Top “NZ Politics Daily” stories today
Below are some of the more interesting and insightful New Zealand politics items from the weekend and this morning.
1) The Government’s close connections with the tobacco industry are under scrutiny, and it’s now been revealed that the Prime Minister’s sister-in-law, Barbara Luxon, has been working for the biggest tobacco company in the world, British American Tobacco. She’s had the job for nearly two decades, but the PM says it hasn’t impacted his smoking stances: “I have never discussed tobacco policy with her.” Luxon put out a statement: “The Cabinet Office is aware of the connection and I am confident I have complied with the Cabinet Manual” – see Bridie Witton’s PM Christopher Luxon’s sister-in-law works for tobacco company
2) The Government’s connections with the tobacco industry are mainly about the NZ First party, and the new minister responsible for tobacco policies, Casey Costello, who was in trouble last week for denying that she requested officials to work on a policy to freeze increases in taxes on cigarettes. In the weekend, the Herald’s political editor Claire Trevett gave a good explanation for how the “confusion” occurred: “The Costello issue dragged out mainly because Costello dug in on it. She began the week denying to RNZ she had sought specific advice on freezing tobacco excise. When documents showed she had indeed asked for that advice, she got entangled in a bizarre tautological argument, apparently around the distinction between whether ticking a box to ask for advice on something amounted to asking for specific advice. She tried to argue she had not asked for advice on that specifically, but rather had sent material to the Ministry of Health to ponder over, mainly drawn from the annals of NZ First manifestos. Officials had then asked whether she wanted advice on each part of that – including the excise tax freeze - and she ticked yes. Newsflash, Costello. That is a request for advice – whether it is specific advice or bog-standard advice is moot” – see: PM Christopher Luxon’s trouble selling smokefree argument after Casey Costello’s start (paywalled)
3) The links to the tobacco industry involve plenty of others close to the Government – especially two former NZ First staffers who are now lobbyists for cigarette companies. And there are some signs that such lobbyists might also be influential on the Government’s Resource Management Act reform. Stuff columnist Vernon Small revealed in the weekend: “one of the two [lobbyists] – former NZ First chief of staff David Broome – had a hand in early drafting of fast-track consenting legislation, according to a senior government source” – see: Smoke signals: Vernon Small’s read on Parliament’s return (paywalled)
Small explains: “The planned fast-track law, due for introduction on March 8, was foreshadowed on Friday by RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones. They said it would include a provision for ministers to refer projects to a fast-track panel process, but unlike under the previous government, there will be only limited ability for a panel to decline a project once it is referred. It’s a regime that is courting a big blow-back from environmental and community groups over political involvement in consenting decisions. Ministers will not only be involved in referring projects to the fast-track process, but they will be front and centre of approving consents.”
4) With Labour currently in the doldrums and widely seen as irrelevant, there is no great soul-searching taking place about why the party lost nearly half its support at the last election. MPs and supporters want to put it down to superficial factors that don’t require the party to come up with any significant change in direction or personnel. Writing in The Post, Andrea Vance suggests that this is a big mistake, especially because this is what caused the problem in the first place, whereby when last in Opposition for nine years the party failed to do any big thinking: “The party had lost its way, along with identity and purpose, long before 2017. So when elected, it could neither articulate its priorities nor a coherent view of what it wanted, largely because they didn’t exist beyond ‘transformational’.” – see: Labour is wrong: a wealth tax is not its silver bullet (paywalled)
Vance argues that much of what Labour did in its six years in government wasn’t well thought out or even deliberate – especially its radical constitutional reforms: “its approach was piecemeal, rather than a defined blueprint of priorities.” This was also especially the case in terms of the economy, tax, and spending: “Labour hadn’t only neglected to take the public along, it also presided over a massive expansion in public spending while failing to implement promises to improve services, and people’s economic security. By the time October’s election came around, no-one believed Labour could deliver on its promises, let alone afford them. Even relatively modest policies, like free dental care to under-30s, was met with scepticism. That’s fatal to social democracy, where the use of tax revenue to achieve broader political and social ambitions hinges on the public trusting that the government can manage the public finances. And so, the voter shrugged: why not take National’s tax cuts?”
Vance now warns that Labour is naïve if it thinks that it can continue to tinker, perhaps with faith that a new tax policy might solve its problems.
5) The future of the Greens, without James Shaw, was discussed in-depth by journalist Julie Jacobson in The Post on Saturday – see: The new Greens – sowing the seeds of change? (paywalled)
The focus is on whether the Greens will now focus less on the environment, as social justice-orientated Green MPs become more dominant in the party. Jacobson says that with the climate change-focused Shaw departing, “it got the drums beating for a party whose environmental credentials are increasingly being questioned and whose MPs, some say, appear more willing to speak out on ‘bandwagon issues’, issues such as trans-gender rights or international justice and humanitarian struggles.” She reports the question of: When was the last time you saw a Green MP “out in gumboots and hi-vis protesting New Zealand’s still dirty rivers, or waving a banner for an upgraded national rail network”? They’re more likely to be a race relations or Gaza protest.
6) Writing in the Listener today, Danyl McLauchlan says that the Greens have a real problem of “strategic coherence” at the moment, not being decided what their focus should be. He points to some in the party who want a more radical approach, and one less focused on environmental incrementalism. He says “many Green activists, and some of the party’s former MPs” argue that the party “should be an anti-establishment movement devoted to the destruction of capitalism and the settler-colonial state – the true causes of inequality and climate change” – see: It’s not easy being Green: Can Chlöe Swarbrick overcome the party’s self-destructive tendencies? (paywalled)
The Greens are now very much focused on Labour as the enemy, to be beaten by a growing Green Party. McLauchlan explains: “They see Labour as a centrist party marketing itself as left-wing, taking up the space that another party – a certain environmental and social justice party, say – might profitably occupy.” The problem is, he argues, that the Greens struggle as an organisation once they get bigger numbers, and they start to splinter and fight amongst themselves: “This democratic, consensus-based framework works surprisingly well when the party is small and the internal relationships in the caucus remain collegial. But as it scales up, cracks appear and factions form… the self-destructive tendencies built into the Green Party will flourish like weeds after a rainstorm – and even a politician as talented as Swarbrick will struggle to uproot them.”
7) The announcement that Chloe Swarbrick will run for Shaw’s co-leadership position is being treated by commentators as the end of the matter, as she will easily win any contest. Newstalk’s political editor Jason Walls says that “If bookies were paying odds, Chloe Swarbrick would be paying out about $1.01” – see: Swarbrick will take Greens to uncharted polling territory – at Labour’s expense (paywalled)
He predicts that even before Swarbrick wins the leadership position, Chloemania will take off, pushing the party into higher poll numbers, at the expense of Labour. Swarbrick will be highly focused on achieving her task of killing off Labour as the main party of the left: “Successful politicians are ruthless, and she’s already showing early signs she’s a killer.
8) An editorial in The Press on Saturday also argued that Swarbrick is going to be very different to the “collaborative” James Shaw, noting that “Swarbrick’s announcement yesterday was less conciliatory or collaborative in style. Despite pointing out that she had worked with the likes of former National MP Nick Smith, she described the current coalition as having “a cruel agenda” and dismissed both ‘legacy parties’, National and Labour, as not representative of the political future” – see: The inevitable rise of Chlöe Swarbrick (paywalled)
Such a combative approach is entirely right now that the Greens are in Opposition rather than Government, according to the newspaper. They do caution that Swarbrick can be seen as too extreme in some areas, noting her continued use of the controversial slogan that Palestine shall be free “from the river to the sea”, which some view as calling for an end to Israel and Jewish people in the Middle East.
9) Many on the far left are excited about Swarbrick’s arrival, seeing this as a break from the Green Party’s recent shifts towards the centre of the political spectrum – see for example, Steven Cowan’s blog post, Chloe Swarbrick and the Green Party: A sea change in New Zealand politics?
10) Others don’t think that a radical Swarbrick will manage to make the changes that she is signalling, and will be either constrained by the conservative realities of political power in New Zealand, or by the Greens’ own support base which is more middle-class than radical working class – see Chris Trotter’s She Says She Wants A Revolution
11) As the Government heads into a major reform of the public service, especially in terms of swingeing cuts, it’s worth reading Henry Cooke’s expert deep dive into the size and dynamics of government agencies in this country – see: Here’s what our 63,000 public servants actually do – and why we have so many of them now
12) The public service’s reliance on outside consultancies and contractors to do much of its work is due to be wound right back according to National. For one idea of how they might do this, see Phil Pennington’s Officials suggest hubs of consultants inside agencies to cut costs in public sector
Reporting on the briefing to the new Government from the public service, Pennington says: “Officials are looking at cutting costs in the public service by creating hubs of consultants inside agencies, instead of relying on external ones.”
13) The Wellington City Council’s inability to sort out its water crisis, or even fix the leaks, is down to its elected councillors not being “up to the frankly quite basic task of making good decisions about money” according to Heather du Plessis-Allan’s column, Wellington City Council is the most poorly run council in New Zealand (paywalled)
She explains that local councillors have decided that money for pipes and leaks is best spent elsewhere: “Like lending $32m to the NASDAQ-listed owners of Readings Cinema on Courtenay Place so they could afford to renovate their building. Or like ripping up the road and laying down another cycleway, this time in Karori. Or like ripping up the road and pedestrianising the Golden Mile against the wishes of the retailers who run their businesses there.”
14) Is it the calm before the storm? There has been plenty of media coverage of the lead-up to Waitangi Day, but little real conflict of any huge significance. But the Government are yet to be welcomed at Waitangi, and there are plenty of risks and opportunities for the various politicians involved. The Herald’s David Fisher covers all this the best in the article, Luxon, Jones and others who stand to win big – or lose large - at Waitangi (paywalled)
According to Fisher, the stakes are high for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, but “the only way is up” for him, given that expectations of him are so low. Hence, “short of a catastrophic misstep – Luxon is unlikely to emerge in worse shape than he arrives.”
Political commentator Matthew Hooton is quoted on this: “The biggest potential winner from Waitangi Day is the Prime Minister, because things are a bit of a mess, expectations are so low and he has a huge opportunity to surprise on the upside and finally establish himself as leader of the country.” Likewise, I’m cited saying that “Luxon will win points in middle New Zealand for turning up”, and he will benefit “if he gets jeered and heckled”.
15) The most interesting part of proceedings so far at Waitangi is Te Pati Māori’s decision to be welcomed separately to the other Opposition parties – instead joining the Māori King on his powhiri. The unity of the parties is falling apart, with TPM being noticeably hostile to Labour and Greens, saying that those parties wish to “assimilate” them. For more on the changes in protocols this year for welcoming the parties at Waitangi see Tova O'Brien’s PM at odds with Waitangi Trust over separate Government pōwhiri
16) We are living in a period of increased political tensions, toxicity, polarisation and tribalness. While there is always going to be a need to scrutinise those in power, with escalating toxicity and conspiracy theories, there’s also likely to be increased unhinged political debate and commentary. So, just as we had a rise in irrational hatred for Jacinda Ardern during the last government (“Ardern Derangement Syndrome”), we are now witnessing more and more “Luxon Derangement Syndrome”. The latest example of this is from security commenter Paul Buchanan, who argues the new government is the result of some sort of “coup”, and he regards Luxon’s government as an illegitimate and authoritarian “junta” – see: The New Zealand Junta
Dr Bryce Edwards
Political Analyst in Residence, Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington
NZ Politics Daily – 5 February 2024
WAITANGI
David Fisher (Herald): Luxon, Jones and others who stand to win big - or lose large - at Waitangi (paywalled)
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): The whawhai is on at Waitangi
David Seymour (Herald): The Treaty: We don’t believe Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership between races
Shane Jones (Herald): The Treaty: NZ First will push for a reset in our race relations bearings
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): New Zealand First promises to review Waitangi Tribunal and push for a reset
Madeleine Chapman (Spinoff): The tide is rising at Waitangi
Jamie Tahana (Guardian): Māori anger at moves to unravel decades of progress isn’t just on the streets. It’s in the courts
Tova O’Brien (Stuff): PM at odds with Waitangi Trust over separate Government pōwhiri
Adam Pearse (Herald): How the coalition Government intends to face Māoridom at Waitangi
Tracy Watkins (Post): Ōrewa, Waitangi and the lessons we can learn (paywalled)
Don Brash: What kind of country do we want to be?
Boris Sokratov (Herald): David Seymour, Don Brash, Hobson’s Choice - Saviours of Māori
Simon Wilson (Herald): The spirit of Waitangi: Unity, righteous anger, jokes and music (paywalled)
Maioha Panapa and Mare Haimona-Riki (Whakaata Māori): Waihoroi Shortland explains the ‘see-more’ factor
Kelvin McDonald and Tumamao Harawira (Whakaata Māori): ‘Don’t tutū with Te Tiriti’: Governor-General given clear message
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): Dame Cindy Kiro: Tai Tokerau’s first wahine Māori Governor-General
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): Ngā Tamatoa original members to gather ‘in force’ at Waitangi
Peter de Graaf (RNZ): Nearly 400 march through Kaitāia to support Te Tiriti o Waitangi
1News: Hundreds take part in 200 kilometre hīkoi to Waitangi
Tom McKinlay (ODT): Principles at stake (paywalled)
Tommy de Silva (Spinoff): The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, explained
Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown (Newsroom): The myth of the cession of Māori sovereignty
Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown (Newsroom): Why we are debating ‘the principles’ of the Treaty of Waitangi
Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown (Newsroom): Te Tiriti should inspire hope, not fear
Brian Easton (Pundit): Our Understandings Of Te Tiriti Has Evolved Organically
Shane Te Pou (Herald): Treaty of Waitangi: David Seymour must address systematic disadvantages in society (paywalled)
Paul Moon (The Conversation): Waitangi Day 2024: 5 myths and misconceptions that confuse the Treaty debate
K Gurunathan (Post): A year of reinvigorating the power of protest (paywalled)
Te Aniwa Hurihanganui (1News): Te Tiriti: The differences between the Māori and English texts explained
Willie Jackson (Herald): The Treaty: Our future is two people singing as one without resentment or rancour
Peter Cresswell (Newsroom): Waitangi: Ned’s “slippery” Treaty
Carwyn Jones (Spinoff): According to Apirana Ngata, Māori ceded sovereignty by signing Te Tiriti. Is he right?
Felix Desmarais (1News): Waitangi: 'Keep the deal' with Māori – tangata tiriti speaker
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Chief of Navy expects 'different energy' at Waitangi ahead of Government arrival
Kelvin McDonald and Riria Dalton-Reedy (Whakaata Māori): ‘We’ve got to find a way ahead’: Navy chief says Waitangi political challenges part of Aotearoa’s growth
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): What is Waitangi to Pacific people?
Te Ahipourewa Forbes (Re: News): What actually happens at Waitangi on Waitangi Day?
Te Karere: Five non-political things to do in Waitangi on Waitangi Day
RNZ: How Wellington is marking Waitangi Day
RNZ: Interest in Te Tiriti o Waitangi exhibition rises as Te Papa looks to transform it
RNZ: When does protest become art? Defacing an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi
Paid subscribers can access the full “NZ Politics Daily” from here. The following categories of news and analysis continue: KIINGITANGA, RĀTANA, TE PATI MĀORI AT WAITANGI; LABOUR AND GREENS AT WAITANGI; IWI CHAIRS FORUM; GOVERNMENT, TOBACCO; PARLIAMENT, WEEK IN REVIEW; GREENS; PUBLIC SERVICE, TAX; FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE, TRADE; HEALTH, COVID; LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WATER INFRASTRUCTURE; ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT; BUSINESS; ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION; TRANSPORT; HOUSING, CONSTRUCTION; EDUCATION; ENERGY