In July 1962, following a slump in his government’s political fortunes, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan abruptly sacked one third of his Cabinet. Amongst the reactions to what became known as Britain’s “Night of the Long Knives” was the caustic comment of Liberal MP, Jeremy Thorpe, cleverly paraphrasing Dickens’ Sydney Carlton, that “greater love hath no man than he lay down his friends for his life.”  Macmillan was following the dictum laid out by Britain’s four-time, dominant nineteenth century Prime Minister, William Gladstone that “the first essential for a Prime Minister is to be a good butcher.”

Subsequently, many political leaders, including Macmillan himself reflecting in the early 1980s on that 1962 reshuffle, President Richard Nixon and even Margaret Thatcher, all lamented that, when the time came, they had not been good butchers. Reflecting on the last few months of his own Prime Ministership, and his handling of the Ministerial crises that have beset it, Chris Hipkins might by now have a similar view.

It is clear, with the benefit of a few months’ hindsight, that Hipkins inherited a seriously dysfunctional Cabinet. Performance failings had been glossed over or ignored, and only passing attention had been paid to established guidelines and procedures like the Cabinet Manual. When compliance proved too awkward or inconvenient, the established rules had simply been ignored as not relevant. The Cabinet’s primary function seemed to be sustaining the personal standing of the former Prime Minister who had delivered them such a stunning election victory in 2020.

Hipkins’ “new broom” swept aside several Ministers to make way for new talent, mainly departing Ministers who had said they wanted to leave at the election anyway. Since then, Hipkins has faced five separate Ministerial crises, leading to three Ministers being forced to resign, one censured by Parliament following a Privileges Committee inquiry, and one simply walking out altogether to join another party.

Hipkins’ handling of the three cases leading to Ministerial resignations has been consistent – and has failed on each occasion. He has treated each initial revelation about Ministerial conduct failures as an aberration that the Minister would correct given time, and to which he should not overreact. In each case he dismissed suggestions that further damaging revelations might come to light. But each time he has been let down by those Ministers as further lapses have been revealed and he has had to ask for their resignations. Nash and Wood were able to thumb their noses at the Prime Minister for several weeks longer than any Prime Minister made of sterner stuff would have tolerated.

However, the situation involving Kiri Allan is a little different, even if Hipkins’ handling of it has been just as woeful as the other cases. Unlike Nash and Wood, who thought they could get away with ignoring the rules around Cabinet confidentiality or disclosure of personal interests by virtue of who they were, Allan’s downfall is far more tragic. It has been precipitated by some very personal crises that Hipkins and those around him have been very slow to respond to. 

The warning signs first appeared with Allan’s now infamous remarks at the Radio New Zealand farewell for her former partner. Here was a case of a Minister struggling to understand the constraints being a Minister placed on her. Rather than dealing with the issue then, the official response was very casual, tossing aside the reaction to her remarks as exaggerated and unnecessary.

When the accusations about her treatment of staff and officials arose, the initial reaction was similar – these were “unsubstantiated” accusations and “no formal complaints have been laid”. Only belatedly, when more revelations seemed likely, did Hipkins suggest Allan take time off, to get over these accusations and the recent ending of her relationship. The problem was seen as primarily Allan’s, which time away from the job would help overcome.

Her demise came less than a week after she decided to resume her normal duties, prompting Hipkins’ response then that maybe she had returned to work too early, even though he understood she had had some counselling during her absence. Again, his response seemed far too casual.

Allan’s fall is an indictment of the lack of pastoral support the Parliamentary environment provides those within it. Too much is still left to chance. If the Prime Minister felt that Allan’s personal position was sufficiently fragile for her to take an extended period of leave to recover, the very least that he should have ensured was that before she returned to work, there was a standard medical certificate or similar confirming it was safe and that adequate support mechanisms were in place for her to take up her duties as a Minister once more. But no, all it took was Allan saying she was ready to return, and Hipkins accepting her assurance.

While it is easy and convenient for Hipkins to now say Allan’s behaviour earlier this week made her continuing to be a Minister “untenable”, he must accept a measure of real responsibility for what happened, and the consequent end of Allan’s political career. Although he undoubtedly and genuinely thought his softly, softly approach was both compassionate and in her best interests at the time, the awful truth is that downplaying her fragile state has led to the current, very sad situation.

But despite Hipkins’ lack of judgement in this instance, it is not altogether fair to blame him entirely for what has happened. Across society today there is an increasing general understanding and acceptance of the need to encourage good mental health standards in the workplace and to ensure people can get help when they need it. But that has not yet extended sufficiently to Parliament where there is still much to do to ensure good workplace standards and practices. Making Parliament the good and safe workplace that has been promised throughout this government’s term now needs to become a priority and not just a platitude.

Ensuring all future governments focus on this should be the enduring legacy from Kiri Allan’s short and troubled political career.

 

 

Opinion polls suggest that it is now likely that National will lead the next government, supported in some shape or form by ACT. When looking at the likely make-up of a such a government much of the focus so far has been on National and who the top team supporting Christopher Luxon could be. Little attention has yet been paid to ACT, what role it might play, and its key personnel.

But as Prime Minister Hipkins pointed out last week ACT is likely to be a substantial player in any future National-led government. Hipkins’ comment was highly partisan and primarily aimed at raising fears in voters’ minds at that prospect, but is relevant, nonetheless. ACT’s co-founder Sir Roger Douglas also weighed in this week saying that he no longer supports the party because it now represents only the wealthy and is not committed anymore to the radical tax reform and personal responsibility-based welfare reform that he had campaigned for.

Against that backdrop, Hipkins’ politically charged comment is nonetheless a fair one. What does ACT stand for, and what role will seek to play in a future government? And, as Hipkins questions and hopes, should voters be worried?

Douglas also has a point. Since its early principled days ACT has vacillated between a watered-down version of its original self, and right-wing populism, without the mad Trumpian tinge now the preserve of New Zealand First. ACT’s approach to tax reform is now purely about cutting taxes, rather than the integrated approach to tax and welfare reform that Douglas had sought from the time he was Minister of Finance in the fourth Labour government. On law and order, ACT’s approach is sheer middle American populism, from the reintroduction of the failed “Three Strikes” policy, through to dealing with teenage offenders in adult Courts. Then there is the call for a referendum on the role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi, as naked an appeal to the redneck vote, as ever there was one.

Yet for all that, ACT has never rated higher in public support than it does today. As ACT leader David Seymour observes, it is obviously doing something right. There was speculation after Luxon became National’s leader, that he would eat into ACT’s new support base, but this has not happened. If anything, ACT’s support has grown since then.

The upshot is that National’s only route to office at the coming election will be via ACT. That will not be without its challenges. On current polling, ACT MPs in the next Parliament could comprise up to a third of the governing bloc. ACT has stated its strong preference for a clean coalition with National, with an agreed government programme to pursue during the three-year term. However, if it cannot get agreement on that, ACT has said it will not hesitate to sit outside government on the crossbenches and force National into the cumbersome process of having to negotiate support for every issue, on a case-by-case basis. That would make governing extremely difficult and would almost certainly precipitate an early election.

For that reason, the comprehensive government coalition agreement ACT is seeking is unlikely to be as extreme as Hipkins and others suggest. ACT’s major focus is likely to be on regulatory reform, improving the overall processes of government decision-making, stronger accountability for public servants for policy delivery, and a removal of petty rules and restrictions across the board. With that focus established and recognised as ACT’s distinct bastion, the rest of a National/ACT government programme will probably have a more traditional National flavour to it, although getting ACT to compromise sufficiently will still be fraught with difficulty.

There would be likely up to 6 ACT Ministers sitting around the Cabinet table in a National/ACT Cabinet – just under a third of the total. That would be the biggest group of Ministers ever from a single support party in Cabinet and will create its own tensions. In that eventuality Luxon cannot afford to get into the game-playing that previous National and Labour Cabinets did when faced with a sizeable bloc of New Zealand First Ministers of trying to work around, rather than with, them on critical issues. ACT Ministers faced with such behaviour would be far more likely to walk away altogether to sit on the crossbenches. Luxon’s business executive skills will be helpful in managing this process, but they are unlikely to make up completely for his lack of political experience.

The question then arises as to which ACT MPs could become Ministers. Seymour’s easy response that all his MPs are capable is as predictable as it is banal. Aside from Seymour and his capable deputy Brooke van Velden, two other ACT MPs do stand out as likely Cabinet contenders, based on their performance over the last three years – Nicole McKee and Karen Chhour. But while ACT has worked in a very disciplined way in Opposition over the last three years, it could be a different story if they are in government where all their key leaders are likely to be distracted from day-to-day Caucus management because they are too busy as Ministers.

There is no doubting ACT’s Tigger-like commitment and enthusiasm. Seymour has been impressive over the last term of Parliament, shaping his team into an effective Parliamentary unit. As it stands on the verge of potentially its greatest political triumph to date, ACT will need all these attributes, and even more discipline and focus, if it is to succeed as a government partner.

More importantly, if it is to succeed in government, National needs to ensure the partnership with ACT works effectively. Otherwise, it could be looking for new friends in three years’ time.

 

The shocking situation revealed this week about the continuation of Dawn Raids on Pasifika and other alleged overstayers is as appalling as it is unsurprising.

It is appalling because as far as most people were concerned such raids stopped some time ago, and certainly should not have been continuing since the government’s formal apology in 2021.

It is unsurprising because it is one more example of this government’s failure to be able to manage policy change effectively. This had all the elements of the way this Labour government does such things, focusing on the appearance rather than reality. There was the carefully choreographed and highly emotional apology from the Prime Minister at the time, pushing all the right buttons with the carefully selected audience. But as with so many things, going back to the launch of Kiwibuild in 2018, there was no substantive follow-up, meaning that nothing really changed at all.

As the report of Michael Heron KC notes, the government assumed that following the apology Immigration New Zealand would get the message and cease Dawn Raids. For its part, in the absence of a formal directive to that effect from then Immigration Minister Michael Wood, Immigration New Zealand, somewhat obtusely, assumed that, following the theatre of the apology, it was still business as usual.

Wood’s apparent failure to properly advise Immigration New Zealand of the government’s expectations was another major failure of judgement on his part. Alongside the other errors of judgement he made regarding his personal interests disclosure, which led to his recent resignation from Cabinet, the immigration fiasco further dents his credibility as a competent Minister and a safe pair of hands. Twice now in the space of a few weeks, his inactions have caused the government major political embarrassment.

But Immigration New Zealand is far from blameless in this issue. Its wilful obduracy in ignoring the government’s apology – an extraordinarily myopic feat if ever there was one, given the publicity the apology received – and carrying on as before because it had received no specific Ministerial direction to do otherwise is unconscionable. It reinforces all the worst views about how bureaucracies behave when they think know better than their political masters. Those officials responsible for continuing to carry out Dawn Raids now need to be held accountable for their actions.

However, Immigration New Zealand’s stubbornness goes far beyond this issue and what they may or may not have thought about their Minister and the apology. During the thirty-three years I was an MP, immigration cases consistently topped by a considerable margin the list of issues that constituents came to see me about. Based on those experiences, I reached the conclusion that no matter what government was in power, Immigration New Zealand’s approach was always essentially racist. It was consistently more difficult to win cases for people from India, the Pacific, Asia, and Africa than it was for people from Europe, America, or South Africa.

Immigration New Zealand always seemed willing to help where it could people from “white” countries, whereas those from the “brown” countries were seen as potential overstayers (if they were seeking a short-term visa) or trying to beat the system through marriages of convenience, falsified qualifications, family reunification issues and the like. I dealt with many cases of people who had been through the most harrowing of circumstances and were seeking a new life in New Zealand, being dealt with in the most cavalier and dismissive way by Immigration New Zealand. These attitudes appeared ingrained, and it mattered not what government was in office, and whether it wanted to increase migration levels or reduce them. Immigration New Zealand just continued doing things the way it always had done.

That approach, which does not appear to have changed, explains, but certainly does not justify, why Immigration New Zealand has continued with selective Dawn Raids since the government’s 2021 apology. As one Pasifika community leader observed this week, Dawn Raids only seem to apply to people from the Pacific and Asia.

But, despite the clarity of the Heron report and its recommendations, and the government’s professed high dudgeon that Dawn Raids are continuing, the response has been prevarication. Both the Acting Prime Minister and the present Immigration Minister have decried Immigration New Zealand’s defiance of the 2021 apology but have stopped short of saying Dawn Raids should be made completely illegal.

Bluntly, they cannot have it both ways. They either endorse the principle of Dawn Raids, or they rule them out and legislate accordingly. The idea they can strike some middle ground which upholds Dawn Jacinda Ardern’s apology but gives room for Dawn Raids to continue in certain circumstances lacks credibility and smacks of the old “little bit pregnant” argument.

This whole saga is further evidence that as far as this government is concerned how things look and are presented is more important than what their actual impact might be. For them, it is far more important to empathise about a problem than to do something about it.

 

At risk families and young people currently get a raw deal in New Zealand. This is despite the fact we are devoting more resources and public spending than ever before to dealing with those considered to be "at risk."

Images this week of young people occupying the roof of a youth correction facility; more reports of improper conduct by staff in Oranga Tamariki facilities; more ram raids, and the ongoing political rhetoric about gangs strengthen the impression lawlessness is rife in New Zealand and that the government lacks any answers. In turn, these fuel public anxiety about personal safety and create fertile ground for Opposition politicians to till in the lead-up to the election.

Yet through the data already collected by the Police and other social agencies the families and young people who are well known to be at risk, and the nature of the social problems they face, are already clearly identifiable. Gathering this data and then using it to develop effective intervention services targeted specifically to those at risk was at the heart of former Prime Minister Sir Bill English's approach to social policy. But this government quickly eschewed that, dismissing it as far too specific, and stigmatising of those identified as at risk. It preferred instead a broader brush-based approach that did not, as it saw it, point the finger at those too specifically.

Unfortunately, today's National Party has also turned its back on English's nuanced policy in favour of a much more populist approach to law and order, with no evidence it will be any more effective than when tried by previous governments. Nevertheless, already backed into a corner by the ultra-hardline approach to law-and-order of its only viable potential partner ACT, National probably has no immediate practical alternative. National’s primary challenge right now is to shore up, then significantly grow its political support if it is to have any prospect of leading a government after October’s election. Its calculation is that, given mounting public concern about law-and-order issues, it cannot afford to be seen as soft or even reasonable on the issue, hence its hardline rhetoric of late.

While that approach is understandable in the context of the election, and may pay the desired dividend at the polls, it is foolish to think that it will be any more successful now than when it was attempted previously. It was the realisation of that that led English to once describe the prison system as “a moral and fiscal failure” – a point today’s National Party should not overlook.

Labour’s defence to claims it is soft on law-and-order and dealing with people at risk is to point to the significant increase in Police numbers during its term, and the various social assistance programmes it has introduced. It argues that rising lawlessness in the community has been brought on by deprivation and social inequality, long-term and deep-seated issues which it is committed to resolving. That sounds good and well-intentioned but is really an excuse for failing to act decisively.

Labour’s broad-based, point no fingers approach is just as ineffective and poorly directed as National’s hardline, reactive stance has proved previously. Neither is making an impact on dealing with families at risk, and both are wilfully missing the point in the interests of short-term political expediency. Society generally continues to suffer the consequences. This week’s report from the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser on dealing with the gangs also highlighted the failure of current policy approaches.

All of which reinforces the need for a targeted, data-based approach to those who are at risk. As indicated earlier, data already collected by the Police and other government makes it very clear who those at risk are. Additional data from external agencies, like the long-term Dunedin multidisciplinary study, provides information about when and how dysfunction starts to appear and the consequences of ignoring it.

Political parties like Labour, National and ACT like to claim that strong, specific actions like increasing Police numbers, or a tougher line on gangs show their boldness and strong commitment to upholding law-and-order and protecting community safety. But what they are promoting are at best symbolic and simplistic solutions that play to their own political audiences. They contribute little to resolving the wider social problem.

The lasting solution lies in adopting a targeted, data-based approach to identifying, then supporting, those who are disadvantaged and at risk, as promoted previously by English and suggested again in the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser’s report this week. However, this would require an act of political boldness, probably beyond the scope of most of our political parties at present. The lure of beating the law-and-order drum every three years remains too strong.

But so long as the politicians strut and tub-thump, and avoid deeper and more thorough solutions, there will be more incidents like those we have seen this week. Communities will continue to feel anxious about their security, and those at risk will still get a raw deal.

Sadly, nothing looks likely to change. The law-and-order drum will soon go back in the cupboard, only to be brought out once again when the next election comes around in three years’ time.