour of legalising and 50.7 against it. In a country where studies have found that 80% of the population have tried pot, the level of cognitive dissonance of many voters is astounding.
Further, during the election campaign in 2020, Jacinda Ardern refused to state whether she supported legalising marijuana, despite earlier admitting she had tried the substance before. The concern from NZ Labour strategists was that Jacinda coming out in favour of legalising would be used against them by the opposition. As it happened, Labour won with a huge majority and the referendum was narrowly lost.
Jacinda Ardern had earlier stated her personal support for the legalisation and party members have voted at conferences in favour of policy remits calling for the same. Jacinda and other Labour frontbenchers could have openly stated their support for legalisation and still comfortably won the 2020 election. That they did not was an uncharacteristic failure of leadership by Jacinda Ardern and her team. This may have contributed to NZ still having drug laws that are disproportionately used against Maori and Pacifica populations and completely fail to stop the widespread use of marijuana.
That being said, it should not need the Prime Minister saying she supported legalisation for the referendum to succeed. The evidence from both NZ and overseas should have been enough.
All the arguments for legalising marijuana apply to tobacco as well. As a nonsmoker, I would be delighted if everyone stopped smoking. But I realise there will always be some who choose to. There will be black markets in tobacco, especially when other countries do not legislate for similar bans so people will be smuggling tobacco into the country. Further, while the state should encourage people to make good health choices and drive behaviours, banning tobacco is a bridge too far.
It might seem strange that a center-left Labour Party member would take this position. But it is a position based on evidence. Yes regulate the sale, add taxes, and limit where these products can be sold, which was also part of the 2021 NZ legislation. But prohibition of tobacco, like alcohol or marijuana will not work and will result in negative and unintended consequences.
It is unclear whether Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government will be successful in implementing a similar tobacco ban to that which NZ has just repealed. While there will be support across the political aisle for stronger restrictions, it is difficult to see how banning sales to people born after 2009 would work. Given how readily available hard drugs such as cocaine, MDMA and ketamine are on the streets of London, one has to be sceptical about the UK’s ability to successfully ban tobacco.
Instead of looking to the criminal justice system to tackle a health problem, we need policies that support people with addictions. Yes control the sale, and heavily regulate the strength and quality of what is being sold. But history has shown time and again that just banning things does not fix the problem.
Living in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic was a troubling and sad time. As I wrote at the time, the Government’s response in the UK was entirely inadequate and needlessly cost thousands of lives.
By contrast, the response from the New Zealand government was decisive and saved thousands of lives. In my blog post written after Jacinda Ardern resigned as Prime Minister, I wrote the following:
The New Zealand Government’s initial response to the pandemic in 2020 was another example of strong leadership. In crisis management, it is crucial that you quickly assess the relevant information and then act decisively. The decision to close the border and put in tough restrictions was not an easy thing to do, but it undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. Not least as the health system Labour inherited when they came to power in 2017 had been badly underfunded and under-resourced for a decade. After only 30 months in power, there had not been enough time to turn this around. The restrictions were tough both for people in NZ and for people like me living overseas and unable to return. Much as people may now blame Jacinda and the Labour Government for the tough restrictions, they might also want to consider the impact of National’s mismanagement of the health system for nearly a decade. This mismanagement of the health system left it vulnerable to collapse during the pandemic.
There is little doubt that had The NZ National Party been in power during this crisis, many lives would have been lost. Their underfunding of the health system when in office both from 2008 to 2017 and earlier from 1990 to 1999 demonstrates they are not to be trusted with the public health system. Ever!
Further, the National Party’s inconsistent and often incoherent position during 2020 regarding the pandemic response suggests that had they been in power, things would have been similar to Britain.
Labour under Jacinda Ardern had a clear policy, which at the time was understood and supported by most people in New Zealand. Close the borders. Strict lockdowns until there was no community transmission. And doing this would protect a public health system which was still in a parlous after a decade of Tory mismanagement and underfunding.
Given this, and the fact that Labour’s victory in 2020 was largely due to the Government’s pandemic response, it is strange that this is also one of the main reasons why support for the Government has declined.
As I pointed out in my previous post on Housing, Labour’s challenge is that they set an expectation that they have not and could not live up to.
It has been argued that the population now want to move on from the collective trauma of coronavirus and is now rejecting Labour as it is so associated with that time. This may be part of it, but there is much more to it.
Zero COVID was never possible. Whilst it was correct to stop the spread of the virus it was inevitable that once a vaccine was available there would be community transmission. This was not clearly explained or understood in New Zealand. This was made worse by the fact that New Zealand’s response to the pandemic was being held up as the model of how to respond. Pre-vaccine it was. Post-vaccine, not so much.
While the rest of the world could open up, Auckland faced a 107-day lockdown at the end of 2021, after only a handful of cases. Again, at the time most people accepted and supported this response, but opposition to it also grew during this time. Weeks later, the government was forced to start lifting restrictions and people were told community transmission was a fact of life. It is hardly surprising that the Government started seriously losing support.
There is historical context for why New Zealand as a South Pacific Nation, wanted to be cautious during the pandemic. In 1918 during the influenza pandemic, Samoa which was administered by New Zealand at the time, was devastated by this virus. On 7 November 1918, the New Zealand passenger and cargo ship Talune arrived at Apia from Auckland. People on board this ship had influenza and passengers were allowed to disembark without quarantining. The result was an estimated influenza death rate in Samoa of 8500 or 22% of the population. According to a 1947 United Nations report, it was ‘one of the most disastrous epidemics recorded anywhere in the world during the present century, so far as the proportion of deaths to the population is concerned’. Given this, New Zealand’s cautious approach was both understandable and justified.
Jacinda and Labour needed to be clearer about restrictions at the border. Specifically when and how they would eventually be lifted. Back in July 2020, former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark warned that extended delays in opening New Zealand’s border would cause huge damage to the country’s economy and social well-being. NZ citizens living overseas and returning to the country were required to do 14 days of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) until early 2022, at the visitor’s expense if they were not returning permanently. For non-NZ passport holders, restrictions were not lifted until July 2022.
When headlines hit of DJs and entertainers being given exemptions to enter the country, while thousands struggled to get places in MIQ facilities, including in cases where people were trying to visit dying relatives, the public mood started to shift. After long lockdowns and being unable to visit family and friends living overseas, seeing headlines about DJs getting preferential treatment at the border turned the public mood sour.
The ‘Team of Five Million’ rhetoric used by Jacinda Ardern and others in Government was a powerful tool. It connected with Kiwi nationalism and motivated people to stop the spread of the virus. There were two very negative downsides to it though:
The coronavirus was not a New Zealand phenomenon, it was global. It needed ‘The Team of Five billion’ (the world’s current population) to defeat the virus, not just five million people in a South Pacific nation. And a great many around the world did sacrifice a great deal. For example, in the UK while the government response was inadequate, many local communities really stepped up to support people isolating and later to promote vaccinations. The Team of Five Million narrative that Kiwis made huge sacrifices, without acknowledging the efforts of many others throughout the world paints an inaccurate and distorted picture.
Whilst the NZ coronavirus response at the start was great, it also had the advantage that the population was five million, not 67 million like the UK. Or Germany where the population is 83 million and they share land borders with nine other countries. It is simply wrong to say that if other countries had the same restrictions of lockdown they too could have ended community transmission. The UK could have certainly reduced the spread and saved lives. But with greater population density there would have always been some community transmission.
The other not-so-great by-product of closing the borders and using nationalism as a tool to defeat the pandemic was that it pandered to anti-immigration sentiment. There was a small but significant group who frankly would have been happy to keep the borders shut permanently to stop immigration. This also saw some unpleasant comments towards Kiwis living overseas who were struggling with MIQ. Online comments on the media website Stuff often saw Kiwis living overseas being told “You made a choice to leave” or worse that they were traitors or unpatriotic for choosing to live overseas. Given that, in March 2020 Kiwis living overseas were told to shelter in place rather than try to return home, this attitude was particularly galling.
While the government is not responsible for the attitudes of small-minded individuals, when you start using the forces of nationalism to promote your cause then expect the negative by-products.
The Wellington protests were remarkable in that they were allowed to last as long as they did. Central Wellington was severely disrupted, and attempts to move protesters on were met with threats of violence. After nearly two years of intense government COVID restrictions, it frustrated people to see the state not act to remove these protesters. Certainly were similar events to happen outside Westminster, protesters would be moved on in hours, not days or weeks later. People have a right to protest, and we should always be wary of the state using heavy-handed tactics against people exercising these rights. But where there is a threat to public health and wellbeing, action needs to be taken.
Eventually, the protesters were moved on. However, the delay resulted in the Government’s authority being undermined. This coupled with Kiwi’s facing up to the reality that there would be community transmission of coronavirus made 2022 a difficult year for Labour. Undoubtedly this contributed to the fall in support for the Government and in early 2023 Jacinda Ardern’s decision to resign as Prime Minister.
The response to COVID-19 by the NZ Government, and Jacinda Ardern’s clear and decisive leadership and communication style was positive. In the short term, it saved lives. Had the government been clearer from the outset that post-vaccine community transmission of coronavirus was inevitable, the backlash may not have been so harsh. Had they managed expectations better prior to the 2020 election, they may not have won 50% of the vote in that year’s election, but they might still be polling consistently about 35% in 2023.
Hope is indeed a powerful and dangerous tool in politics. In a parliamentary democracy, it motivates people to vote and support your cause. But if you cannot deliver, the backlash is brutal. The sad thing about the NZ COVID response is that overall it did deliver in that it protected the public health system and saved lives. But expectations about stopping all community transmission were set too high, and walking back from that politically has been challenging for Labour.
Earlier this year Andrew Marr wrote in the New Statesmen, that Britain’s problem was that it wanted Scandinavian levels of Public Services and North American levels of taxation. His view was that Britain was overdue for an honest debate about tax and public spending.
In New Zealand, there is a similar challenge. Politicians from the right have for decades put forward the myth that tax cuts will foster economic growth and be better for the economy. They instead lead to spending cuts, higher levels of user-pays and a deterioration of the public sector. Voters really dislike this, and demand governments fix the problem. Labour and other progressive parties will answer this call and promise to fix the health, education, public transport etc. Yet shy when the debate moves to funding these public services through taxation, too often the issue is fudged.
In New Zealand, a Labour Government is seeking re-election after six years in office. Though having made some decent moves, especially in the health system, it is clear that greater investment and improvements in public services are needed. Yet Labour has recently ruled out introducing a wealth or capital gains tax. There are strong arguments either way regarding these two forms of taxation. But having ruled them out, the question is, how will Labour improve funding to public services? Or is it content with things as they are?
Why has the Labour Government in New Zealand taken this policy position? And is it right to do so?
It’s the economy stupid
It is very difficult for governments to be re-elected when the economy is doing badly. The world over incumbent governments have struggled at the ballot box against high inflation and people’s disposable income taking a hit.
Inflation in New Zealand has been lower than in other countries such as the United Kingdom. However, the challenge in New Zealand has been the cost of living was high prior to the recent bout of inflation. Added to this the wage stagnation since the 1980s, increasing prices make life difficult for people.
Given this, there is a real reluctance to rock the boat or embark on any form of radical reform. New Zealand left commentator Chris Trotter (who went to school with my late mother at Heregaunga College – yes New Zealand is a small country) has argued that New Zealanders historically have wanted stability and normality and this election is no exception. He quotes the current Prime Minister’s comment regarding transformation.
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins spoke no more than the truth this past week when he warned those berating Labour for failing to deliver the “transformation” promised by his predecessor, Jacinda Ardern, to be careful what they wished for. As he rightly pointed out, the government of David Lange and Roger Douglas really did transform New Zealand – and it’s the consequences of that transformation (inequality, poverty, homelessness) that are driving the present demands for a new transformation.
There is undoubtedly a logic to what Chris Hipkins, backed by Chris Trotter claims above. Aside from the fact that in the 1980s Labour pushed new right reforms, against the very ethos and principles of the Labour Party, the speed with which these reforms were pushed through made for silly errors (e.g. selling assets for less than they were worth and sloppy legislation that lacked proper parliamentary scrutiny).
Voters may not be looking for massive social upheaval in the form of revolution or even radical reforms. But they expect the government to be addressing the social issues facing the country. Watch the leaders debate between Jacinda Ardern and Bill English in 2017. There can be no doubt that Jacinda promised the country that a Labour government would use every lever of government available to tackle the housing crisis, child poverty and poverty generally, low wages, and underfunding of mental health and the health system. Yet six years on, these problems continue and in some cases have gotten worse, in particular the housing market.
The government has had the excuse of the pandemic and then the cost of living crisis. However, it is worth noting that the first NZ Labour Government from 1935 to 1949 managed a massive programme of building social housing (state housing) during the Depression and through the Second World War. Things might be difficult, but it is still possible in the face of adversity to tackle the greatest social issues of the day.
Government responding to higher prices
One of the biggest challenges right now is the cost of living crisis. The government has come up with some reasonable responses to this. For example, increasing subsidies on Public Transport and a petrol tax exemption. Oddly, it decided to lift these subsidies weeks out from the General Election. If the thinking was that this would make them look like responsible managers of the economy, they needed to think again. A better move would have been to leave the subsidies on public transport and to delay ending the petrol tax exemption until mid-next year. As it is, people will now be paying more to get to work or drop their kids to school. This will drive up private debt and force more people into poverty.
The other recent announcement was a rehash of their 2011 policy of cutting the 15% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on fruit and vegetables. Whilst many both on the left and the right have been critical of this, there is merit in this policy. In the UK, there is no Value Added Tax (VAT) on fruit and vegetables, or in fact on most basic household items (bread, butter, etc.). Very few countries have the New Zealand model where sales tax is charged on absolutely everything. This is a regressive system that places the tax burden disproportionately on the poor.
The criticism of the GST off fruit and vegetables policy is that it will not make a significant difference to most households, especially with the transport subsidies ending. Another criticism is that it will reduce the take intake, placing public services at risk. This brings us back to the question, what level of public services do voters in New Zealand want? And how do they think this should be paid for?
The Tax Working Group
After forming a coalition with NZ First and the Green Parties in 2017, the Labour Government led by Jacinda Ardern established the Tax Working Group to investigate ways of reforming New Zealand’s taxation system and making it “fairer.” Some key areas under its purview included the Goods and Services Tax and alleviating the housing market.
In early 2019 this group reported back and recommended amongst other things In mid-February 2019, the Tax Working Group recommended that the New Zealand Government implement a Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and use the revenue generated to lower the personal tax rate and to target polluters. However, shortly after this Ardern announced that there would be no CGT while she was Prime Minister. This was a combination of pressure from NZ First, and polling showing public support was not strongly in favour of this.
Incidentally, the Bright-line rule is a form of capital gains tax, introduced by John Key’s National Government in 2015. Calls for a much broader capital gains tax have been loud from sections of the left for much of the last decade. Taxing capital gains is not the panacea many on the NZ left believe it to be. It is also not the only option to increase tax revenue, for example, things like a Financial Transaction Tax should also be explored.
What happened in 2019 was the debate on Capital Gains Tax was shut down. The recent discussion on wealth tax has now gone the same way. The two things Labour now need to consider are:
Are they still a party that stands for better funding for public services?
If so, how do they achieve this?
Other taxing questions
As already mentioned, NZ is unique in that it charges sales tax on absolutely everything. This is a very regressive form of taxation.
In some countries, the first $10,000 of income is tax-free, then is charged progressively. In New Zealand every single $ earned is taxable. In the UK, everything earned under £12,570 is not taxed, plus there is no VAT on most basic supermarket items. So while NZ has lower inflation than the UK, it punishes those on low incomes in other ways and has done so for decades.
On user pays NZ does not have a great record either. In the UK GP visits are free and have been since the NHS was established in 1948. In NZ GPs start charging when you turn 13. The current debate about free dentistry in NZ is important. Currently, dentistry is too expensive for many on low incomes.
There is a strong case for free dentistry across the lifecourse to improve overall population health. This may even help reduce the overall health spending in the long term. But there needs to be a decision by the voting public that there will be a tax regime to cover this service. The debate is starting in New Zealand, but until the tax question is resolved, progress will be frustratingly slow.
Tax, public services and the 2023 election
So of the two main parties National are proposing tax cuts but cannot explain how it will fund them. Labour, fear raising taxes will cost them swing voters, but not doing so is demotivating their base.
Minor parties are engaging in this debate, with both the Green and Maori Parties proposing wealth and other tax increases. On the right, the ACT Party is advocating over $1 billion in spending cuts. Whatever the issues with each of these party’s respective policies, they at least address the central issue that current tax levels are not sufficient to maintain quality public services. So the choice is to find ways to fund them, or as the ACT Party propose, give up and make people fend for themselves. That is the choice.
I rejoined the NZ Labour Party in 2013, after a few years of absence, and I will be voting for Labour again this year. If Labour does win a third term in office, the issue of tax and funding public services will need to be addressed.
A year ago this month, the Liz Truss/Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget destroyed once and for all the myth that the Tories are better at managing the economy. The New Zealand National Party could not even wait until they were in government to prove the same applies to them.
National, the main centre-right party in NZ politics have released a policy which economists claim does not add up. National argues their proposed foreign buyer’s tax will raise $2.9 billion. However, analysis from three independent economists does not back this claim. Instead, they estimate a $2.1 billion shortfall over a four-year period.
National are under increasing pressure to explain how they will fund their other tax cut policies. The foreign buyer tax policy was supposed to explain the shortfall. National has not released the fully costed workings of their policy and instead has fallen back on sound bites and slogans.
Like in the UK a year ago, there are real fears that cutting taxes during a cost of living crisis will drive up inflation. Further, if the so-called foreign buyer tax will not cover the shortfall, the only other option is severe spending cuts on public services or heavy borrowing. Or both.
National has raised considerably more money than Labour in the lead-up to this election. Much of this is from business. Many in the business sector were unhappy with the strict lockdowns during the pandemic, especially in 2021. Many of them believe the myth that the centre-right is better at managing the economy, so are supporting the National Party. More than a few of National’s business backers must now be questioning their investment in a party whose numbers simply do not add up.
In an interview with the NZ Herald, Opposition Finance Spokesperson and National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis, on seeing the alternative costings said it was “hardly surprising to have different economists disagreeing about things. National is confident in our figures. They have been independently assessed by Castalia economic advisors.”
Yet the full Castalia assessment has not been released. While the economists may have each produced their own different assessment of her party’s policy, they all agree National have grossly overestimated the revenue this new tax would raise.
If current polling is to be believed, in one month Willis will be the NZ Finance Minister and her party running the country. Given she and National are yet to produce more than opposition slogans and policies that do not add up, this is concerning.
Even the ACT Party, who are historically to the right of National, have now said they will be dialling back their tax cut policies due to the current economic situation in New Zealand. This is not entirely surprising. In the first term of the Thatcher Government, which started the New Right economic reforms in the UK, there were no tax cuts due to the high level of inflation in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By contrast, The NZ National Party, do not even understand their own economic theories. Their analysis seems to be little more than tax cuts = good, government spending = bad.
Willis and National said one way their numbers will add up is by cutting waste. They recently highlighted a story where a senior public servant was given a $40,000 farewell party. This is clearly unacceptable, and the official concerned was rightly made to pay this money back. But putting this in context, the total NZ health budget for 2022-23 was $14.9 billion. A handful of cases of waste, ordering fewer paperclips and turning off office heating at weekends will still just be a drop in the ocean.
At the time of writing, National are the favourites in this election. What is increasingly clear is they are not ready to govern. And increasingly, economists, even those sympathetic to centre-right politics are publically saying as much. Anyone who still thinks a National-led government will improve New Zealand’s economic situation need only look at the evidence. Like the UK Conservatives under Truss, they simply are not up to the task.
From the outside, the New Zealand 2023 General Election seems both lacklustre and slightly strange. The Labour Government, having won a huge majority in 2020 is now fighting for its political life. Yet National, the main centre-right opposition party is still on average polling significantly worse now than they were when it lost power in 2017.
Above: The First Party Leaders Debate 19/09/2023
I have recently returned from a month-long visit to New Zealand, after four and a half-years absence due to the coronavirus pandemic. As a Kiwi who lived and breathed NZ politics until moving to the UK in 2017, and now having had time away to reflect, I will share my insights into what is happening.
This next series of blogs will look both at the politics leading up to this year’s general election and at what I have observed in terms of attitudes in New Zealand society.
This first blog will look at some historical trends and observations, assessing what this might tell us about the upcoming election.
Changing leaders is dangerous for the Party in power in New Zealand.
The last time a Party in power changed leader and went on to win a General Election was in the 1940s. The First NZ Labour Government led by Michael Joseph Savage died in 1939 and Peter Fraser took over as leader. Labour went on to win the 1943 election, which had been postponed two years due to the Second World War. Had this election been held when it was due in 1941, in all likelihood Labour would have lost power.
Since then, every time a party in government has changed leader in New Zealand, it has lost power. It happened to National in 1957 and again in 1972, then to Labour in 1975 and 1990, and to National in 1999 and 2017. In all these cases, other factors were of course in play, but there is a clear trend.
This is very different in other democracies. In neighbouring Australia, mid-term ‘leadership spills’ are commonplace with the Australian Labor Party and the Liberals.
The resignation of Jacinda Ardern in January and Chris Hipkins taking over the leadership initially saw Labour’s polling improve. But much has happened since then. If Labour does lose on 14 October, the change of leader may not be the deciding factor. But if they win, it would end an 80-year trend.
2. The Government may not be popular, but nor is the opposition – Historical perspective
There is no sugarcoating it. Labour has lost a lot of support since 2020. If some recent polls are to be believed, nearly one in two people who voted Labour in 2020 plan not to do so again on 14 October 2023.
But for the opposition National Party, polling numbers have been very mixed. While some recent polls give National a comfortable lead, some still have National polling as low as 31%. For context, when National lost power in 2017 it received 44% of the vote. Support for National remains significantly lower than at almost any point when it was in Government from 2008 to 2017 under the leadership of John Key and in the final year Bill English.
When it comes to preferred leader polling, National’s Christopher Luxon’s numbers are terrible. While there have been some recent polls giving him a slight boost, over the last 18 months his numbers have been generally poor and trailing Chris Hipkins even when Labour’s numbers have gone south. It is telling that National’s campaign material often features Christopher Luxon and Opposition Finance Spokesperson Nicola Willis, who is widely seen as a stronger performer.
For National, support for their Party or their leader is not where it was before coming to power in 2008 under John Key, in 1990 under Jim Bolger, 1975 under Muldoon, 1960 under Holyoake or 1949 under Holland. In all the above cases, while support for the Labour Government had fallen, the National Party and its leader had a much stronger level of support than at present.
National insiders have dreaded the upcoming party leader debates, especially after recent poor performances by Luxon. Historically, these debates have swayed undecided voters. There are real fears that National could take a poll hit of up to 5% if Luxon does not perform. It is unclear whether the first debate last night did much to assure his team, let alone the country, that he is up to the job.
At the time of writing, National are the favourites to win next month. If this comes to pass, it would be as part of a difficult coalition with the economically right ACT Party and the socially conservative and increasingly populist NZ First Party. As we will explore further, this combination is likely to be quite unstable and may scare many voters.
3. Historically, when Labour loses power, it spends a minimum of three terms in opposition.
Another trend in New Zealand politics has been that every time the National Party has won power from Labour, they stay in government for a minimum of three terms (four terms in the case of the Holyoak government of 1960-1972). If this trend holds, a Labour loss in October would mean being in opposition until 2032 or later. Psychologically this will be challenging for those in the Labour campaign, knowing this loss could see Labour in the wilderness for the next decade.
On current polling, National will probably scrape in. It is difficult to see on current polling numbers and Luxon’s poor performance as a leader how National could win the next three elections. National, if polling goes south in government may decide to change leaders after the election. But as outlined in point 1, this is a highly risky strategy in New Zealand politics.
Opposition finance spokesperson Nicola Willis is viewed as a likely successor. Some believed she may attempt to emulate Jacinda Ardern, taking over the leadership weeks out from the election. Given they are ahead in most polls, this would be a risky gamble. Also, her opposition to the government cutting the $5 surcharge on prescriptions in the recent budget shows that her hard-right economic views are out of step with the mood of the country.
4. Losing an election is not the end of the road for a leader
Whilst changing leaders in Government tends to spell electoral doom (see point 1), it is possible for leaders to come back after losing power. In 1957 Keith Holyoake took over as National Party leader and PM, only to lose power in the general election weeks later. It was a narrow defeat and Holyoake stayed on as National Party leader. Three years later in 1960, National won the election and Holyoake returned as Prime Minister. He also went on to win the subsequent three elections in 1963, 1966 and 1969 making him National’s most successful Prime Minister. National then lost in 1972 after Holyoake was replaced by Jack Marshall (see point 1).
The only Labour Leader who came close to this was Mike Moore, who in 1990 took over as Labour Leader and PM only to lose the general election weeks later. Moore stayed on, and in 1993 though not increasing Labour’s overall vote significantly, increased Labour’s number of seats from 28 to 45 in New Zealand’s final First Past the Post election. However, Labour did not win in 1993, and Moore was replaced by Helen Clark as leader shortly afterwards.
Based on the above, if Labour loses next month Chris Hipkins could potentially come back in 2026. That assumes he and Labour are able to defy point 3. However, if Labour drop below 30% as some polls currently suggest they might, the opportunity for such a comeback is unlikely.
5. The decline of both Labour and National
One should not make too much of single polls, especially this close to an election. But there have been a number of polls in 2023 showing both Labour and National polling below 35%. One recent poll had the combined Labour and National polling at 55%. Contrast that to the 2020 election where Labour and National together won 75% of the vote.
New Zealand has had proportional representation since 1996. Minor parties have played a significant role in MMP elections. It could be that after a generation of proportional representation, more voters are comfortable voting for these minor parties. Of the five parties currently in parliament, all have at some point served in government as has NZ First who currently do not have MPs but may do again after 14 October.
But this could also signify a greater trend away from the two parties that have dominated NZ politics since 1935. In France, the parties that have dominated politics since the end of the Second World War, in recent elections have been overtaken by President Macron’s centrist party and Le Pen’s far-right party respectively. This is in part explained by the French electoral system where there is a run-off vote between the two highest polling from the first round of voting a month earlier. But few can deny, that a major trend has been a move away from the old party’s and their style of politics. It is certainly not impossible that in the next five to ten years, New Zealand will have a Prime Minister who is from one of the current minor parties rather than Labour or National.
6. The first poll of the year predicts the election result
Another trend or tradition in New Zealand politics has been to look at the first poll, or group of polls, at the start of the year and this fairly accurately predicts who is likely to win. As the Wikipedia list of 2023 NZ polls illustrates, the polling for January 2023 was a real mixed bag with numbers being very close. Chris Hipkins took over from Jacinda Ardern in mid-January giving Labour a poll boost.
If the first polls are an indication of what will happen, it is likely to be a very close election where we do not know the results on election night. Instead overseas and special votes a fortnight later, along with prolonged coalition negotiations before the outcome is known. This is not unusual in New Zealand politics.
In recent weeks, some polls have shown Labour dipping below 30%. If Labour cannot increase its support, they are highly unlikely to be in government. Unless of course, Luxon performs so poorly that he too pulls National’s numbers below 30% as well.
7. Voters do not reward instability
This one is more common sense than a trend. If people are struggling they look to the government to lead them through a crisis. If the government is found wanting, it will be punished by voters. In my blog post in May 2022 on inflation, I argued that governments around the world were being punished for high inflation, when often they had little to no control over the drivers of it. However, governments are measured on their response, and they do have control over that. As an upcoming blog post will address, the response in New Zealand has been good overall but certainly, there was room for improvement.
Since March there have been four high-profile Ministerial resignations. Of these, two resulted in the MPs concerned leaving parliament, one saw the Minister quit Labour and joining another party and the other was a minor indiscretion, but not acted on in a timely or proper manner. At a time when people are doing it tough, having Ministers fall below the standards expected of them by the public is harmful to a government. For example, Stuart Nash was one of Labour’s high flyers, so his attempts to influence police procedures and release confidential information from cabinet meetings to two of his donors is harmful to Labour.
But then National had their own scandals with new MP Sam Uffindell having to be suspended from caucus not after winning the Tauranga byelection in 2022. There are also signs of division within National with former Minister Michael Woodhouse being given a low ranking on the party list. Again, in terms of unity, National are doing little better than Labour.
8. Increasing numbers of swing voters, in New Zealand and globally
This one is less of a historical trend and is certainly not limited to New Zealand. But it is a significant one, which still is not well understood.
There is this view that politics is won in “the centre” – that group of moderate, usually middle-class, voters who swing between the centre-left and the centre-right. This has always been an overly simplistic understanding of politics, but in 2023 it is very wide of the mark.
Firstly turnout counts. Unlike Australia, there is nothing legally forcing people to vote in New Zealand. In recent UK byelections, ex-Tory voters staying home has been a significant factor in Conservatives losing seats. In the US, many former Democratic Party voters stayed home in 2016, helping Trump win Rust-belt states. In New Zealand, a significant feature of Jacinda Ardern’s victory in 2017 was not National voters switching to Labour, but people voting Labour who had never voted before. There is some evidence that higher voter turnout favours the left, though this too is fairly simplistic.
One of the mistaken views I have heard from both Labour and National (or Conservative in the UK) strategists is that when pitching to ‘the centre’ their base will have nowhere else to go. The party base always has places to go. Minor parties are always an option, as is not voting. The issue is that trying to position your party to the centre and ignoring your base and your principles ultimately impresses no one. Voters reward authenticity, especially in an era of fake news and disinformation.
The size of the swing vote in elections is growing. In the UK the so-called redwall swinging Tory in 2019, or Canterbury and Kensington swinging to Labour in 2017, are both examples of this. In the US the working-class rustbelt states of traditionally Democrat voters got Trump elected, and in 2020 traditional Republican stronghold states such as Georgia and Arizona helped vote him out.
There are similar trends in NZ elections. The massive swing to Labour in 2020 and the now large swing against it in recent polls illustrates just how volatile the modern voter can be. In an era where old ideologies hold far less currency, the idea of the lifelong loyal Labour/National voter is outdated. Anecdotally from my recent visit to NZ, I spoke to former National voters planning to vote Green, former Labour members planning to vote National, and former ACT Party members now undecided voters. Whilst most were younger (under 45), older voters I spoke to were also now seriously questioning their lifelong allegiances. None were typical centrist swing voters likely to be captured by Bill Clinton-era style triangulation. In reality, people want politics to be better, and would happily look across the political spectrum for answers.
National may win in 2023. But given how far and how quickly voters now swing, National cannot count on Point 3 remaining a trend in the future. Even less so with their current leadership lineup.
Labour and National both have strategies to chase the mythical centrist swinger vote. Meanwhile, 45% of voters are now looking elsewhere, and this number could easily grow.
What can we conclude from these trends?
Mark Twain once said, “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.”
The rhyme of New Zealand politics is that leadership really matters, arguably too much so. The media often focus on this rather than policy, leading to style rather than substance being reported on.
In 2023, a strong moderately conservative leader would do very well. Yet National are running a first-term MP who describes “New Zealand workers as bottom feeders.”
Neither Labour nor National are performing strongly overall. There are some polls showing the centre-right in a strong position, but inevitably they follow this up with a policy announcement or media interview which then loses them support.
Labour still has an outside chance with the Maori Party and the Greens to form a coalition government, but only just. They need to demonstrate what they stand for and what they intend to do for the next three years to get the country through the current economic crisis.
If both National and Labour are polling below 35%, both will be heavily reliant on coalition partners to govern. For Labour, anything below 30% is fatal. For National, being complacent when still polling in the mid-30s could see them fall at the last hurdle.
On Saturday, the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla will take place. The last coronation of Queen Elizabeth II took place on 2 June 1953 and was one of only five such events in the 20th century.
The Coronation is certainly a historic event, but what is its relevance to the modern world?
In a 21st-century democracy, is it really still appropriate for someone to inherit the role of head of state, purely based on their bloodline? Does it make sense for this same person, not only to be head of state of the United Kingdom but also of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu?
In November 2021, Barbados became a republic cutting ties with the British Monarchy, though still remaining a member of the Commonwealth. Barbados was a British colony until 1966, and becoming a republic has been viewed as an important step in self-government and breaking with that nation’s colonial past.
Similar moves are likely in Jamaica, with that country now planning to hold a referendum on the issue in 2024. Polls in Jamaica show a significant majority wanting the country to become a republic. Painful historic links to British Imperialism and the transatlantic slave trade are still major issues for people in Jamaica. Becoming a republic will help break this link.
Australia will likely hold a referendum on the issue in the next few years, though this will happen after the referendum on indigenous representation in parliament. Australia last held a referendum on becoming a republic in 1999. At this time the choice was between remaining a constitutional monarchy or becoming a republic where parliament appointed a president. Polls indicated at the time and since that were voters given the option of electing a president, support for becoming a republic would have been much higher.
Whilst a majority still support the monarchy in the UK, increasingly people do not view it as important. A recent British Social Attitudes study conducted recently shows the number of people who say the monarchy is “very important” has fallen to 29%, from 38% in 2022. Also, 45% of respondents said the monarch should now be abolished. Further, a report in the Telegraph recently said that 75% of people aged 18-24 do not care very much about the coronation, and 69% of 25-49 year-olds say the same. Even those aged over 65, the demographic most supportive of the monarchy, are not terribly interested with 53% saying they do not care very much.
With support for the monarchy being lackluster at best in the UK, and declining support in the other 14 nations where the British monarch is the head of state, does the monarchy really have a future?
Those who campaign in favor of the institution tend to use strawman arguments. These include the stability of constitutional democracies, though given recent events in British politics this argument now gets used far less. Another is that the monarchy is somehow cheaper than becoming a republic. When one takes into account the upkeep of royal palaces, the cost of coronations, and royal tours it is not clear how they come to this conclusion.
The argument that always comes up is the comparison with the United States. In recent years monarchists have used Trump as evidence for why we need a monarchy. Firstly, this assumes the United States is the only form of republic possible, ignoring the many other working examples of republics with strong working democracies. Secondly, the Trump bogeyman conveniently ignores the premiership of Johnson and Truss in the UK, or Scott Morrison in Australia, for which the monarchy provided no helpful check or balance.
Support for the monarchy is largely based on sentimentality. Democracies are not enhanced by feudal relics performing old-fashioned ceremonies and living in castles. These quaint traditions and displays are all rather nice, and for the most part fairly benign and harmless in themselves. But to pretend that they are in any way relevant to the modern world is absurd.
The links to colonialism and British imperialism are certainly not so benign, and have relevance today. The slave trade has directly contributed to racial inequalities that exist today. In New Zealand, the government is still resolving historical grievances from when ‘The Crown’ stole land and resources from Maori. There are similar histories in Australia and Canada. Becoming a republic does not put an end to these historical injustices. But sentimentality toward the institutions responsible is illogical and ignorant.
Few would argue that abolishing the monarch or other debates about the future of this institution are a priority at this time. Having come through a pandemic and now a cost-of-living crisis coupled with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there are more pressing issues to address. At the same time, it is little surprise that interest in the coronation is low.
In all likelihood, we will now see the monarchy face a slow but steady decline. The priority must now be on strengthening democratic institutions to face the challenges of the future, not the idealisation of feudal relics.
The first real test of any political leader is how well they perform in a crisis. For New Zealand’s Prime Minister Chris Hipkins this test came very quickly.
Cyclone Gabrielle is the second major weather event New Zealand has suffered in the last month. At the end of January, just days after Chris Hipkins becoming Prime Minister, Auckland, the country’s biggest city faced major flooding. This was not only the first major test of Hipkins as Prime Minister but also of the recently elected Auckland mayor Wayne Brown.
It would be unfair to claim that Mayor Brown has no previous political experience. 15 years ago he served one term as mayor of the Far North District, and prior to this had been a member of the Auckland District Health Board. But primarily, Brown’s experience was in the private sector as an engineer and property developer.
Brown’s election as mayor in October 2022 ended 12 years of Labour dominance of the Auckland mayoralty. The election of a right-of-centre mayor in New Zealand’s largest city was seen as an indication of what might happen nationally in the 2023 General Election.
After the Auckland flood, Wayne Brown’s election will now be viewed as a cautionary tale. What can happen when someone who is inexperienced and unsuited to political office is elected to important political leadership roles. The blowback of this on the New Zealand right should not be understated, it is bad news for them.
The key criticism of Brown was that he was slow to declare a state of emergency in Auckland. During the crisis said to one journalist that “it was not his job to rush out with blankets.” In a text, to friends, Brown complained that he could not play tennis during the weekend of the floods as he “had to deal with media drongos over the flooding.”
Probably the most cringe-worthy moment was the joint media conference the Mayor did with the Prime Minister and two other Government Ministers. Brown was defensive and sounded out of his depth, whilst Chris Hipkins sounded like a Prime Minister.
I first met Chris Hipkins back in 1998 at a fundraiser for the Rimutaka (now Remutaka) Labour Party at the now-closed Plates Restaurant. He had been head boy at Petone College and led the campaign opposing the closure of his old school the by then Tory Government. Slightly older than me, Chris was VUWSA President a few years before me. Living in London at the time, he kept in contact and gave useful advice whilst I was President – including once when he reminded me that it was Saturday night in New Zealand, so I should go out and have fun instead of worrying about the Students’ Association budget.
After Student politics, Chris spent a brief spell in the private sector before working in parliament as an advisor to Helen Clark’s Government. In 2008 he became an MP and quickly was promoted to Labour’s opposition front bench. After Labour came to power in 2017, Chris has served in various senior Ministerial roles.
One of the big criticisms of ‘career politicians’ is that they do not have enough experience outside of parliament. It is true that within a parliamentary democracy, it is important to have diversity and people from different backgrounds. The same is true within the cabinet. However, the Prime Minister is in a political leadership role, the most senior politician in the country. Experience in politics is crucial, and it is something that Chris Hipkins has.
The implications of all this for the NZ Leader of the Opposition, Christopher Luxon, are not great. Luxon, a first-term MP elected to parliament in October 2020 wishes to be New Zealand’s Prime Minister in October. His experience prior to 2020 is in the private sector, most notably as CEO of Air New Zealand.
Having worked in and with the private sector through my company Piko, I accept that there are transferable skills from private sector leadership roles through to political leadership. But there are differences. In government, there is a need to manage ambiguity, much more so than when managing a company. There are far more competing priorities, all of which can have a profound impact on people’s lives. And when things get really tough, like during the COVID-19 pandemic, business leaders rely on the state for support. Therefore it falls to Government in a time of crisis to make the tough calls.
Diversity in politics is important. Yet on the right, the call isn’t for diversity. Instead what is often called for is people with “business experience”. CEO of big companies, high net-worth individuals who have done well on the money markets and other c-suite executives. Transferable skills from this sector can well help in political leadership roles, but these alone are not enough, other skills and experiences are needed to be a success.
By contrast, working as a parliamentary staffer, or in the public service, is viewed as being at risk of government groupthink. Worse, that promotion may be through nepotism rather than ability. There is always a risk of these things but has also worked with the public service and in parliament, it would be easy to overstate this risk. What you do get in these roles is close exposure to how the machinery of government works. My work in the British parliament over the last three years has taught me this. Parliamentary staff role offer valuable experience for anyone in a senior political role.
The Auckland floods and the current cyclone have highlighted the importance of political experience. Chris Hipkins, having served as a Minister during The Christchurch Mosque Terror Attack, COVID-19 and the cost of living increase is no stranger to a political crisis. He and his team instinctively know how to respond, when to open the emergency Beehive Bunkerand how to communicate clearly to a worried public during these difficult times.
The events in the last few weeks have highlighted that in politics, actual political experience really counts.
Shortly after I started as a bus driver at Go Wellington as a Bus Driver I recall overhearing drivers talking about the company changing shifts to reduce drivers’ overtime pay. One driver, a former bank teller believed the problem was the union leadership. In his view what the Tramways Union needed was “a smartly dressed lawyer in a suit and with a good haircut to come and sort everything out.” Instead of this, the drivers ended up with me as their union president, no suits but I did eventually get a haircut. More importantly, what drivers got was a democratic union where drivers stood together and improved their pay and conditions.
The Great man of history theory is nothing new and has been quite seriously rebuffed by historians for many years. In Leo Tolstoy‘s War and Peace he firmly rejected the “great man” (and when he wrote this in the 1860s, it was men who were being written about), a theory claiming that in fact, they are only “history’s slaves.”
Yet, much of history is still written about and from the perspective of our leaders. In politics, it is a truism that leadership is of paramount importance, yet few can really define what ‘leadership’ really is. The common features tend to be personal strength, decision-making powers, bringing together and managing a team, the ability to communicate, and in effect being the human embodiment of a political ideal or movement. More cynically, money, good looks, fame, and various superficial qualities also help.
It is certainly true that the performance of a party leader can decide an election result, and this is understandable as they are in a position of responsibility where they must exercise judgment. The risk though is that the personal qualities or weaknesses are given greater emphasis and boring detail like tax policy is reduced to who came up with the best slogan or soundbite.
This issue is not a new one. Whilst it is currently vogue to blame all the world’s ills on social media, the reduction of politics down to a popularity contest of leaders predates Twitter. It has probably always been a feature of politics and certainly something that has constantly been a feature of democracies. Leaders with deep voices for example have tended to perform better, as physiologically we find them more authoritative.
The problem is, once we understand that to be a successful leader it helps to have certain qualities and mannerisms, those with ambition quickly start to act the part. Building a personal brand based on characteristics common among successful leaders has become the tried and trued playbook of many ambitious upcoming politicians, business leaders, and others aiming for positions of power. Maybe this is just smart and anyone who is ambitious needs to learn these unwritten rules? But when many believe politics and civil society is in decline, should we not think more critically about leadership?
There can be very little doubt about the importance leadership has played in recent politics. My recent post about Rishi Sunak and the state of the British Conservative Party outlines, the challenges facing the UK Government today make it very difficult for the Tories to win the next election. Whilst Rishi Sunak certainly has some of the qualities of a successful leader, he is simply too constrained by the situation he faces to really lift support for the Conservative Party now, though this may change. Likewise in New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern’s meteoric rise to power in 2017 and global popularity shortly after, dissipated throughout 2022 as the current economic crisis hit.
To paraphrase Harold MacMillan, what shapes the course of political history is “events dear boy, events”. Having certain qualities can get one into leadership positions, but ultimately one’s time in power is judged by how one responds to events. And more often than not, leaders only have limited control of these or their own legacy.
Last week people in New Zealand and around the world were shocked to hear that Jacinda Ardern had resigned as Prime Minister. An unexpected end to her extraordinary five years in this role. Her exit, like everything else she had done as a leader, was on her terms.
Jacinda Ardern has surprised people throughout her political career, not least when she took over as Labour Leader in August 2017. She took the New Zealand Labour Party from a long way behind in the polls to government in just a few weeks.
I first heard of Jacinda Ardern just after the 2008 election. Labour had just lost power after nine years in office. Ardern was one of the new MPs being touted as the future of the party. At that time I was not a party member, having left in 2002 and did not rejoin until 2013. Whilst I was hearing Jacinda’s name a lot, much of the noise was from the Wellington bubble and party insiders. It was only later that I, like most New Zealand voters was to see the political force she really was.
I first met Jacinda at Labour Leadership campaign hustings in Auckland in 2014. She was Grant Robertson’s running mate and I was the campaign manager for Andrew Little, who went on to narrowly win that leadership contest. We were standing outside this hustings event leafleting for our respective campaigns. I realised just before the meeting that my cell phone was about to die, so asked if I could borrow her charger. Unfortunately, she did not have one, and for the next 90 minutes, I nervously watched my phone’s battery bar decline.
Jacinda came in as a list MP, having unsuccessfully contested the safe Tory seat of Waikato in 2008. In 2011 and 2014 she ran in the Auckland Central electorate, which prior to 2008 had been considered a moderately safe Labour seat. Jacinda was unsuccessful both times and remained a list MP until 2017 when she won Helen Clark’s old electorate of Mount Albert. Shortly after this, she became Deputy Leader of the Party.
Up till this point, Jacinda only had limited support outside the political bubble in Wellington. She was a strong performer in parliament and from 2014 onwards had started getting some very good soft media building her brand as a relatable politician. But it was once she became deputy leader that her profile really began to grow. When polling started to show her personal support was ahead of the party leader, her promotion was only a matter of time.
In August 2017, just a few weeks out from the New Zealand General Election, Andrew Little resigned as party leader as it was clear that he was unlikely to win. A few days later Jacinda was elected leader. In the days that followed Labour’s polling numbers started to bounce. As the campaign wore on, National Party (the NZ Tory Party) Prime Minister Bill English, who had taken over the role only a few months earlier, began to sound rattled. By the time of the main leader’s debates, Jacindamania had taken hold.
Despite all this, it was still far from certain that Labour could win the election. After nearly a decade of polling behind the National Party, the last-minute polling surge still felt like it could still fall away again.
In my blog post from 2020, I described the last time I met Jacinda, just one day after she became the Leader of the Opposition:
A few weeks before leaving New Zealand, my friend Rob and I were in Burger Fuel on Cuba Street the hipster trendy part of Wellington. Piko was renting an office space in the old Wellington Trades Hall and we were doing painting and renovations of the space. In our crappy paint-covered work clothes we sat in Burger Fuel when Rob alerts me to who had just walked into the restaurant. 24 hours beforehand, Jacinda Ardern had replaced Andrew Little as leader of the Labour Party. We both knew Jacinda so said hello and talked about the Stand with Pike campaign we had been working on which Jacinda had pledged to support a few hours before. This slightly awkward conversation with the new leader of the opposition did not last long. None of us, I suspect even Jacinda, knew that in a few weeks’ time, she would achieve one of the greatest upsets in New Zealand’s political history and become Prime Minister
A few weeks later I moved to London. By the time I had left, the polls had narrowed and it looked as though the election would be close. I arrived in London on Monday 11 September, and that afternoon went down to New Zealand House in Haymarket to vote for the New Zealand Labour Party. Whilst I wanted NZ Labour to win, I still did not believe they would. As I watched the election results come in just under a fortnight later, it still seemed like the National Party would just hold on for another term. But a series of factors conspired, resulting in what is still one of the most surprising NZ political victories in living memory.
Social democratic values and policies are in fact far more aligned with the New Zealand public than the Tories. I believe the same is true in Britain, as I outlined in my blog posts on why the UK Labour Party lost the 2019 election. Yet in both countries, the Tories win more elections than they lose. In the years 2008 to 2017 when the NZ Labour Party were in opposition, Labour policy often had far more support than the Labour Party. For example, the Key Governments’ partial privatisation of state-owned assets in 2011 which Labour opposed. On that specific issue, polls showed public opposition to privatisation. Yet in 2011, National was easily reelected and Labour’s share of the vote declined.
Jacinda’s strength as a leader became apparent during the 2017 campaign. She was able to bridge the gap between policy and people’s perceptions. She convinced people that Labour values were aligned with their own, in a way that many of her predecessors simply had not. Her warmth, her strong communication style and her positivity gave a human face to centre-left politics, one that voters could relate to.
The results of the 2017 election were close, and whoever formed a government would need to form a multi-party coalition. Here again, Jacinda showed skill and strength by being able to build bridges with New Zealand First, a socially conservative centrist party, and the Green Party. This required compromises which disappointed much of Labour’s base, yet got Labour into Government so they could implement at least some of their policy agenda.
Over the last five years, Jacinda has held up as a model of progressive political leadership throughout the world. There are many examples of where she has shone as Prime Minister. The best example is her response to the Christchurch Mosque shooting in 2019:
Her statement immediately following the attack against the Christchurch Muslim Community was clear “they are us” , a clear condemnation of Islamophobia by a world leader. When Donald Trump asked what he could do to help Jacinda replied he could show “sympathy and love for muslim communities”
They are us. Three words to the Muslim world showed compassion, humanity and inclusion after an act of evil.
The New Zealand Government’s initial response to the pandemic in 2020 was another example of strong leadership. In crisis management, it is crucial that you quickly assess the relevant information and then act decisively. The decision to close the border and put in tough restrictions was not an easy thing to do, but it undoubtedly saved thousands of lives. Not least as the health system Labour inherited when they came to power in 2017 had been badly underfunded and under-resourced for a decade. After only 30 months in power, there had not been enough time to turn this around. The restrictions were tough both for people in NZ and for people like me living overseas and unable to return. Much as people may now blame Jacinda and the Labour Government for the tough restrictions, they might also want to consider the impact of National’s mismanagement of the health system for nearly a decade. This mismanagement of the health system left it vulnerable to collapse during the pandemic.
In October 2020, Arderns’s Labour Government won the biggest majority of any New Zealand government in half a century. Jacinda’s crisis management and clear communication during Covid, the Mosque shooting and the White Island eruption all contributed to this victory.
After Labour won its second term in office, I outlined some of the challenges the government would face:
The coming term will not be an easy one for Labour, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rumble on and the world plunges into the worst financial crisis in decades. On Saturday Labour were rewarded for their handling of the crisis so far, but the hard part is yet to come. On the one hand, they need to rebuild the NZ economy at a time when international tourism is dead and export markets are volatile. But even prior to this the New Zealand economy was unbalanced and in a precarious state. Its over-reliance on dairy exports has made it vulnerable if anything happens to this market and resulted in over-intensive dairy farming which has harmed the environment – not a good look for a country that brands itself as clean and green. It also faces growing inequality with significant growth in homelessness and poverty in recent years.
The above was a fairly accurate summary of the challenges Ardern’s government would face in its second term. What nobody expected at that time was the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the havoc this would cause the world economy, already severely strained by the pandemic. Governments around the world have struggled with this crisis, with New Zealand being no exception. In May 2022 I wrote the following:
In New Zealand, the opposition has been quick to blame the Labour Government in New Zealand for this, at a time when support for the government is falling fast. Having won a record majority in 2020 for their handling of the pandemic, Ardern’s government now faces a backlash over coronavirus restrictions and is taking the blame for current economic challenges. Commentary in the New Zealand media also tends to focus on inflation as a domestic issue, as such much of the commentary is often wide of the mark.
At the start of 2022 there began to be a seachange in New Zealand politics. The Government’s handling of the pandemic had strong support in 2020 and for much of 2021. But as more and more people were vaccinated, and increasingly other countries lifted their travel and other Covid restrictions, public support began to wane. The protests outside the New Zealand parliament in 2022 were a minority of anti-vaccination campaigners. This group, inspired by the January 6 Capitol attack in Washington did not enjoy widespread support. But they demonstrated that the polarisation that other English-speaking democracies faced in recent years had reached New Zealand. Alt-right, anti-science and anti-government protests caused considerable disruption outside parliament in Wellington. Those opposed to the protest became frustrated that the police and government had not moved them on. By the time these protests ended on 10 March 2022, support for the government had taken a hit.
At the same time as these protests and a struggling economy, Jacinda faced a new leader of the opposition. In the lead-up to the 2020 election, National managed to go through three leaders in four months. By the time of the election, they were no longer seen as a credible opposition and suffered their worst election defeat in 18 years. In late 2021 National put forward a new leader, Christopher Luxon. A former CEO of Air New Zealand, Luxon came into parliament in 2020 and was immediately touted as a future leader. Whilst in no way a match for Ardern in terms of oratory or style, Luxon could credibly challenge the Government’s record on bread-and-butter issues like housing, economic management and its slow delivery on infrastructure projects such as light rail in Auckland. Whilst Luxon has trailed Ardern in preferred Prime Minister Polls, for nearly a year National had maintained a 5-7% lead over Labour. At the end of 2022, it felt like Ardern’s government would likely face an electoral loss in 2023.
Critics of Jacinda Ardern have been quick to say that her resignation now was a way of avoiding electoral loss later in the year. Others have pointed to the level of hate and vitriol that Ardern has had to put up with in recent years, including former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark who said that “Jacinda has faced a level of hatred and vitriol which in my experience is unprecedented in our country.”
One Conservative Canadian politician, Michelle Rempel Garner argues that Justin Trudeau faced many of the same if not greater challenges to Jacinda Ardern in the last year, yet they were treated differently due to their respective genders.
Below is Jacinda Ardern’s resignation speech, I will leave the reader to decide for themselves what her reasons really are:
Jacinda Ardern, announcing her resignation as Prime Minister of New Zealand
It is too soon to say what Jacinda’s legacy will be. She will certainly be remembered for becoming a mother whilst being a world leader. For her presence on the world stage as a voice for feminism and progressive politics. She ushered in a generational and attitudinal change in New Zealand politics. While internationally she offered an alternative to the politics of Trump, Bolsonaro, Scott Morrison and Viktor Orban.
Ultimately, governments are measured on their longevity. Both in terms of how long they are in office, but also how long their policies remain in place. Jacinda Ardern’s legacy will be judged not only on Labour’s successes under her leadership but also on how well Labour performs after her resignation.
On Wednesday, New Zealand will have a new Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, who will lead Labour into the October 14 General Election. Chris certainly has his work cut out for him over the next few months. That being said, the coming election is by no means a foregone conclusion. For all the challenges of the past five years, he inherits a government that has much to be proud of, not least Jacinda Ardern message of kindness, inclusion and positivity. To quote the outgoing Prime Minister, “bring it on.”
Nick Kelly 