Green cart before economic & social horses

Gareth Hughes writing on the election of a National, Act NZ First government:

. . . This result will see climate change relegated even further to the back-burner. The dairy industry will sleep well knowing the public will keep picking up their pollution bill and the oil companies will be celebrating a return to offshore oil exploration. . . 

This rhetoric is far too common from people who base their views on emotion rather than facts.

While exhorting people with differing views to follow the science, they fail to follow it themselves.

And they keep putting green carts unsustainably in front of the economic and social horses.

Why take so long?

Auditor General John Ryan has released a report that is very critical of the last government’s reckless spending :

. . . A report by Auditor-General John Ryan into the NZ Upgrade Programme and the Shovel-Ready Projects, often abbreviated to NZUP and SRP, has today been tabled in the House. NZUP was originally given $12b and SRP was given $3b. The NZUP funded the likes of the Penlink, Mill Rd, and Ōtaki to North of Levin expressways, as well as the Melling interchange and a number of hospital and school upgrades.

Both projects date back to the first term of the last Government, when Labour was in office with the Greens and NZ First, the latter now being part of the new Government. . . 

Why has it taken so long – more than three years – to expose the wanton disregard for the careful spending of public funds?

Could at least some of the waste been prevented had the report been presented earlier?

Ryan was also critical of the poor bookkeeping, which in some cases was so dire that to this day it is “difficult to determine from publicly available information all the initiatives that have received funding from the NZUP”, meaning the public can’t see where all of the $12b had been spent. . . 

It’s not hard to think of many more pressing needs for $12 billion, including health, education and leaving some of it with the taxpayers from whom it came.

Ryan was particularly alarmed that the Government continued to spend large amounts of money without proper due process, despite a number of reports raising concerns about where this kind of rushed decision-making can lead.

“I have made similar observations about aspects of the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme, the Cost of Living Payment, the Provincial Growth Fund, and – most recently – the re-prioritisation of the Provincial Growth Fund,” Ryan wrote, listing a number of other schemes he had investigated.

“It concerns me that significant spending of public money continues to occur without appropriate processes for ensuring value for money and transparent decision-making.”

Labour didn’t care about value for money, they just cared about the political value in making announcements.

He recommended the Treasury ensure there was “regular public reporting on the progress of all significant investments that have had or that require Cabinet-level consideration, including NZUP projects”. . .

Mike Hosking says the ineptitude of the previous government is increasingly being revealed:

. . . How big of a nail in the coffin of economic credibility do you want? How big a laughingstock do you want to be? 

“How to blow $15 billion” was one headline. 

It talked about the advice they got and the advice they ignored. By the way, the members of the media who wet themselves the other week about the new Government ignoring Treasury advice, I hope you read this report and I hope you report on the report. 

Because no one ignored more advice than Labour 2017-2023. Also, the report covers some activity of the first Labour term, the one with New Zealand First. So, if you are one of those that thought Winston was on top of his brief, read up. It was a shambles. 

Everyone was telling them they didn’t have the money, they didn’t have the planning, and they didn’t have the workforce. The risk of blowouts were all over the place, none of it was set to go, or dare we suggest, shovel ready. 

But so desperate were they to appear to be doing something to drag the economy out of the post Covid hole they had engineered, they weren’t listening. And so, we end up with yet another reminder of the great calling card of Labour – non-delivery. 

Say a lot, do nothing. Announce it, then do nothing. Trumpet it for the news, then watch the crickets chirp. 

It is all there. Billions upon billions of dollars, of ideas and disaster, of no planning and even less listening. 

Nicola Willis is right, and we will hear all about it next week. The shambles she has been left is almost criminal. 

Luxon is right as well, when he said the other day, this lot should not be let within a million miles of the cheque book ever again.  . .

People a lot older than me say the previous government was the worst in their lifetimes.

The new one will have to be among the best if it is to right the wrongs, sort out the problems and get the country’s economy, infrastructure and services up to the standard required.

It’s made a good start:

Great first (proper) week of new @NZParliament. Ute tax gone. Fair pay agreements gone. Reserve Bank back to focusing on inflation. Government getting on with the job of getting NZ back on track.

— Christopher Bishop (@cjsbishop) December 14, 2023

 

Worth the wait

It took three weeks from the declaration of the final vote count to the announcement of the coalition government.

This exercised some of the commentariat but it was worth the wait.

We’ve got the country’s first three party coalition and one with a very detailed agreement.

The commentariat are picking who did best and who bested whom.

I think all three  parties did well.

National, which got by far the most votes holds the most important portfolios. Act and NZ First got ones that suit them and all three got policies wins which show they have more in common than critics give them credit.

Those who voted for change have also won.

On election night, I said that we’d listened to the public and heard a description of a better New Zealand. New Zealanders want change that makes our lives easier. We want change that improves our opportunities. We want change that makes this great country even better. The Government is going to deliver that change and we are ready to get on with it.

We’ve got a government that is focussed on undoing the worst policies of the last six years, delivering policies that will address the omnishambles Labour has left behind and that will make the country, and people’s lives, better.

And we’ve got a Prime Minister in Christopher Luxon, who understands the responsibilities of government and is in parliament for the right reason :

“It is genuinely an awesome responsibility and so I think the ceremony is incredibly weighty that actually every minister understands the responsibility that they have.”

“As I said, it is a really special privilege to do public service, that’s why we genuinely leave what we’re doing and actually come to this place, to try and advance the lives of all Kiwis, and that’s what we’ve gotta do as a government.”

You can read the National – Act agreement here and the National NZ First one here.

“We want change”

A majority of New Zealanders voted for change in the election and now we’ve got a government to deliver it:

The new coalition government of National, ACT and New Zealand First will be stable, effective and will deliver for all New Zealanders, National Leader and incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says.

“Despite the challenging economic environment, New Zealanders can look forward to a better future because of the changes the new Government will make,” Mr Luxon says.

“I said on election night that we would be a government that would deliver for every New Zealander, regardless of who we are, where we are and whatever our life circumstances. How the coalition parties do that has been at the core of our negotiations.

“New Zealanders have put their trust in us. In return, we trust New Zealanders. We believe in this country. We are ambitious for it. We know that, with the right leadership, the right policies and the right direction, together New Zealanders can make this an even better country.” 

The three-party coalition government is the first in New Zealand’s MMP history, with all parties represented in Cabinet.

• • New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters will be Deputy Prime Minister for the first half of the three-year Parliamentary term
  • ACT Leader David Seymour will be Deputy Prime Minister for the second half of the term
  • Mr Peters will be Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr Seymour Minister for Regulation.
  • The 20-strong Cabinet will have 14 National Ministers, three ACT Ministers and three New Zealand First Ministers 
  • Nicola Willis will be Minister of Finance, Brooke van Velden will be Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and Hon Shane Jones will be Minister for Regional Development
  • There will be five ministers from National, two from ACT and one from New Zealand First outside Cabinet
  • ACT and New Zealand First will each have one Parliamentary Under-Secretary 

“The Government will manage a strong economy that will ease the cost of living and deliver tax relief, restore law and order, deliver better public services and strengthen democracy.

“The coalition documents between National and ACT, and National and New Zealand First, provide for both ACT and New Zealand First to support the major elements of National’s policy programme including our 100-day plan, our 100-point economic plan, and our tax and fiscal plans, with some adjustments.

“The National and ACT agreement provides that the Government will progress a range of ACT initiatives, and these will be supported by New Zealand First. Equally, the National and New Zealand First coalition agreement outlines a range of New Zealand First priorities, which will be supported by ACT.

“The coalition parties believe people should be rewarded for their effort and hard-working Kiwis should keep more of what they earn. National campaigned on that commitment and, next July, the Government will deliver it.

“The tax package will continue to be funded through a combination of spending reprioritisation and additional revenue measures. However, as part of National’s agreement with New Zealand First, the proposed foreign buyer tax will no longer go ahead. Policy changes will help offset the loss of revenue from that change.  National’s fiscal plan also had buffers which give confidence that tax reduction can still be funded responsibly. 

“The coalition parties have adopted ACT’s policy to speed up the rate at which interest deductibility for rental properties is restored.

“Delivering tax relief is just one part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy. The Government will ease the cost of living, reduce wasteful spending, and lift economic growth to increase opportunities and prosperity for all New Zealanders.”

“Restoring law and order will be as important to the Government as it is to the public. In addition to National’s policies to tackle gangs and youth crime, the parties have agreed with ACT to re-write the Arms Act, and agreed with New Zealand First to train no fewer than 500 new Police.

“Part of treating taxpayers’ money with respect is getting better value from public services. We will set targets, like shorter wait times in hospitals, and public services will be delivered on the basis of need.

“To lift educational performance, every class will undertake an hour a day each of reading, writing and maths. The parties have agreed to adopt ACT’s policies to reintroduce partnership schools and to allow state schools to become partnership schools.

Other key policies in the agreements include:

• • A new agency, accountable to the Minister for Regulation, will assess the quality of new and existing regulation. This agency, proposed by ACT, will be funded by disestablishing the Productivity Commission
  • A Regional Infrastructure Fund, proposed by New Zealand First, that will have $1.2 billion in capital funding

“I thank the public for their patience since Election Day. It’s a credit to our country that we now handle the MMP process with such calm and maturity.

“I also thank the caretaker government for their assistance during the transition period.

“It’s exciting to be on the cusp of delivering a big policy programme with two coalition partners who, alongside National, are determined to make New Zealanders’ lives better.

“On election night, I said that we’d listened to the public and heard a description of a better New Zealand. New Zealanders want change that makes our lives easier. We want change that improves our opportunities. We want change that makes this great country even better. The Government is going to deliver that change and we are ready to get on with it.”

The National and Act agreement is here

The National and NZ First agreement is here

The list of Ministers is here

 

No time to be lost

Providing the boards of the National, Act and NZ First parties accept the agreements their leaders have signed, the new government will be confirmed today and Christopher Luxon will be Prime Minister.

Who gets which ministerial position will be of interest to political tragics but what is far more important is the coalition government’s policies.

The late Sir Robert Muldoon lacked ambition when he said he wanted to leave the country no worse than when he took over. That would have been preferable to what the outgoing government has left – a far worse state than when it was elected.

The new government faces multiple big challenges which need urgent attention and it will be severely constrained in what it can spend in addressing them.

All three parties and all their MPs will need to be disciplined, focused and intent on leaving the country in a far better state than it is now.

By this logic

Act leader David Seymour wants to be deputy Prime Minister:

. . . Seymour publicly set out his claim to the title: Act’s bigger share of the vote. . . 

Act got nearly twice as many votes as NZ First.

But by Seymour’s logic, National which got more than six times as many votes as NZ First and three and a half times more votes than Act should have a much bigger role than both the smaller parties.

However, MMP doesn’t work that way, it almost always gives  disproportional power to the smaller parties in government which enables them to indulge in tail waggery.

Who becomes deputy PM is important, possibly more important to some egos than to others, but what matters more is that the new government has the will, and the ways, to fix the mess Labour has left and get the country back on track.

Is voting too easy?

Election Day was a month ago and we had to wait three weeks to get the results.

One of the frustrations over the delay is that the law which allows interim updates for provisional results on the night of the election, prohibits them from then until the final result is announced. That will be easy to change but it is not the only issue which needs to be addressed.

The wait for final results is a week longer in the past owing to a law change by Labour, with the support of New Zealand First and the Green Party, that allowed people to enrol right up to and on Election Day and also extended the time allowed for the final count by a week.

This made it easier to vote. Is it now too easy?

Polling places in shopping malls and other venues enabled many to vote without going out of their way.

Most of these were open for 12 days before the election and people overseas had five days more to download voting papers or go to an embassy.

More polling places and the ability to vote early was supposed to encourage more people to vote, but is that more important than the integrity of the election system and is it now too easy to vote?

Richard Prebble points out New Zealand is the only country that allows people to enrol on the day of the election :

There are reasons to doubt the result of the 2023 election. I say this having been a campaign organiser or candidate in 14 general elections, and also having been a UN official international election observer.

Countries ensure that only qualified electors vote by requiring voters to register before the election, giving their name, address and occupation. The electoral roll is published to enable public scrutiny.

My team would take the electoral roll door-to-door. We would find discrepancies and occasional electoral fraud. We found 18 people falsely enrolled at one address. It is the publishing of the roll that ensures the integrity of the election.

In 2020, the Jacinda Ardern-led Government enacted election-day enrolment. Now, on election day, with no proof of ID or address, anyone can sign a declaration, enrol, and vote. . . 

Despite having almost two weeks to vote, an extraordinary number of people go to the inconvenience of special voting in an electorate where they are not enrolled. The suspicion is that many have changed addresses, have not updated their enrolment, and are illegally voting in their old electorate. I know two electors who voted using their old address.

If you don’t know that elections  generally happen at three yearly intervals and take the many opportunities to enrol or update your enrolment, is allowing you to vote more important than the safeguard publishing the roll provides?

Then there is electorate tourism: people who enrol and vote in an electorate where they do not live.  . . 

Former Green MP Metiria Turei admitted she voted in an electorate where she didn’t live to help a friend. We can’t know how many other people vote where they are not eligible to do so.

People with more than one address don’t have a choice about where they vote. They must vote where they spend most of their time.

This was an issue when Wyatt Creech challenged the election night majority of Reg Boorman in the Wairarapa electorate. People who worked in Wellington for four or more days and returned to homes in Wairarapa had their votes disallowed because they ought to have enrolled in Wellington.

University students who move away to study often still vote in their home electorate even though they spend more time where they study.

Having represented two university electorates, I know electorate tourism occurs. Election-day enrolment has made electorate tourism easy.

Fear of electoral fraud is why electronic voting is not permitted, except for those voting from overseas. But if electronic voting is inherently unsafe, then there must be doubts over the electronic votes from overseas. . . 

There is no other country that lets people with no ID enrol and vote on election day. We are the only country where 20.9 per cent of the total votes cast are special votes.

No one knows how many of the 603,257 special votes are fraudulent.

The shift of a handful of votes could change the election result. The Green Party received one-third of their votes from specials, which boosted the number of Green MPs. The special votes decreased National’s MP count by two. Special votes enabled Te Pāti Māori to win two electorates. It is possible that if only valid ballots were counted, National and Act together won the election. . . 

Recounts don’t check the eligibility of voters or legitimacy of votes, only whether the count was correct.

It is vital that at least one electoral petition is filed with the High Court. The High Court can examine the validity of the ballots. Consideration also needs to be given to filing a High Court petition to challenge the party vote. A party vote challenge would be a mammoth task, but what is at stake is not just this election, but all future elections.

An electoral petition will help determine whether the present special voting arrangements are worth the cost of having a caretaker Government for a month or more.

We need to know whether election-day enrolment is empowering participation in democracy, or whether election-day enrolment is destroying the integrity of our elections.

There is another issue with special votes and that is the eligibility of people who live overseas.

Australians who live overseas must intend to return home in six years to be eligible to vote.

UK citizens who live abroad must have been enrolled at home within 15 years, or been too young to be registered when they left the UK.

New Zealand who live overseas need only need to have come home once in the two years before the election to be eligible to vote.

Is it right that people who have lived overseas for years, even decades, own no property and pay no tax in New Zealand are still eligible to vote when they won’t be here to live with the consequences?

That is a debate for another time.

The issue of whether it is now too easy to vote without any identification or verification of address, and to do it up to and on Election Day is more urgent.

Whether or not there is an electoral petition to test the eligibility of all voters, the question of whether last minute enrolments are undermining the integrity of our elections must be settled before the next one.

Stability vs speed

The chances of Prime Minister elect Christopher Luxon making it to Apec aren’t high.

Is it drawing too long a bow to wonder if setting the election date for October 14 was intended to make it difficult for a new PM to go?

Whether or not it was, the PM elect is right to put getting the coalition agreements sorted ahead of a trip to San Francisco.

The press gallery and some other media aren’t alone in thinking post-election negotiations are taking too long.

While I am very keen for the incoming government to get in and start cleaning up the many messes it has inherited, the need for stability is more important than speed.

We can’t afford to have the messy arrangement the 2017 Labour government let itself in for whereby New Zealand First insisted anything not expressly in the coalition agreement was up for debate.

The coalition arrangements must provide a strong foundation for the rebuilding the country needs and a few days more to get that right won’t matter, especially if the foundation is strong enough to ensure more than one term of a National-led government.

Will specials favour left or right?

The general consensus from commentators is that the special and overseas votes will favour the left rather than the right.

They have in the past but will the more than 500,000 votes not counted on Election Day follow that pattern this year?

Among specials are students who live away from home but vote in their family’s electorate.

Whether this is strictly within the letter of electoral law or not is moot but it always happens.

Some will be young people whose study was interrupted by Covid policies and some will have been caught in Auckland by the extended lockdown.

Will they have voted left or right?

Specials include people who hadn’t enrolled before trying to vote.

Did they decide to vote in spite of that because they wanted change or to get more of what they’d been getting?

Will they have voted left or right?

Specials also include people who are away from home to get health treatment, or supporting patients.

They will almost certainly have been impressed with the health professionals they’ve encountered but many will have been anything but impressed with the system.

Will they have voted left or right?

People away from home for business or sport will be among those who made special votes.

Will they have voted left or right?

Apropos of sport there will be overseas votes from participants and supporters of travelling teams, including the All Blacks.

Will they have voted left or right?

Overseas votes have in the past supported the left but among the offshore voters this year will be grounded Kiwis, those who couldn’t get home or had to endure the MIQueue of misery when our borders will closed.

Will they have voted left or right?

Most commentators think the past pattern of more votes for the left will continue.

We’ve got two more days to wait until we find out whether they are right.

Whether or not they are, we’ll still have a National-led government but the outcome of the final tally will determine if it will be a National-Act government or whether New Zealand First will have to be part of it.

How blue is Port Waikato?

Nominations for the Port Waikato electorate closed yesterday and Labour chose not to stand.

Given the election result, the party simply can’t afford to waste its money and people power on an election it wouldn’t win.

Neither Act nor the Green Party are standing a candidate either.

Those contesting the by-election are:

Candidate Name	Party
BAYLY, Andrew	National Party
BRIGHT, Scotty	DemocracyNZ
COSTELLO, Casey	New Zealand First Party
DICKSON, Gordon John	Independent
NGARO, Alf Metuakore	NewZeal
OVENS, Jill Annette	Women’s Rights Party
RIPPON, Anna Joy	Animal Justice Party
SUDHAMALLA, Vijay	Vision New Zealand
TURNER, Kim	New Zealand Loyal

Port Waikato is regarded as a safe National seat and the party’s candidate and sitting list MP Andrew Bayley is regarded as a shoe-in.

National attracted 16,885 party votes in the election.

Labour got 6,162.

That makes the electorate look very blue.

By-elections usually attract a lower vote than general ones and given the final results of this month’s haven’t been determined interest in the electorate contest isn’t likely to be high.

Even if voters on the left without a red or green candidate to support voted for New Zealand First, as many did in the upset 2015 Northland by-election which Winston Peters won, Port Waikato should stay blue.

Don’t risk it

This election will result in change.

It could be change for the worse with a Labour, Green, Maori Party and possibly NZ First government.

It could be change that is a bit better with National, Act and NZ First.

Or it could be better still with a stable and constructive National-Act government.

There is too much at stake to vote for any combination that won’t be able to address the many serious issues the country is facing.

Don’t risk change for the worse or a bit better. Vote for change that is far better.

Don't risk it. pic.twitter.com/9aI54vHgXx

— NZ National Party (@NZNationalParty) October 10, 2023

Another MMP flaw

MMP has many flaws.

They include the power it gives to parties rather than the public; bigger electorates making it harder to service; and the ability for tail waggery.

The death of Act’s Port Waikato candidate, Neil Christensen, is sad for his family and friends and a loss to both the veterinary community and the people whose poultry he looked after.

It also shows up another flaw in our electoral system.

The death means that the candidate election will be cancelled and a by-election has to be held.

This means the election result will be based on a 120-seat Parliament with 71 electorate seats and 49 list MPs, rather than 72 electorate MPs and 48 list MPs.

. . . Port Waikato is currently held by National MP Andrew Bayly, who is likely to win the seat again. He won 38.74 per cent of the candidate vote, while 36.17 per cent of the party vote went to National despite Labour’s strong nationwide showing.

Bayly will now likely be a list MP – he is number 15 on National’s list – after the election, and if he wins the byelection, National would gain an extra MP off its list. . .

This ought to be a safe National seat but a by-election opens up the opportunity for game playing.

It happened in Northland when Labour didn’t stand a candidate, Winston Peters won the seat and his party got an extra list MP while National, which had held the seat before its MP resigned mid-term, was then an MP short.

One of the supposed benefits of MMP is that it gives proportional representation.

But an electorate win that results in another MP, whether from the party that had previously held the seat or another one, upsets the proportionality.

A by-election is also very expensive for both taxpayers and parties.

There are better systems than MMP and there must be a better way for it to function than this.

Can’t afford complacency

The NZ Herald’s poll of polls gives Labour just .1% of being in government:

National leader Christopher Luxon looks set to become New Zealand’s next prime minister, according to the Herald’s poll of polls.

It would be the first time New Zealand has had three prime ministers in a year since 1990, and Labour looks set to record the worst result for one of the major parties after a stint in government in the MMP era. It would be the worst result for a major party after a stint in government since the Great Depression, nearly a century ago. . . 

National and Act have a 51.5 per cent chance of being able to form a government if the election were held this weekend, rising to 56.5 per cent for the actual polling day.

Labour’s odds continue to narrow. A Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori formation has a 0.1 per cent likelihood of being able to form a government if the election were held this weekend. Those odds increase to 0.4 per cent if the election were held on polling day. . . .

There are some dangers in this.

Those wanting significant change could think it’s assured and that they don’t need to vote.

Some on the left could think that since their parties have such a slim chance of being in government they will attempt to undermine a National-Act government by supporting NZ First.

There is no room for complacency.

If people want positive change the only way to guarantee it is a vote for a National-led government. The best way to do that is to party vote National, the second best is give Act the party vote.

To get change, vote for strong, stable change

If you want to change the government you have to vote for change.

If you don’t want more economic mismanagement with the social problems that result from that you have to vote for change.

If you want positive change you have to vote for a National-led government.

The best way to get that is to give your party vote to National.

The second best is to vote for Act.

Voting for any other party might result in a National-led government and the change we need, but it might not.

Around half the people who voted for NZ First in 2017 wanted the party to go with National. Its leader, Winston Peters, chose Labour and in spite of what he says, history shows that what he says isn’t always what he does.

We need a strong and stable government without the tail waggery.

To get positive change we have to vote for strong, stable change.

It’s crunch time pic.twitter.com/lHCBW3vs3V

— Christopher Luxon (@chrisluxonmp) September 24, 2023

Who do you believe?

Two men, two different versions of what happened – who do you believe?

Winston Peters has refloated claims then-National leader Bill English confided in him at the start of 2017’s coalition negotiations that he was about to be “rolled” as National leader – and that was one reason New Zealand First opted to put Jacinda Ardern’s Labour into power.

Peters made the claim on live TV on Thursday night during the Newshub Nation ‘powerbrokers’ debate, a claim he had also made in an interview with Newsroom and in an article in 2022.

Asked by host Rebecca Wright if people could trust him to negotiate with the party that won the biggest vote at the election, Peters said: “Excuse me, excuse me you don’t understand why we didn’t go with the majority vote in 2017 do you?”

Wright: “Will you go with it this time?”

Peters: “No you don’t understand how critical it was because I was talking to a man who in his first conversation with me says they are about to roll me.”

Last month, Peters volunteered the same, unverifiable claim to Newsroom in a sit down interview. 

“I’d only just walked into the room and English pulled me aside and told me that there could be a coup and he could be about to get rolled.

Asked who was supposedly being lined up to take over, Peters said “Judith Collins.”

He defended his decision to take his votes elsewhere, to a Labour Party that had attracted 37 percent of the 2017 vote to National’s 45 percent, by saying: “How could I negotiate with someone who might not be there in a few weeks? Ring him up and see what he says, he won’t deny it, he can’t.”

Last night Newsroom asked English and he not only denied it, he slammed it.

In a text, English said: “Deny. It’s a ridiculous claim.”  Pressed for more, he said: “Mr Peters’ claim is a fabrication.”

The former National leader went a step further, suggesting Peters’ claim now “indicates he could find a reason to go with Labour again after this election”. . . 

You can believe the one doing his best to rewrite history, the one who said he wouldn’t take the baubles of office then did, the one who said no but later said yes.

Or you can believe Bill.

 

Can’t afford to be fooled again

An email forwarded several times made it to my inbox. It was an attempt to persuade readers to vote for NZ First.

The reasoning was that two parties wouldn’t be able to form a government so National and Act would need the support of NZ First.

That reasoning isn’t reasoned.

A vote for NZ First is a vote that isn’t going to National or Act and therefore increasing the chances of something even worse than the current ineptitude – a Labour, Green Te Parti Maori shambles.

One of Winston Peter’s arguments in seeking support is that he was a hand brake on Labour but he doesn’t say that’s only because he put that party in the driver’s seek.

That is like an arsonist seeking support for helping to put out a fire he lit.

The only alternative to a Labour-led government is a National-led one.

If that’s what voters want the best way to get it is to vote for National, the second best is to vote for Act.

Any other vote is a vote against a National-led government.

Voters who don’t learn from history will doom us all to a repeat of the disfunction Peters brings to government and they’ll be helping to sabotage the urgent change that’s needed to get the country back on track.

We simply can’t afford what will happen if people let themselves be fooled again.

Wrong direction record 68.5%

Trend Analysis says the New Zealand economy is no longer resilient :

Trend Analysis indicates that the New Zealand economy is cooling more rapidly than anticipated, with longer recession and entrenched inflationary pressures expected through 2023.

The OECD projected GDP growth for New Zealand in 2023 is 1%, behind Australia’s 1.5% growth, Canada’s 1.8%, UK’s 1.6% and the United States projected GDP growth of 2.5%.

Moreover, as the New Zealand economy has contracted over the past two quarters, further government interventions with regard to Banking, increased Taxation on specific sectors, and growth for non-frontline staffing may combine to further entrench inflation and extend the recession into 2024.

The unexpected early contraction of the GDP in March 2023, combined with ongoing negative sentiment related to Interest rates, may be indicators of a more substantive economic decay than anticipated.

New Zealand may experience further economic declines in the next quarterly cycle based on trends gleaned from the OECD New Zealand Projection Data and the Reserve Bank’s Gross Domestic Product (M5) statistics.

Trend analysis indicates that for the final two quarters of 2023, further declines may be expected primarily resulting from government policies.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND INFLATION

Review of the last four quarters GDP statistics and historical inflation data, indicates an unexpected correlation between inflationary pressures and law changes related to Petrol and vehicle taxes, taxes associated with farm production and land allocation, and business operating cost increases. . . 

The government blames imported inflation, but its own policies and actions are having a much greater influence.

Trends show that government policies may be impacting economic growth drivers, as these new legislations begin to integrate into the macro-economic environment.

Government interventions may have had inflationary results within the macro-economy, including:

1.Changes to tax incentives for landlords.

2.Changes to tax laws around Petrol including the 2018, 2019, and 2020 fuel tax increases as well as regional fuel tax for regions such as Auckland.

3.Changes to government staffing, with non-frontline staffing increases over the past six quarters across ministries.

4.Expanding costs related to the establishment of new central government authorities.

Each of these centralisation and interventional changes implemented in an inflationary cycle may have an add-on impact to the degrading economy. . . 

SUMMARY

If further government interventional policies are enacted, or if the existing policies continue to expand further, New Zealand will see entrenched inflation for Q3, Q4 and Q1, primarily driven by government policy rather than OCR / monetary policy.

Moreover, trend analysis from the cycles following COVID-19 lockdown show larger than anticipated declines in discretionary expenditures, further exacerbating the recession of 2023.

Cursory trends show that ongoing and continued decline in the economic growth drivers have eroded the overall New Zealand economy, and its resilience against long term recession and major global upheaval or natural phenomenon.

Furthermore, as Bloomberg has already noted (15 March 2023 article), New Zealand credit grade may come under pressure and see an adjustment from on S&P Global Rating, having an even further impact on New Zealand monetary stability.

The worsening economic condition is beginning to show in polls.

Individual polls are just a snapshot in time.

The trend means more and the trend of recent polls puts National ahead of Labour and points to a greater likelihood of a National-Act government.

While there still isn’t a big gap between National and Act and the chaotic alternative of Labour, with the Green and Māori Parties and maybe NZ First, Michele Levine, CEO Roy Morgan, points out the number of people thinking the country is going in the wrong direction has plunged to a record low :

“The key indicators do not favour the Labour-led Government’s re-election prospects and the news in mid-June that New Zealand has officially entered into a recession appears to have knocked the wind out of the Labour’s chances of winning the election. The New Zealand economy shrank by 0.1% in the March quarter 2023 following a contraction of 0.7% in the prior December quarter 2022 – its first recession since the start of the pandemic in early 2020.

“The news of a recession has sent the latest Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating plunging 15.5pts to a record low of only 68.5. Now a rising majority of 60.5% (up 6.5% points) of New Zealanders say the country is ‘heading in the wrong direction’ and only 29% (down 9% points) say the country is ‘heading in the right direction’.

“In addition to low Government Confidence, the latest ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence Rating fell 1.8pts to 83.7 in July. All the signs are that the shrinking economy is starting to impact on support for the governing Labour-Greens alliance and with just over two months to go until the election the chances of a change in government are rising fast.”

I used to wonder how the poor people coped at the supermarket, now it’s not only the poor who are struggling.

Add crises in education, health and housing and a soaring crime rate, it’s a wonder the number of people thinking the country going in the wrong direction isn’t greater.

People knowing the country is going in the wrong direction aren’t going to vote for the party that’s largely responsible for that.

If they want a change the only option is to vote for a National-led government and the only way to guarantee that is to vote for National or Act.

High taxing shambles

Labour is funding free prescriptions for the wealthy, free university fees for children of the wealthy,  free bus rides for the wealthy and subsidising EVs for the wealthy.

Now, if leaks are to be believed, it’s planning to take GST off fresh fruit and vegetables which will benefit the wealthy far more than the poor.

That plan also means the Finance Minister Grant Robertson is at odds with his leader – again:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson has once again lost his fight on tax policy, with Prime Minister Chris Hipkins soon to recycle a failed old Labour policy of removing GST from fresh fruit and vegetables, National’s Finance spokesperson Nicola Willis says.

“Labour’s Cabinet and caucus are massively divided on tax policy. The cracks that were exposed after infighting over the failed wealth tax policy are continuing to deepen.

“I understand Labour will soon announce a tax policy of removing GST from fresh fruit and vegetables – despite Grant Robertson raising significant concerns about the idea.

“Bereft of a coherent plan for strengthening the economy, reducing the cost of living and lifting incomes, Labour is resorting to yet another flimsy band-aid that would just take fruit and vegetable prices back to where they were nine months ago.

“As late as May this year, Grant Robertson appeared to rule out such a policy, saying it wasn’t practical and would mostly benefit supermarkets. He has raised significant concerns about the challenge of administering the policy, describing it as ‘an absolute boondoggle to get through’ and not the right approach for having a real impact on the lowest income people.

“The Prime Minister himself is confused about how such a policy would work, implying this week it would apply to hot chips – which are clearly not a fresh fruit or vegetable.   

“Chris Hipkins no longer appears to take his Finance Minister seriously. He ignored him on the fuel-tax band-aid, killed his wealth tax fantasy and now he’s forcing him to promote another policy he clearly doesn’t believe in. 

“Why should New Zealanders trust Grant Robertson to manage the economy if even his own Prime Minister doesn’t trust his advice?

“David Parker has already resigned as Revenue Minister in protest at the Prime Minister’s approach, leaving first-term MP Barbara Edmonds to pick up the nightmare of trying to make the half-baked GST proposal fly.

“What the Government should actually do is deliver a plan to address the underlying drivers of rampant price inflation. But Labour are all at sea on tax – they have mismanaged the economy, driven up the cost of living and left more and more Kiwis struggling to get by. 

“National will strengthen the economy to reduce the cost of living, lift incomes for all and deliver better health and education services. Our tax policy will deliver income tax reductions to hardworking Kiwis, making an average full-time worker around $1000 a year better off.

“Meanwhile the Coalition of Chaos will lurch from one half-baked idea to another, increasingly divided, united only by their insatiable desire to tax New Zealanders more.”

Taking GST off fresh fruit and vegetables will be popular to people who don’t understand the costs, complexities involved and how poorly targeted it is.

Here’s Robertson’s recent comments backing that up:

Good tax is usually oxymoronic but simple taxes are better and GST is simple.

Rather than complicating the tax system in a costly and complicated way that helps the wealthy more than the poor, it would be much better to leave more of our own money in our own pockets and let us choose what we do with it.

DO NOT DO THIS.

FFS.

Is this the future Labour wants? https://t.co/jeymqObUSg https://t.co/ZXPZw8atsE pic.twitter.com/74uo1j7n8u

— Eric Crampton (@EricCrampton) July 27, 2023

Here is the State of Wisconsin's tax memo on the circumstances under which an ice cream cake might be taxable, and the circumstances under which it might not be.

Is this the kind of future Te Pāti Māori and Labour want?https://t.co/G77frgi6tW pic.twitter.com/RaVIgCSiNO

— Eric Crampton (@EricCrampton) July 27, 2023

This policy will be popular with the Green and Maori Parties and on current polling Labour would need both those parties if it is to form a government after the election.

Absolute shambles. pic.twitter.com/dkOOjcQs9W

— Christopher Bishop (@cjsbishop) July 27, 2023

Adding the Green and Maori Parties, and possibly NZ First, would result in a bigger shambles.

The only way to get stable government is to have a strong National-led one and the only way to be sure of that is to vote National or Act.

A letter to National and Act

Dear National and Act MPs and candidates,

Please stay on your best behaviour and make sure that behaviour is of a very high standard.

New Zealand cannot afford the government we’ve got and we certainly can’t afford a new one led by Labour with one or more of the Green and Māori Parties and/or New Zealand First.

There are so many problems that need solved and issues that need your focus, please concentrate on them, show us you’ve got what it takes to deal with them and do nothing that will distract from that.

This election gives us an opportunity to have a strong National-led government with Act’s support providing all of you stay disciplined and be the people that give us confidence you’d give us the government we need.

There’s just nine weeks until early voting opens and eleven and a half weeks until election day.

Please hold it together until then and continue to hold it together to be the government this country desperately needs.

Yours sincerely,

Everyone who cares about New Zealand’s future.

Compassion and accountability

Mental illness can explain misbehavior but it doesn’t excuse it.

For that reason, Kiri Allan needs compassion but also must be held accountable.

She could not remain Justice Minister and this episode not only raises questions about her but about Chris Hipkins and his judgement.

He has lost four Ministers, three of whom should have gone sooner which calls into question his judgement.

Meka Whaitiri jumped ship without warning but he dallied over Stuart Nash, Michael Wood and Kiri Allan until there was no choice but for them to resign.

One reason for the dallying was questions over who could take over their portfolios when the Labour talent pool is so shallow.

The excuse that it wouldn’t be right to bring someone into Cabinet this close to the election doesn’t wash.

A government wanting to persuade us to give them another term would be keen to show us the future with capable new faces to replace some of the old ones who’ve failed.

The message not doing that sends is that there are no capable ones.

Perhaps we should have some compassion for Hikpins too. Barry Soper points out that his predecessor left him a mess.

. . . What Ardern has done, though, is to leave her colleagues this year to clean up the mess she created. . . 

The Ardern/Hipkins Government have failed on so many fronts, despite their unbridled power, the strongest majority since the first Labour Government of Mickey Joseph Savage 1935. At least Savage left a legacy of state housing and free medical care, as did the Lange Government, the economic foundation stone which set the country on the difficult recovery path after the Muldoon misery.

This Government has left a lawless, impoverished, struggling country, longing for relief.

It’s been a very bad week for the government – the too-little-too-late announcement crime policy; the shooting by a man on home detention and now this mess.

How can we have confidence that a new government of  Labour, propped up by one or more of the Greens, Māori Party and New Zealand First would do any good when Labour by itself is so bad?