Democracy Briefing: The Real problem with Mike King is that politicians enable him
Nearly everyone agrees that Mike King’s intentions are good. The former comedian, mental health advocate and founder of the “I Am Hope” charity has come under repeated scrutiny in recent weeks. His controversial statements about alcohol and mental illness drew widespread criticism from mental health experts.
One of the pamphlets his charity distributes to children about “climate anxiety”, presents trucking firm TR Group and Genesis Energy as climate heroes, attracting criticism that the organisation is involved in “greenwashing” – presenting large-scale carbon polluters as environmentally friendly.
But the real issue lies with the politicians, who have enabled him. One of the reasons King is attracting all this criticism is that the Government is providing his charity with $24 million in non-contestable funding, in defiance of nearly every convention on public spending and accountability to taxpayers.
He continues to also cause controversy with his “unorthodox” and eccentric approach to mental health. In an interview with Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan, King claimed that alcohol was not a problem for people who were mentally unwell, and that it prevented more suicides than it caused.
In response Labour called for funding for his “Gumboot Friday” to be paused. Christopher Luxon reacted by accusing Labour of “playing politics” with mental health. Yet the charity became politicised the moment Luxon made a campaign pledge to fund it. The opposition are merely highlighting the poor judgement the Prime Minister has shown on this issue.
The most scathing commentary on King was published by Spinoff editor Madeleine Chapman, who cites King as an example of the “god-complex” problem in New Zealand public debate: “Person gains status – person makes a positive impact by speaking on a single topic – person receives positive feedback – person thinks they are the solution to every problem in New Zealand. God complex.”
Chapman says of King “This is not a man who wants to see mental health problems in New Zealand solved. King is a man who wants to see mental health problems in New Zealand solved by him. That is an impossible outcome, and by continuing to encourage his thinking, successive governments have built a rod for their backs. Now, we as a country are left with a mental health approach that seems to hinge on a former comedian with a propensity for anger delivering two counselling sessions to people in need.”
King has a history of tempestuous interactions with politicians and officials around the funding of his charity. In 2019 his Gumboot Friday counselling fund ran out of money, prompting calls for government assistance. King attacked the Ministry of Health, claiming they’d refused his request for a top-up. Health officials replied that they’d never had a request, and that proper procurement processes needed to be followed.
In July of 2021 King again attacked the ministry for refusing to fund him. They replied that he had failed to apply in time for the funding deadline. The Labour Government then created a special $1.2 million mental health innovation fund, awarding half of it to Gumboot Friday. RNZ recently ran a more exhaustive timeline of King’s tumultuous career as a mental health advocate.
In the run-up to the 2023 election Christopher Luxon appeared on The Rock Breakfast show and agreed to fund King’s charity in response to a question from the hosts. New Zealand First campaigned on giving $10 million in funding for Gumboot Friday and I Am Hope. The coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First delivered $24 million to the organisation: $6 million a year through to 2028.
Because the decision to allocate funding to a single provider via political fiat was so unusual, the Ministry of Health exploited a legal loophole to “opt-out” of the standard rules around procurement. Both Ministry and Treasury officials warned the Minister of Mental Health, Matt Doocey, that this was a risky decision. Despite these cautions a recent investigation by the Auditor General criticised officials for their compliance with the minister’s instructions.
In the wake of King’s questionable claims about alcohol and mental health, Luxon has announced that he disagrees with the comments but stands by King and his decision to fund King’s organisation.
Most experienced politicians apply a more hands-off approach to procurement, allowing officials and their processes to allocate funding. This provides a level of insulation: any problems or scandals can be dismissed by politicians as “operational” and referred to the ministry.
But Luxon is completely exposed to anything and everything that might go wrong with King or his organisation – both of which will continue to attract scrutiny due to the extraordinary exceptions he’s made for them. The rules are there to protect public funds, but also to protect politicians from their own lapses in judgement.
This isn’t the first time an influential celebrity has used media clout to bend politicians to their will. Back in the 2000s film-maker Peter Jackson ran controversial but highly effective lobbying campaigns to obtain tax rebates for his industry and weaken legal protections for film-industry workers. It’s another textbook case illustrating the ease at which well-connected individuals and sectors bully incumbent governments into twisting the rules and changing the laws.
The saga also raises questions about the legal and constitutional limits of MMP coalition negotiations. Public sector agencies have strict rules around spending and procurement to prevent misuse of public funding – but National and New Zealand First have discovered that coalition agreements are a useful way to exempt themselves from all of those rules and give taxpayer money to whomever they like.
The public should be very sceptical of this style of politics, and politicians should be pressured to rule out such cosy arrangements in future negotiations.
Finally, the Spinoff also recently published an on-the-ground deep dive into the reality of mental health funding from the perspective of a counselling centre in Rangitīkei which lacks a celebrity founder. It concludes:
“We are tired of being unsupported, unseen and unheard by successive government ministries who have been fully aware of our work for decades. Instead, our funding is reduced (and ultimately our service) while at the same time Mike King just keeps being Mike King.”
Dr Bryce Edwards
Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington
Key Sources
Madeleine Chapman (Spinoff): The King and his god complex
Eloise Gibson (RNZ): Mike King's charity I Am Hope accused of greenwashing over climate anxiety booklet
Jaime Lyth & Rachel Maher (Herald): PM Christopher Luxon responds to Mike King mental health alcohol claims
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Mike King: A timeline of ups and downs in mental health
Anneke Smith (RNZ): Christopher Luxon accuses Labour of playing politics with mental health
Anna Sophia (Spinoff): The bleak reality of working in mental health when you don’t have Mike King’s funding
It's frustrating to live with mental illness and navigate long-term diagnoses over decades, only to feel like genuine help is still out of reach. I'm sure I'm not alone in this; many of us went through a broken system as children, teens, and young adults. And now, as we grow older, the situation feels even worse. There’s real help we need but may never receive. This country seems more focused on slogans than solutions. Young people are encouraged to publicly share their supposed mental health struggles, while thousands are still on waiting lists just to be tested for ADHD. Meanwhile, government funding is directed to organizations like Mr King's gumboot clinic yet hardly anyone understands what they actually do. What the hell is $24m spent on.
It's pretty clear to me that as a psychiatric matter mental illness support organisations should only be allowed to practice, let alone be Government funded, if they are substantially directed by qualified psychiatrists and psychologists. Instead what's happening sounds like an irresponsible approach by all parties to assuring availability of essential health related services. Really I just don't get such amateurish Kiwi nonsense.