As a turbulent political year draws to a close some observations can be made about the state of the various parties and some of their personnel.

Within the National Party, this year has seen the emergence of Chris Bishop as not just one of the government’s key Ministers, with a range of new initiatives across his various portfolios, but also the go-to person when things do not go to plan. In that regard, he looks set to reprise the role of Minister of Everything, pioneered by Sir Bill Birch during the Bolger government, and developed to the ultimate degree by Steven Joyce in the last National-led government.

Erica Stanford has been National’s best performing Minister during the year. She has always managed to appear competent and professional, and on top of her brief. At the same time, she has shown, with her handling of the Abuse in Care inquiry outcomes, that she has the appropriate levels of compassion when required to balance her cool competence. Judith Collins continues to be National’s quiet achiever across a varied range of portfolios, and never putting a foot wrong.

On the other hand, Shane Reti has been the biggest disappointment. He has failed to achieve any of the government’s commitments on improving the public health system, despite retaining the soothing and reassuring bedside manner expected of a doctor. He must surely be a leading candidate for demotion when the first Cabinet reshuffle occurs next year.

Chris Hipkins has been Labour’s most consistent and persistent performer throughout the year. His contributions have generally been sensible and thoughtful, although constrained by the policy time-warp his party seems to be entering. Against the odds, it is becoming more likely that he could lead Labour into the next election, although whether he can achieve victory remains another question altogether.

However, Hipkins has been handicapped throughout the year by the largely somnambulant performance of the rest of his colleagues, many of whom have been dormant since before the last election. Others would best serve Labour’s interests by staying asleep, altogether. (Wille Jackson’s consistently buffoonish rants, and Aysha Verrall’s supercilious smugness come to mind.)

During 2025, Labour will need to start to cull many of the time servers and deadwood wasting space on its backbenches to get in shape to be competitive at the 2026 election.

As ACT leader, David Seymour has enjoyed a good year. While other ACT Ministers – notably Karen Chhour – have impressed, Seymour’s persona, built around his unflinching commitment to the controversial Treaty Principles Bill has largely shaped the party’s image, although not led to any significant increase in potential voter support. His challenge will be to maintain the momentum he has generated, once the Treaty Principles Bill bites the dust next year, and his elevation to the position of Deputy Prime Minister around the same time should assist in that regard.

Winston Peters’ durability and political stamina has been remarkable, and his wiliness has been an asset for the government during its first year. Next May, he will step down from his third stint as Deputy Prime Minister, shortly after his 80^th birthday. He says this will leave him plenty of time to campaign for New Zealand First’s re-election in 2026.

However, Shane Jones’ impatience to succeed Peters as party leader is beginning to show and may get in the way of any wish Peters has to lead New Zealand First into the next election. Jones is also no spring chicken and has made no secret of his interest in New Zealand First’s top job, whenever it should become vacant.

As far as the Green Party is concerned, this has been the year of Chloe Swarbrick. Through the most tragic and unexpected circumstances she has led the party through its most difficult year. Her drive and determination have sustained her thus far but maintaining that level of intensity over the next two years will be challenging. At the same time, she may need to curb her mounting tendency to appear to be talking down to people and hectoring them on policies the Greens feel passionately about.

Te Pati Māori has succeeded at becoming Parliament’s self-styled disruptor by making itself unpopular with everyone but its core constituency, which appears to be growing. This potentially creates a longer-term problem for Labour if it sees Te Pati Māori as a possible future partner in government. Labour could well consider it is becoming too hot to handle as a government partner, in much the same way as Helen Clark dismissed an earlier incarnation of the party as “the last cab off the rank” in 2005. On the other hand, Labour may have no path to government, other than with Te Pati Māori, although that may put at risk some of Labour’s more conservative support.

Finally, Parliament's best performer – as opposed to politician of the year – has been Speaker Gerry Brownlee who has performed his role with the patience, wisdom and dignity that critics might not previously expected of him.

That ends the observations this year. It is now time to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a rewarding 2025 ahead.

As the government begins its second year in office there has been much comment about the leadership style and tone of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

By his own admission he is a not a career politician. There have been occasions when that lack of political experience has shown. Much has been made of his corporate background, and his penchant for still speaking like a business leader (for example, referring to voters as customers in a recent interview, before correcting himself), and his personal wealth.

Most of this criticism is unfair, because in other ways, Luxon has proved himself to be a quick political learner. He defied most expectations at the time he became National’s leader in 2021 by transforming what was a disorganised rabble then into a viable government in waiting by 2023.

After Labour’s chaotic last three years in office after 2020, Luxon’s election commitment to get New Zealand “back on track” resonated with enough voters to make him Prime Minster after the shortest Parliamentary apprenticeship ever.

Nevertheless, commentators questioned whether he could make the transition from corporate chief executive to Prime Minister, especially when he launched a series of chief executive-style quarterly action plans.

In the first few months, it did not seem to matter. The government was getting on doing things, principally dismantling much of Labour’s legacy. They seemed to be working to a plan and to know what they were doing.

But then came the Budget and the apparent broken promise over funding new cancer drugs. Luxon had committed to funding these in the election campaign. There was surprise that Luxon had not seemed to appreciate the anger of those who felt betrayed by the lack of funding in the Budget.

Luxon moved quickly to correct the omission and eventually delivered a funding package which went well beyond National’s original promise. But to those who were affected it looked more like a hurried backtrack.

However, that was nothing compared to the furore over ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. While Luxon is correct that such compromises are an inevitable part of MMP coalition government, he is under fire from all sides of the debate for his approach. To some he has been too weak, appearing mealy-mouthed by supporting the Bill’s introduction, but pledging to vote against it later. To others, he has been deliberately insensitive to the damage the Bill is causing to racial harmony in New Zealand. Recent disparaging comments about his leadership from both his coalition partners have not helped either.

The debate on the Treaty Principles Bill goes to the heart of Luxon’s leadership style and tone.  Despite his critics, he is content with the stand he has taken, resolute in his commitment that the government will vote the Bill down when it returns from the select committee next year. He does not appear too worried about what may happen in the meantime, because of his confidence in the ultimate outcome.

In many senses, the tension around the Treaty Principles Bill could have been managed better, or possibly defused slightly, had Luxon at any point given a considered speech about his view of the future direction of Crown/Māori relations, including the role and place of the Treaty. But that is not his style leading some to conclude he is not all that interested in the issue.

From the outset Luxon has been more focused on policy outcomes than reciting lofty policy intents so beloved by his immediate predecessors. That has served him well so far, but as the year has progressed, and the economy has not responded as positively as expected with rising unemployment and more people on benefits, it could be argued that the government needs to start painting a clearer picture about the country’s medium-term prospects and how these will be achieved.

At no stage since he became Prime Minister has Luxon delivered a major speech setting out the sort of country he wants to see New Zealand become over the next twenty years or so, and the various policy choices, over a range of issues, that we need to be taking to get there. It is hardly surprising therefore, given this lack of overall context, that as the tough times continue, more and more New Zealanders are feeling the country is heading in the wrong direction. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to set out a clear sense of direction for voters feeling uncertain about their futures.

Luxon’s mentor, Sir John Key, like Helen Clark before him, always portrayed a clear sense of purpose about what they wanted for New Zealand, which, whether one agreed with them or not, sustained their governments in the tough times, as well as the good ones. That cannot be said at present, which is why the current government is increasingly in danger of being regarded as directionless.

A narrative is beginning to emerge that the government is flinty faced and uncaring. If that view takes firm hold over the next few months, it may prove very difficult to dispel before the next election, no matter how the economy performs.

Luxon and his senior Ministers are clearly convinced they are on the right path to getting the country “back on track” and will likely stick to their task. But, as 2025 unfolds, it will be important to keep doubting New Zealanders onside.

That will be a critical test for Luxon's still developing – but quickly improving – political communication skills.

 

Wellington’s controversial and embattled Mayor Tory Whanau deserves some political credit for the content of the $400 million savings package she steered through her fractious Council this week.

With one or two exceptions - most notably the Botanic Gardens' iconic Begonia House which is threatened with demolition - many of the pet projects that have divided councillors for so long have been saved, at least for now. The Mayor has even managed to protect her beloved plan to pedestrianise the city’s famous Golden Mile from Courtenay Place to Lambton Quay, thus preserving at least some of her Green credentials. Earlier, she had declared her Golden Mile project sacrosanct, at the same time as she was calling on every other councillor to set aside their own personal wish lists as they grappled with the city’s mounting financial problems.

However, while the Mayor can claim some credit for this week’s decisions, the Council still has a long way to go on its journey towards fiscal rectitude. The $360 to $400 million of savings projected in this week's decisions are still well short of the $530 million of potential savings identified by Council officers. Whether they will be enough to satisfy both the government's recently appointed Crown Observer and ultimately the Minister of Local Government remains to be seen. And those decisions still need to be confirmed by the full Council which has a remarkable track record of overturning committee recommendations on important financial decisions. It should be remembered it was the full Council that overturned the original decision to sell the Council's shareholding in Wellington International Airport which precipitated the current financial crisis over funding the city’s Long-term Plan. 

In many senses the Council’s task has only just begun, and much ground remains to be recovered before it is likely to be seen by both Crown Observer and the Minister as operating in a responsible and fiscally sustainable way. While the Mayor can feel some satisfaction at the limited progress to date, her fist-pumping "we've got this" comment at the end of the meeting was both gauche and foolishly premature, giving the chronic erratic unpredictability of her supporters on the Council.

The endangered Begonia House and the slavish determination to proceed with the Golden Mile project in their own way highlight why Mayor Whanau’s Council is so ridiculed. The Begonia House was gifted to the city in 1961 by the family of the industrialist Sir Walter Norwood. It has been a popular site for visitors and local people since then. However, the removal of carparking on nearby streets because of the Council’s obsession with installing cycleways had made the Begonia House more inaccessible, and the cafeteria business associated with it less viable. The Council’s solution, therefore, is that the Begonia House has had its day and should be demolished, arousing the ire of many Wellingtonians. In the view of the councillors supporting the Mayor, it is a symbol of Wellington’s past, out of step with the cycle and pedestrian friendly future they see for the city. The idea that the Begonia House should be handed over to private enterprise to run efficiently, and that more carparking should be provided to improve access to it, is complete anathema to their intentions.

The Mayor’s determination to proceed with her Golden Mile project, come hell or high water, is in a similar vein. At first glance the proposal to pedestrianise the Golden Mile, save for buses and cycles is an attractive one. But it has stirred up a hornet's nest amongst inner city businesses. Many are already struggling to regain customers after Covid19 and the long period of people working from home. On top of this there has been the general economic slowdown and the impact of public sector redundancies. Many businesses have already closed, while others are teetering on the brink. They fear the Golden Mile proposals will be the final straw. 

For its part, the Council has appeared singularly uninterested in their plight, sticking doggedly to its determination to rid the central city of cars to make it more pedestrian and cycle friendly, in line with its overall vision. The fact that the city’s existing character will likely be changed irreparably, at the cost of many long-standing businesses seems to matter little to Mayor Whanau and the tight,  out of their depth,  clique of councillors around her. All that matters to them is that the city will appear a little greener, even if it ends up a shell of its former self.

Still, for a Mayor for whom nearly everything has gone wrong in the last two years, this week’s Council decisions are a rare and welcome win, even if they are perpetuating the wrong direction the city has been heading in. But if they are confirmed when the Council finalises its long-term plan, they still offer little prospect of immediate relief to beleaguered ratepayers reeling from substantial rates hikes this year and the prospect of more to come. For them, two options remain: in the short-term there is the wishful hope that the Crown Observer will be able to install some sense of wise spending and financial discipline into the Council. However, the longer-term and far more likely option remains that voters, tired of the incompetent shenanigans, will resolve the issue for themselves when they vote in next year’s Mayoral and Council elections.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 gave legal status to the Treaty, a mere 135 years after it was signed. Since then, it has often been referred to as our country’s founding document. In the absence of a written constitution, the Treaty is New Zealand’s equivalent to Britain’s Magna Carta or the United States’ Declaration of Independence, influential documents on the course of a nation’s history, but without formal constitutional status.

As such, it guides, but not dictates, so many of our national actions. In that sense, it is very much a living document, subject to constant discussion and debate, which is healthy in a modern, pluralistic society like ours. The oft-quoted ruling of Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast in 1877 that the Treaty was a “simple nullity” because it had not been incorporated into New Zealand’s law was itself nullified by the 1975 legislation giving legal standing to the Treaty.

The starting point for any discussion about the role and purpose of the Treaty today needs to be what was the intent of those who developed it back in 1840, not what various interests today think should have been their intent. Dame Claudia Orange’s authoritative book, The Treaty of Waitangi, has described events at Waitangi in the days immediately before the Treaty was signed, and the debate amongst the Māori chiefs present. Their focus was on both ensuring that their authority would not be eroded by sharing power with the British, and that their lands would be protected.

Article Two of the Treaty “confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession” and was the basis on which the chiefs agreed to sign the document on 6 February 1840.

Although it was to be more than a century before the Treaty was enshrined in law, there were references to its provisions in some early laws, most notably the Native Rights Act 1865 which established the Māori Land Court. But following Prendergast’s 1877 ruling on a land dispute between a Māori landowner and the Church of England, the strength of Article Two protection gradually weakened, even though Māori continued to challenge what was happening. Prendergast’s ruling created a bind – because the Treaty was not part of New Zealand law, little could be done to uphold the rights and protections it provided. The dilemma was highlighted in the 1938 case of Te Heuheu Tūkino v Aotea District Māori Land Board, where the judge ruled that while there was validity in Te Heuheu Tūkino’s case, according to the Treaty, it was not binding on the Crown because the Treaty was not considered to be part of New Zealand law.

Following the 1975 legislation which rectified this inconsistency, the Court of Appeal determined in 1987 that there were principles to be followed when it came to interpreting the Treaty and any claims for redress that may be made under it. These were that the Crown (the government) had a duty to act reasonably and in good faith; that it had the right to govern and should make informed decisions; and that it should remedy past grievances. The Court ruled that the Crown had an obligation to ensure active protection of Māori interests, and that Tino rangatiratanga, the right of Māori to continue to exercise self-determination, should be recognised. These principles have been summarised as the “three Ps” – partnership, participation and protection. – generally consistent with what the original signatories thought they were agreeing to in 1840.

The history of the Treaty since 1840 has been chequered. There have been occasional lurches to the extremes – Prendergast in 1877, for example, or perhaps even the pace of change under the Ardern government. The current debate about the Treaty Principles Bill is another such move.

At first glance, the Bill’s main provisions (that the Government has the obligation to govern for all New Zealanders; that it will protect all New Zealanders property rights; and treat everyone as equal under the law with the same rights and duties) may seem innocuous. But under the Bill of Rights Act and the existing common law, those basic rights are already established and upheld, making the Treaty Principles Bill unnecessary.

The Bill’s provocation is far less its content than its perceived intent. It is not about providing a reasonable framework within which the original intent of the Treaty and the legal principles accompanying it can be applied to the betterment of all New Zealanders, as that already exists. Rather, it effectively renders the Treaty itself redundant by transferring its content to a separate form altogether. In that sense, it is a modern version of Prendergast’s 1877 ruling.

In another context, it would be unthinkable if a contemporary British government decided to rewrite Magna Carta, or a United States administration decided the Declaration of Independence needed to be re-interpreted (although under the incoming Trump administration who knows what might happen). The same applies with the Treaty of Waitangi. It may be imperfect, incomplete in some respects, or not always upheld as intended. But for all that, it remains the document on which our nation was founded.

The Treaty is therefore our modus operandi for common nationhood. It is not about the dominance of one signatory over the other, but as Norman Kirk said many years ago, about how we all live together in these islands. In that regard, the Treaty Principles Bill is simply the wrong answer to a question that does not properly exist.

The division, misinformation and dislocation it is causing in many quarters is not justified by either our history or the blinkered determination of those seeking to win narrow partisan political points.

 

Last week the government announced plans to build two new tunnels in central Wellington to ease traffic congestion. One will be a second tunnel through Mount Victoria to improve the flow of traffic to the eastern suburbs and Wellington International Airport. The other will be alongside the existing Terrace tunnel to improve traffic flows into the city from the north. 

On cue, the Green Party MP for the eastern suburbs’ electorate of Rongotai, Julie Anne Genter, announced her vehement opposition to the plans. All the tunnels would do is encourage the proliferation of cars entering and travelling across the central city, (despite the fact there is no alternative) when the emphasis should be on getting cars out of the city and encouraging more cycling and reliance on public transport, she argued.

The Green leaning Wellington City Council and Mayor are already a national laughingstock because of the way in which their obstinate insistence on adding cycleways to the city’s narrow inner-city streets is driving businesses and customers away.  The Council has become so dysfunctional that the government appointed a Crown Observer this week in what looks like a forlorn attempt to get things back on track.

Genter's intervention last week over the tunnels plan was a chilling reminder to Wellington residents of how determined her Green Party Council colleagues are to thwart any significant roading infrastructure development in the city.  But it seems that that point was not lost on the National and Labour parties who have announced this week that they are working towards a bipartisan approach to infrastructure development.

Such an approach makes sense. New Zealand is widely acknowledged to have a significant infrastructure deficit because plans by successive governments over the years have often stalled due to a lack of long-term political agreement and the uncertainty that has caused. After a visit to New South Wales earlier this year the Prime Minister noted enviously that there was a long-term political consensus between the state’s Labor and Liberal parties about the state’s future infrastructure requirements that were not turned upside whenever there was a change of state government. It seemed then to be only a matter of time before he sought to broker a similar agreement between National and Labour here.

This week’s announcement that National and Labour have reached broad agreement on new rules for Public Private Partnerships they hope will attract greater investment in infrastructure development is a positive, if still conditional, first step. Much still needs to be done to flesh out the details, let alone identify, then bring to fruition, any specific projects. Although what National describes as “a slow tentative march towards greater bipartisanship on infrastructure” will take time, it is nonetheless encouraging. After more than forty years of political division on infrastructure projects from the Clyde Dam to the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway extension more recently, the joint recognition that what Labour describes as “swings in priorities each election cycle” are not helping resolve the infrastructure deficit is a welcome political about-turn.

It is probably just a coincidence that National’s and Labour’s broad agreement was announced just a week after the Wellington tunnels decision and the Green Party’s response, but it does change the political component quite considerably. A broad agreement between the two main parties, regardless of which one is in power at the time, will not only provide greater certainty to potential investors in future Public Private Partnerships, but will also neuter the ability of the Green Party to stymie the development of such projects.

On that basis, taxpayers might be spared repetition of the types of infrastructure delays that have plagued Wellington in recent years. For example, a short seven hundred metre inner-city bypass first proposed in 1963, was not built until 2007. The second Mount Victoria tunnel debate has been going on since Wellington International Airport opened in 1959. Similar lengthy debates have plagued infrastructure developments in other parts of the country.

At one level, this week’s agreement between National and Labour is a pragmatic recognition that there needs to be a better way to address the country’s current serious infrastructure deficit, and that carrying on as at present is no longer credible. It should also lead to a greater recognition among potential Public Private Partnerships investors that the New Zealand environment now looks set to become more conducive to such projects.

At another level the political advantages to both National and Labour are undeniable. For National, which is always been more infrastructure inclined, and its partners ACT and New Zealand First, infrastructure upgrades will now be able to be progressed with more certainty that they will not be upended by a future change of government.  Labour, for its part, will be less constrained than it has been in recent years to commit to future Public Private Partnerships.

However, it would be premature to pop too many champagne corks just yet. Politicians have a notorious ability to back out of agreements if the circumstances no longer suit them or become too politically awkward. Despite the apparent current mutual goodwill, the worth of this week’s agreement will only become obvious when the first jointly agreed infrastructure project is announced.

In that regard, the Green Party’s opposition to Wellington’s proposed new tunnels may prove to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. 

 

President Ronald Reagan’s successful campaign theme in 1984 was “It’s morning again in America.” It was a theme of optimism and hope for the future. Today, as America awakes after one of the most tumultuous Presidential election campaigns in its recent history, the sight is a far less positive one.

This year’s protracted election campaign, accompanied by intimidation and bullying across the spectrum, a complete aversion to seek the middle ground, and the threats to immediately proceed to Court if results did not go the way candidates wanted, has left the nation that proclaims itself as the world’s greatest democracy, looking in a very shabby state.

Lincoln’s dream of “government of the people, by the people, for the people” seems a long way away in the wake of this year’s election circus. Just as forlorn was the American Ambassador to New Zealand’s social media post that “Elections remind us that our system, with all its debates and differences, ultimately brings us together.”

 America today is deeply divided on political, economic and cultural grounds. The expectation that either of the two candidates for President would be capable of healing these divisions within a single four-year term was completely unrealistic. The best to be hoped for is that America does not become more divided because of the election outcome.

Unfortunately, the re-election of President Trump has diminished that hope. His return will likely exacerbate these divisions, especially since he has vowed a programme of revenge on all those whom he considers responsible for costing him the 2020 election, and not bending to his will to subvert the electoral process to keep him in power then. Moreover, his subsequent determination to exact vengeance on those judicial authorities that have brought about his conviction on several fraud-related charges further suggests his second term as President will be one of revenge, rather than taking America forward.

Aside from his flagship policies, like completing the wall with Mexico, expelling illegal immigrants and imposing new blanket 20% tariffs on all imports, much of Trump’s agenda in the coming term will focus on rolling back many of the Biden Administration’s social and environmental reforms. During the next four years, there are approximately 100 judicial appointments becoming vacant which Trump will have to fill, meaning the prospects of the judiciary at several levels being stacked with loyalists, unlikely to hold the President and his cronies to account for any of the charges that have so far been laid against them.

Trump is constitutionally barred from standing again in 2028. However, given the apparent disregard he has shown for the United States Constitution on other matters, it would be no surprise if he were to challenge this before the next election. After all, it is exactly the trick Vladimir Putin, whom Trump admires greatly, has pulled in Russia to stay in power almost indefinitely. America’s Constitution and institutions of government are in a for a battering over the next four years as Trump seeks to entrench his own absolutist form of rule.

The upshot is that America faces at least for more years of upheaval and uncertainty. Amidst all this sit hundreds of thousands of decent American families, with the same concerns that face many families in this country. They will be worried, as New Zealand families are, about how they will make ends meet, get access to quality healthcare, pay for their children’s education and secure their futures. Generally, they are not interested in the political divisions or games around them – they simply want to be able to vote for people they can trust to do the best for them.  They will feel equally let down by the campaign of the last few months and will at best have limited expectations about what might lie ahead.

For all the pious talk, this election cycle has not been the showcase for democracy Americans might wish. It has left the United States more divided than at any point since the end of the Civil War in 1865. Contrary to the United States Ambassador’s hope that the election will bring people together, it is in fact far more likely to have driven them further apart.

In many ways, the last eight years have seen the demolition of Lincoln’s wish for “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as the American model, because excessive partisanship has destroyed the balance that once regulated America’s complex and multi-layered political system. The next four years now seem set to severely test the validity of Lincoln’s other famous statement (albeit a plagiarising of the biblical evangelist, Matthew) that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”.

 

The 146^th Annual General Meeting and conference of the United Fire Brigades Association will take place in Christchurch this weekend. The United Fire Brigades Association is one of New Zealand’s largest voluntary organisations, and over 600 delegates will attend the weekend’s events.

The United Fire Brigades Association (UFBA) represents the country’s more than 12,000 urban and rural volunteer firefighters and emergency workers. Volunteers account for around 86% of all firefighters and cover 93% of the national landmass. That means most New Zealanders, whether they live in large cities, towns or small rural communities are covered by volunteer firefighters, and that the firefighters they see out and about in their communities are most likely to be volunteers. When Guy Fawkes night occurs next week, volunteer firefighters across the country will be on standby to deal with any incidents that might arise.

567 of the New Zealand’s 647 fire stations are fully volunteer, a further 34 are operated jointly with employed firefighters, leaving just 46 stations, principally in the heart of the main centres, operated entirely by employed staff. Volunteers are the first responders to 42% of all structure fires, 70% of all motor vehicle accidents, 71% of all medical emergencies, and 85% of all vegetation fires.

They also play an increasingly important role in responding to natural disasters. For example, much of the response to the cyclones that devastated the upper North and East Coast of the North Island last year was led by volunteer firefighters. Sadly, the two emergency response workers who were killed responding to the cyclones were volunteer firefighters.

Earlier this year, the UFBA’s Board commissioned a report from Esperance Capital on the monetary value of the contribution volunteer firefighters make to fire and emergency services around the country. According to Esperance Capital, that value was $823 million in the year to June 2023. Significantly, the report showed that the value of the contribution of volunteers has been increasing – up just over 16% from the $619 million figure assessed in 2019, the last time such a study was undertaken.

The immediate conclusion from the Esperance Capital report and the increasing contribution of volunteer firefighters is that New Zealand’s emergency services could not survive without them. Nor, given the breadth of that contribution, could any government ever afford to replace volunteers with fully employed staff.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand – the operational body which manages fire and emergency services throughout New Zealand – the government, and the wider community need to take this point on board. Right now, the government is considering various reports commissioned after the cyclones about the best organisational response to similar events in the future.

To date, there has been no discussion with the UFBA about the contribution of volunteer firefighters in such circumstances, despite the reality that without their active involvement, New Zealand lacks the resources and the personnel for any form of effective response to natural disasters. Ignoring what volunteers may have to say seems extremely blinkered and short-sighted.

The commitment and skill of New Zealand’s volunteer firefighters is recognised world-wide. When teams of firefighters go to assist fighting major bush or forest fires in places like Australia or Canada, most of the participants are volunteers, leaving their families and taking time off from their day jobs to do so. New Zealand’s fire and urban rescue services received a special United Nations commendation for their work, again heavily involving volunteers, in the wake of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake.

As the chair of the UFBA’s Board, I hear often of the respect that the public has for our volunteer firefighters. At the same time, many people are still amazed to learn that most firefighters in our cities and towns are volunteers, because of the quality of the public service they provide. I regard this as a tribute to their professionalism and commitment to service, and it is little wonder that they rank amongst our most highly respected public services.

In many ways, volunteer firefighters typify community life in New Zealand. It has been often said that the two best ways to get known in a new community are to join the local volunteer fire brigade, or the school committee. Our volunteers come from all walks of life, and backgrounds. The resilience of the UFBA over the last almost 150 years stems from this. This weekend’s events will be an opportunity to both recall and celebrate past achievements, and to focus on the challenges the ever-changing world of emergency services will pose in the future.

But while the delegates gather, the country’s 567 volunteer stations and the 34 joint volunteer/employed staff stations will still remain on call to meet their community’s needs, just as they are, every hour of every day throughout the year, since the first volunteer brigades were established 146 years ago.

 

The only thing missing when Speaker Gerry Brownlee solemnly announced Darleen Tana’s political execution this week was the Black Cap Judges used to wear in the days of capital punishment when sentencing some hapless criminal to death.

While there will be little sympathy for Tana’s plight, because of the way it was played out, and she herself seems relieved that after more than seven months the saga is over, questions remain about whether the Electoral Integrity Act is fit for purpose and desirable.

Whatever else she did, Tana did not vote against the Green Party in Parliament, nor take positions contrary to the policies of the Green Party. She was held to have breached proportionality because by leaving the party she deprived it of one-fifteenth of its resources and allocated speaking time in Parliament. Her actions had no effect on the stability of government, nor did they reduce the number of votes available to the Opposition in the House.

Tana was expelled because an internal argument with the Green Party over her family’s business affairs led her to resign from the party.

This dispute led the Green Party to invoke the Electoral Integrity Act’s provisions, despite its previous long-standing, principled opposition to such legislation. When the crunch came, the party showed that regaining access to the financial resources and speaking slots in the House it lost through Tana’s departure was ultimately more important than the principles it had paraded for so long.

Tana’s private affairs and how truthfully she may have explained those to the Green Party certainly deserved investigation and raised questions about her suitability as a Member of Parliament. But they were matters for the Green Party to resolve directly with Tana, rather than rely on a piece of dubious legislation.

It should never be forgotten that the Electoral Integrity Act was utu legislation dreamed up by New Zealand First after the break-up of the coalition with National in 1998, and the subsequent defection of many of its MPs to the short-lived Mauri Pacific Party. New Zealand First has insisted on the legislation being part of every coalition or government support arrangement it has been part of since then. It has nothing to do with democratic or Parliamentary principle, and everything to do with being a mechanism for keeping potentially dissident members of the New Zealand First under control. The Green Party, ACT and, in its day, UnitedFuture were right to oppose it as anti-democratic and unnecessary.

The legislation is anti-democratic because it turns MPs into mere ciphers, slaves to the dictates of their party, and unable to express contrary opinions or views of their own, lest they be expelled from Parliament for breaching proportionality. Until the politically awkward Tana situation arose, the Green Party had been consistently the most strident opponent of the legislation, arguing that the right to freedom of speech and opinion should always be upheld for Members of Parliament. It is an unremovable stain on its integrity that it should so readily abandon its principles the way it has done in the Tana case.

From what we know now, the blunt truth is that the skeletons rattling around in Tana’s cupboard meant she should never have been selected as a candidate by the Green Party in the first place. Proper due diligence by the party during its internal selection process should have identified the potential risks Tana posed, long before she was selected. Proper scrutiny at that stage would have identified the issues that were to sink her career and should have prevented her selection in the first place. That they were not, is as much an indictment on the way the Green Party went about things as it is on Tana.

The wider question this whole situation raises is the appropriateness of the Green Party relying on legislation to resolve an internal situation largely of its own making. Legislation should focus on broad areas of policy or principle, and not be a device for helping political parties to patch up their internal mistakes.

Tana is undoubtedly a major loser from these events. Her Parliamentary career was abruptly ended before it really started, and her reputation has been shattered. It will take a long period away from the public eye for her to recover that. But she is not the only one – the Green Party is also a big loser. Its actions have shown it to be just as craven and opportunistic as it accuses its political opponents of being. They have destroyed forever its unctuous, self-righteous claim to be the only party of principle in Parliament.

The process has shaken the notion that Members of Parliament are chosen by the people, not anonymous party delegates doing their leadership’s bidding. It has left a tawdry shadow over Parliament, which the sombre discomfort detectable in Brownlee’s announcement reflected. To recover the mana it has lost, Parliament should now move to dump the repugnant and draconian Electoral Integrity Act, as unceremoniously as Tana was.

The last thing the beleaguered public health system needs right now is a distracting debate about which language hospital staff should use when communicating with patients.  There should be no argument that English, the most widely used language in New Zealand, is the one that should be used in all communications with or about patients, unless they do not speak English and need to be communicated with in a different language. But, at the same time, how, and in what language, hospital staff talk privately to each other, away from their patients, should be their own business. This is not a question of cultural respect, but simply a matter of practicality. As such, it does not deserve the attention it is currently receiving.

At a broader level, it is symptomatic of the wider problems facing the health system where the focus has too often been on side-issues, ahead of more critical matters like access to, and quality of, services provided, and secure funding.

Labour’s bold health reforms, announced three and a half years ago, have long since been dead in the water.  In fact, they were virtually stillborn when Labour refused to commit to the long-term funding that its plans would require to be implemented.

I well recall attending a briefing shortly after the reforms were announced. Promises were made then there would be substantial increases in nursing and medical staff numbers, although there was no indication of where all these new staff would come from, or how their positions would be funded. When I raised questions along these lines, there was no answer. 

The recent debacle over nursing positions is a direct and tragic consequence of this woolly thinking.  Labour’s mid-2023 decision to boost nursing numbers, without adequate future funding, has caused two immediate crises. The lack of long-term funding has led to understandable fears of significant nursing cutbacks in hospitals to meet budget shortfalls. At the same time, the climate of expectation the projected increase in nursing positions created led to a substantial glut of overseas nurses being lured to New Zealand who are now unable to find work here and seem set to join the job exodus to Australia.

So, instead of the bold, new 21^st century, fit for purpose health system that Labour promised in 2021, we are now faced with a hurried patch-up job on the current dysfunctional system, before any substantial reforms can be even considered. Health Minister Reti’s quiet tones of reassurance sound more and more despondent as each week goes by. For his part, Health Commissioner Levy is becoming increasingly bogged down firefighting the health system’s day-to-day problems, leaving him less time to focus on the strategic and organisational future of health services that he was appointed to oversee. Those on the Health New Zealand Board who were pushed aside to make way for the Commissioner might now be forgiven a quiet feeling of “I told you so.”

Commissioner Levy’s staunch commitment to retain key frontline services is admirable but is likely to become increasingly difficult to sustain. While nursing and medical staff have shown extraordinary patience, commitment and professionalism over the years, as the uncertainties around them have unfolded, their confidence is being stretched. Many are now threatening to leave the system altogether because they are exhausted and frustrated. The strictures the system is already facing mean there is no guarantee that adequate replacements could easily be found for those choosing to move on. And the dire warnings the government has been receiving from the Treasury and other key advisers that New Zealand’s budget deficit is structural and unlikely to be overcome in the short term bluntly mean that the health system cannot rely on hefty annual funding increases indefinitely.

Reti’s and Levy’s immediate priority is therefore to rescue the public health system and restore an air of stability within it, before they can even begin to think of what the best structure for the future might be. That may not be as dramatic or exciting as the bold mission of reform Labour imagined it was starting on in 2021, but in its own way, it will be just as challenging an assignment. A key part of getting the health system “back on track” will be restoring confidence and trust within it. That may not have been the role both Reti and Levy thought they were signing on for, but it is the outcome they are now both expected to deliver.

Labour hoped that the prospect of bold health reforms would pay a political dividend in 2023, but they were wrong. Today, National hopes its more limited objectives will work for it in 2026.

How times change!

In the early days of the fourth Labour Government then Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas frequently described the government’s sweeping reform approach as moving so quickly on a variety of fronts that it was impossible for the Opposition to keep up with the pace of change. But a few months later, then Deputy Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer was acknowledging that the government was suffering from “speed wobbles.”

When it took office at the end of last year, the current National-led coalition government swiftly set about dismantling as many of the cornerstone policies of the last Labour government as quickly as it could in what looked like a none-too-subtle attempt to remove as many vestiges of Ardernism as possible from the national political landscape. What had been known as “blitzkrieg” under 1980s Labour became “scorched earth” under 2020s National.

Both approaches were panned by critics of the day and sparked typically circular debates about the need to curb the executive powers of governments to act this way. Predictably, these calls died down as those governments settled into their work and people adjusted to the changes being made. Equally predictably, Opposition parties of the time promised not to behave that way when they next came to office.

However, in a recent interview, Labour’s finance spokesperson (and potential future leader) Barbara Edmonds showed a refreshing honesty. In a remarkable affirmation of the French maxim “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose” (the more things change, the more they stay the same) she said Labour has learned from the current government when it comes to managing economic reform. She said “‘do it early is probably a lesson”. In her view, an incoming Labour-led government should go early and go hard, so there is time for things to settle in before the public next heads to voting booths. Her candour was reminiscent of Douglas’s approach forty years ago.

So, those looking to a future Labour-led government to slow down the pace of change seem set to be disappointed if Edmonds has her way. She clearly intends to be just as ruthless in quickly clearing the decks should she become Finance Minister as Douglas, Ruth Richardson and now Willis were before her.

However, Edmonds was somewhat less specific about her policy intent. That is hardly surprising at this stage of the electoral cycle, nor is it inconsistent with past practice. After all, Douglas did not reveal his full hand until after the 1984 election, arguing the sudden calling of the “Schnapps” election and the largely concealed parlous state of Muldoon’s controlled economy prevented a full election policy roll-out before the election. Likewise, Willis argued that she was constrained by potential coalition negotiation concessions, although she was adamant her tax cuts programme would proceed in some form.

The only clear policy hint Edmonds has given – in contrast to the waffling coyness of her leader Chris Hipkins – is that the capital gains tax Labour has previously campaigned on unsuccessfully in 2011 and 2014 (and which both Ardern and Hipkins ruled out as Prime Minister) is firmly back on Labour’s agenda. After all, why else would she in the same interview have claimed that many business leaders privately support ANZ Bank CEO Antonia Watson’s recent public call to introduce a capital gains tax, and pleaded that she now needs them “to say that publicly”?

Shortly after he became Finance Minister in 1999, Sir Michael Cullen described the role as akin to that of a managing director. Other Ministers were like branch managers, he said, with the Prime Minister being like the Board Chair. Over the years, governments of whatever political hue have become defined by the policies of their Finance Minister. From Rogernomics to Sir Bill English’s “compassionate conservatism”, it has always been the same. It is the Finance Minister who puts the stamp on a government’s policy style and approach. In that regard, it could be argued that Edmonds’ interview comments were as much about making this point clear to her own colleagues, as they were remarks for the wider public.

While Edmonds’ comments have revealed how she would approach the role of Finance Minister were it ever to come her way, they have also made it more difficult in the short-term for Labour to criticise the government’s pace of change. And her acknowledgment that Labour did not always get it right on key policies – like fair pay agreements which she says Labour remains committed to reintroducing, although not in their original form, or social insurance that she is silent on – makes it that much more difficult to criticise National’s abandonment of those policies.

But overall, Edmond’s admiration of the speedy way the current government went about its early changes simply confirms that a future Labour-led government will perform just the same as the current government. Therefore, the National-Labour political merry go-round looks set to carry on, the way it always has done.

 

Darleen Tana’s extraordinary run as a Member of Parliament looks set to continue for some time yet. Now that the High Court has dismissed Tana’s application for an injunction to prevent the Green Party invoking the so-called party-hopping legislation, the party will be able to proceed with their proposed meeting to determine her fate.

That meeting is now scheduled for 17 October – just over a year after the general election at which Tana was elected to Parliament. If more than three-quarters of the participants agree, the Green Party will then seek to apply the legislation to finally oust Tana from Parliament.

But it may not be quite that simple, nor a resolution of this distraction that rapid. For a start, there must still some doubt that the planned 17 October meeting will in fact occur. Tana is reportedly considering whether to appeal the High Court’s decision and has until 2 October to decide whether to do so. If previous practice is any guide Tana will delay that decision until as late as possible. Should an appeal be lodged, it is unlikely that it will be disposed of in time for the Green Party’s proposed 17 October meeting to proceed, further slowing down an end to the saga that has already been dragging on since March.

But even if the meeting does proceed as planned, and the 75% support threshold the Green Party’s rules require for seeking to evict Tana from Parliament is achieved, there are still more steps to be taken before Tana’s political execution can be carried out.

Under the Electoral Integrity Act 2018, there is a deliberate process for expelling a Member of Parliament who has left the party for which they had originally been elected. It is triggered by a letter from the Member’s party leader to the Speaker formally advising that they have left the party for which they had been elected.

The Act requires that notice to the Speaker to state “that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election.” The letter must also confirm that the party leader has written to the Member of Parliament, advising them that the party is seeking to apply the legislation, and setting out the specific reasons for its decision to do so. The Member of Parliament then has 21 working days to respond to the party’s charges. The party leader is then required to advise the Speaker that the party’s caucus has considered the Member’s response and that a minimum of two-thirds of its membership has supported the application for the Member’s expulsion proceeding. It is then over to the Speaker to determine the outcome.

Therefore, should the Green Party meeting scheduled for 17 October proceed and give the party the mandate it requires to seek Tana’s expulsion, the party leadership will then need to apply the processes set out above. Assuming no slippage, the absolute earliest date on which the party will be able to confirm with the Speaker that it has followed the procedures set out in the Act and that Tana should be expelled from Parliament is 18 November.

However, given the history of this case so far, that deadline seems extremely unlikely to be met. From the outset, Tana’s entire strategy has been to drag things out for as long as possible to inflict maximum embarrassment on the Green Party, while continuing to collect her Parliamentary salary and allowances.

That approach hardly seems likely to change at this late stage. Even if Tana decides not to appeal the recent High Court decision, there remains the likelihood of further Court action at any point from here on, especially if the Green Party does not tick correctly all the provisions of the Electoral Integrity Act. There is also the more unlikely possibility that the Speaker may feel unconvinced in part or in whole by the submission the Green Party eventually makes to him.

If the 2003 case of Donna Awatere-Huata’s expulsion from the ACT Party is any guide, the Tana case may therefore only be at its middle stages. In July 2003, the ACT Party leader advised the Speaker of his party’s wish to invoke the Electoral Integrity legislation then in place to expel Awatere-Huata from Parliament. Subsequent legal action from Awatere-Huata challenging this move went through several Court processes, before being finally resolved in ACT’s favour by the Supreme Court over a year later in November 2004.

A repeat of that legal marathon might appeal to Tana but is the last thing both the Green Party and the public would want. Nevertheless, based both on experience and Tana’s conduct to date, it is a potential outcome both should brace themselves for.

After all, political revenge is at its best when it is drawn out!

It is often said that timing is everything in politics. Sometimes the timing is fortuitous, a case of being in the right place at the right time, and sometimes it is the precise opposite.

This week, the Labour leader heads off to Britain, taking up the traditional annual taxpayer funded overseas study trip, available to the Leader of the Opposition. He will be away until the start of October, attending the annual conference of Britain’s new governing Labour Party and “meeting with think-tanks, economists and writers both in Liverpool and London”. Hipkins says it is an opportunity “to take stock of what is happening internationally and discuss our direction with other policymakers.”

It all sounds very reasonable and plausible and not likely to be in any way controversial or newsworthy to anyone but the most ardent Labour aficionado.

However, the timing of this trip might come to prove awkward for Hipkins. Earlier this week, a Taxpayers Union-Curia poll showed support for his leadership plummeting. According to the poll, Hipkins’ net favourability rating with voters has suffered a large fall of 16 points to -10%, since July. The net favourability rating is the gap between those poll respondents who like a leader, and those who do not. In this poll, just 31% of respondents said they had a positive view of Hipkins, while 41% said they had an unfavourable view, a difference of -10%.

Whenever there is concern within a political party about its leadership, the absence of the leader abroad always seems to prompt the opportunity for discontent with that leader to come to the surface. The infamous, but ultimately unsuccessful “Colonels’ Coup” against Sir Robert Muldoon in 1980 was hatched while he was out of the country. It failed because Muldoon aggressively and forcefully stared down his critics upon his return to New Zealand.

In 1997, supporters of Dame Jenny Shipley worked during the absence overseas of Jim Bolger to secure the numbers for her to replace him as leader of the National Party and Prime Minister. Senior Minister, Sir Douglas Graham, was then deputed to meet Bolger at the airport upon his return to acquaint him with this unpleasant new reality. Bolger stood down a few days later, without provoking a direct contest with Shipley.

There was another feature of the Taxpayers Union-Curia poll that should be of concern to Hipkins as he sets off overseas. The poll showed the governing parties increasing their lead over the Opposition, with the Labour Party going slowly backward, now polling marginally less than its percentage at last year’s General Election. The combination of this, and Hipkins’ plummeting personal support, will undoubtedly have set some alarm bells ringing within the Labour Caucus.

Of course, it is unwise to read too much into one poll – the longer trends are more important – but the Taxpayers Union-Curia poll confirms a trend that has been apparent since the election ten months ago.

Under Labour’s Caucus Rules, the position of party leader must be considered at the first Caucus meeting of the year preceding a General Election. So, Hipkins’ position is up for review next February anyway. Normally, this is a formality if the leader is seeking to carry on – the last time Labour voted out a sitting leader was in 1965 when Norman Kirk replaced Arnold Nordmeyer by 25 votes to 10.

But Hipkins, given Labour’s currently indifferent performance and his own declining public support, will be under pressure to make his intentions clear well before then. Since last year’s election defeat, he has been adamant that he wants to lead Labour into the next election campaign, and there have been no apparent challenges to that. Two names frequently mentioned as leadership contenders, Kieran McAnulty and Barbara Edmonds, have both persistently and emphatically (at least so far) ruled themselves out of contention.

Hipkins’ forthcoming absence overseas will give the Labour Caucus – and Hipkins himself for that matter – an opportunity to reflect on the party’s poor performance of recent months and the extent to which Hipkins as leader is responsible for that. It will give each the chance to consider whether it is credible for things to carry on as they are, or whether Labour’s prospects might improve if someone else was at the helm.  

If there is a move afoot within the Caucus for change, Hipkins’ absence will give any challengers the opportunity to quietly canvass Caucus support and then to assess the mood of the Party overall. Whatever outcome is reached, nothing is likely to happen publicly before next February’s first Caucus meeting.

However, an early clue might be provided by who – if anyone – turns up to meet Hipkins at the airport when he returns on 1 October.