There will be relief in certain political circles at the acquittal of former MP, Jami-Lee Ross of corruption in the political donations case. Not because of any affection or regard for Ross, but more because the stench of corruption in our political system has been removed, at least for the time being. 

However, the convictions of the three businessmen co-charged with Ross shows that the murky issue of donations to political parties is as controversial as ever. The rules regarding donations by businesses and wealthy donors to political parties are clearly in urgent need of tidying up to make them transparent, fair and fit for purpose. 

Some have suggested that the best solution would be to outlaw such donations altogether. They point to successful recent campaign by the likes of Barack Obama, funded mainly on small donations – as low as $5 or $10 in some cases – and argue there is no reason why a similar approach could not work in New Zealand. However, New Zealand does not have the population base of the United States, meaning it would be very difficult for such a mass groundswell approach to work here. 

In any case, in an open society like ours, people and businesses ought to be able to donate freely to the political parties they support, within specified limits and provided all donations are properly recorded and publicly disclosed. The current system of donations having to be lodged with the Electoral Commission which then passes them on to the party concerned is a bureaucratic piece of busy-bodying nonsense which ought to be done away with. It achieves nothing in practice other than making the donations process cumbersome and slow. 

The onus should be on the political parties to declare – within say, seven days – what political donations they have received, their source and value. A similar requirement should be placed on donors to make them fully accountable for their donations and allow the public to make their judgements about political influence accordingly. There should be severe penalties for non-compliance by parties and donors. 

A more simple and transparent approach like this would render the devices and schemes revealed during the recent trial forever redundant. 

To some extent, the debate about the political donations regime is a smokescreen for something far more sinister. There has long been a view, especially on the left side of politics, that there should be no political donations allowable at all, and that political parties should be state funded. 

Such a view is morally reprehensible. It is not the role of governments to fund political parties and the argument that it would be fairer and more transparent to do so is pure bollocks. 

A state funding system would be anything but fair. The left favours it for no reason of principle – because there is credibly none – but more because it would stop wealthy donors being able to support parties on the right. Their arguments that this would lead to a fairer system are more about locking in their own advantage – without touching the financial and other support they receive from the unions – than fairness and transparency. And the bureaucracy required to run such a system would leave the Electoral Commission looking like babes in the woods. 

Aside from the lack of principle in a state funding system, there is the vexed question of the basis on which funds would be allocated. The main view is that funds would be allocated according to a party’s vote share at the previous general election, but that is seriously flawed. For example, Labour received 50% of the vote at the 2020 general election. On that basis, it would receive 50% of the state funding. But Labour’s support has been dropping ever since – now below 30% according to one recent opinion poll, while National’s, the Greens’ ACT’s and Te Pati Māori’s support levels are, according to the polls, all much higher than in 2020. To allocate funding based on previous election performance, when so much has changed in the interim, would be lazy and wrong. 

Moreover, such a system would entrench the position of the parties already in Parliament. New parties or small parties on the up would be unable to get a look-in under such a system. That may well suit the convenience of the established parties, but it is hardly fair or reasonable, nor in the interests of promoting a fully democratic society. And the thought of a team of unelected bureaucrats administering such a system and determining the fate of political parties this way is simply repugnant. 

The recent corruption trial and convictions have been a rude awakening about the failings of the current system of political donations. It requires an urgent, sensible, and fair response. More bureaucracy and restrictions, or the state taking over the whole system are not the answers. 

Political donors large and small need to be made fully accountable for their donations, and the political parties required to disclose immediately, the size, source and form of all donations received in cash or kind. A sunlight approach along these lines will let voters know precisely what is going on and enable them to reach fully informed decisions about those behind the parties seeking their vote.     

 

Now that New Zealand has started to move on from the unrelenting emphasis of the last two and a half years on dealing with the pandemic, focus is beginning to return to other important aspects of national life. 

We are all familiar with the mounting cost-of-living and the impact it is having on household budgets. We will all have our views about how much of this is due to the recognisable international factors that the government is blaming, saying it has no real control over them, and how much of it is due to domestic circumstances, far more clearly the government’s responsibility. 

That debate, which of itself will not change anything, will continue for some time yet, almost certainly through to next year’s general election and probably beyond. There will be interminable arguments about whether the various Covid19 response packages were enough, sufficiently properly targeted, and the associated spending properly disciplined. The level of public debt run up over the last two years will continue to be a major point of political concern, even though New Zealand’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains on the low side by world standards. And then there will be the overarching question of whether New Zealand’s pandemic response was fit for purpose, or too harsh, and inconsistently applied. 

In the absence of an independent inquiry, something the government seems determined to avoid before the next election, perhaps out of fear of being embarrassed, all these issues will continue to be the stuff of arcane analysis by commentators and the subject of endless dinner table arguments. 

However, there are other issues arising from the pandemic that should transcend partisan political debate because they have a far deeper impact on the country’s future. Top of these is the fate of our children whose education and wider socialisation has been severely disrupted while the pandemic was rife. 

Disturbing figures released this week by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority show that on average the number of NCEA credits being achieved by students to date this year is down by over 10% on comparable levels of achievement in 2019, the last full year before the arrival of the pandemic. Moreover, the number of “not-achieved” credits reported to NZQA is at its highest point for the last two years. Secondary principals are saying 2022 could be the worst year yet since the pandemic for secondary education. The government has already announced a $20 million remedial package to provide extra teaching and tutoring to help affected students make up ground, but that is likely to prove a drop in the bucket. 

Aside from the worry of the level of achievement being slowed because of the disruptive impact on schools of the pandemic, there is also the more intangible, but equally important, matter of the personal impact of the pandemic’s disruptions on the attitude and aspirations of individual students at all levels. They will take much longer to restore than a quick remedial package can hope to provide. In many cases, students’ future long-term plans and hopes have been abruptly upturned since 2020. 

Associated with this is the wider issue of the mental health impact of the pandemic on young people. We already have one of the world’s highest rates of youth suicide and it is hard to see it not being impacted further by the educational and life uncertainties young people seem set to face over the next few years. General practices are noticing an increase in patients across the board with mental health problems brought on by the pandemic, and it would be reasonable to assume there will be many young people among those who are affected. 

Unfortunately, public health services, still caught up in the turmoil and uncertainty of the mid-year reorganisation of the health sector are in no position to offer coherent help, placing the onus back on general practices, community agencies and struggling, fearful families. Evidence shows there is often a lag between a civil crisis – like the pandemic – and the growth of mental health issues in the community, meaning the impact of the pandemic on young people is set to linger for some years to come. 

In that regard, the figures released by NZQA this week are likely the tip of a large and disturbing iceberg, about which we should all be very concerned. Behind the statistics are many individuals and their families worrying about what all this means for their own wellbeing and their children’s future aspirations. 

But sadly, this looming crisis appears to be receiving scant political attention – across the board. Yet the future of our young people is one of the most important determinants of our country’s future overall. It ought to be taken far more seriously by all the political parties, whether in government or not, than appears to be the case at present. 

Lofty speeches about the war in Ukraine, the risk of nuclear conflagration, climate change, and cyber security are of course important and deserving of much attention, but equally so too are the educational opportunities, attainments, and wellbeing of our children. 

As New Zealand moves on from the pandemic and begins the slow process of recovery, looking after the future wellbeing and educational attainments of our children must become a top priority for all politicians, whatever their political stripe.

 

 

Maria Dew KC’s inquiry into the allegations against Sam Uffindell was intended to achieve two purposes. The first was to determine the extent and accuracy of the various allegations made against the MP about bullying and related claims in his earlier life. The second purpose was to enable National leader Christopher Luxon to make a reasonable judgement, based on the evidence, whether Uffindell should be allowed to remain a member of the National Party Caucus. 

On the face of it, Ms Dew’s finding that Uffindell “did not engage in the serious behaviour alleged in the media” appears decisive and sufficient for Luxon to reach the conclusion that Uffindell should now be reinstated to the National Caucus. It appears the findings were based on interviews with and written submissions from a significant number of people. 

However, a level of murkiness remains, which goes to the second purpose of the inquiry. Because National has consistently refused to make public both the terms of reference for the inquiry and Ms Dew’s report, there will still be questions about what happened. These do not relate to the Dew report itself – Ms Dew’s reputation in such matters is impeccable and above reproach – but more to the way it has been handled by the National Party. 

Given the nature of the allegations against Uffindell, it would have been unrealistic to have expected Ms Dew’s report to have been publicly released in its entirety. But it would not have been unreasonable to have expected National to have released at least a set of key facts about the case, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of individuals. This would have provided more credibility to Luxon’s reinstatement of Uffindell than is currently the case. 

There is a bitter irony that National – which has properly made a lot of noise about the cavalier way in which the present, self-styled “most transparent government ever” treats the release of official information – is now acting in precisely the same way when it comes to releasing information that affects the credibility of one of its own MPs. Any noise National may make in the future about the Official Information Act and Labour’s disdainful approach to it risks looking hypocritical in the face of its handling of the Uffindell affair. 

National is not alone though in the hypocrisy stakes on this issue. The Deputy Prime Minister’s unctuous whining about National’s “insensitivity” in releasing the Dew report on the day of the Queen’s funeral reeks of insincerity. After all, Labour has been badgering National for some weeks now to reach a decision on the Uffindell matter. As for the criticism over timing, Labour, with its penchant for ever so carefully stage-managing the release of large tranches of material in response to Official Information Act requests is in no position at all to credibly criticise National for its timing in this case.

National undoubtedly hopes that the Dew report and the consequent decision to reinstate Uffindell to its Caucus draw a line under the issue that allows everyone to move on. The meek acknowledgement from the National Party president that the party needs to improve its processes offer a vague, still faint hope, that it will not get caught in a similar situation in the future. 

However, Uffindell still remains the big loser in this whole saga. While he may claim vindication because of his reinstatement, questions remain which look set to dog him for some time to come. For example, what confidence can the public have that manifestations of his previous behaviour will not arise in the treatment of his Parliamentary staff, in the hothouse environment of Parliament, the way they have with other MPs of late? It is not unreasonable to assume that he will be under greater scrutiny than most other MPs. Nor is it clear whether National and /or the Parliamentary Service will be providing additional support to Uffindell to help him through this time. 

More broadly, National’s failure to release basic information about the inquiry and the report’s contents leaves Uffindell in an invidious position. Although he has been reinstated following the report, the secrecy associated with it will leave a shadow of doubt about the legitimacy of the outcome, to his detriment. 

Unfortunately for Uffindell a propitious moment in time has passed. Had National front-footed the matter by releasing a suitably redacted version of the report, it would have been harder to question the outcome. However, if National was to back-track now and release the report, it would look like it was trying to overcome suspicion it had something to hide. 

Although Uffindell has been reinstated to the National Caucus and can get on with being the MP for Tauranga, he will remain tainted, more by the National Party’s handling of the issue, than the allegations which gave rise to the inquiry in the first place.

 

 

It is hardly surprising in the wake of the death of Queen Elizabeth II that the question of New Zealand becoming a republic should be raised. Indeed, it is inevitable that the end of the longest reign of any British Monarch ever should provoke discussion about the future and what might follow. 

However, as a staunch republican, I say for two reasons this is not the time for such discussions to occur. First, the late Queen’s reign was an unparalleled example of service and dedication that deserves to be honoured, without distraction. During the seventy years of her reign, the Queen touched the lives of many people in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and elsewhere and it is right that those people be given time and space to reflect upon and mourn her passing as they see appropriate. An early debate about becoming a republic would be an unwelcome intrusion on the grief of many at this point. 

Second, there is always a risk that decisions reached in response to a particular situation are too influenced by those circumstances to deliver the best and most durable outcomes. A period of distance and reflection is always best suited to enabling a dispassionate consideration of all the issues involved before a formal decision is reached. This is especially so in the instance of the momentous constitutional change that becoming a republic would be. 

The 2005 Parliamentary Inquiry into New Zealand’s Constitutional Arrangements – which I chaired – noted the “pragmatic evolution” of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and set out broad processes by which future changes might be considered. Although the committee was not asked to consider the question of becoming a republic, it did conclude that “the functions and nature of the most appropriate Head of State for New Zealand” was one of the most critical constitutional issues facing the country. 

While the process of becoming a republic is not nearly as complicated as some argue, any change needs to occur following widespread national consultation and consensus, not rushed hurriedly into place because of the death of a long-serving and much-loved Monarch. As the Constitutional Arrangements Committee concluded, “we will initially benefit from ongoing debate and consideration, rather than from hastily developed reform proposals. They are questions about our national identity and the way in which we want power to be organised in our country.” 

And, although New Zealand is an independent sovereign nation, there is also the wider position to consider. At present, only 14 of the 56 nations of the Commonwealth acknowledge the British Monarch as their Head of State, as New Zealand does. Of those, Australia, the Caribbean states, and possibly Canada are likely to consider becoming republics over the next little while. It would therefore make good sense for New Zealand to engage in informal dialogue with those countries about the processes for change they might be considering, including possible timetables, so that we can learn from and share common experiences. That would not involve any compromise of our sovereignty but would simply be a pragmatic way of ensuring each country understood what the other was doing. 

What is clear is that New Zealand’s position as a member of the Commonwealth is not at stake here. 36 members of the Commonwealth, including India, and South Africa are already republics, and there is no reason or suggestion that New Zealand would be obliged to cut its Commonwealth ties, were it to become a republic. 

Although the timing and form of any move for New Zealand to become a republic is ultimately in our own hands, we will not be immune from external influences. 

One of these might be King Charles III himself. His desire and intent to “slim down” the Monarchy is well known. Reportedly, he wants to reduce the effective working Royal Family to just seven members, and structure it more along the lines of the various European monarchies, both to secure its ongoing public support, and reduce the significant financial costs associated with it. With King Charles’ position secured as head of the "the free association of independent member nations" that is the Commonwealth, he may feel less inclined to pay much attention to their own individual constitutional arrangements, so long as they adhere to the Commonwealth’s broad principles, given he has no part in their day-to-day governance arrangements. 

Indeed, he has already indicated as much. In a 1997 discussion with former politician and diplomat Chris Laidlaw the then Prince of Wales reportedly said, when asked about New Zealand becoming a republic, “Well, to be frank, I think it would come as a great relief to all of us. It would remove the awful ambiguity we have at the moment. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for everybody if you all had your own completely independent head of state. I certainly never want to be dragged into any constitutional disputes in New Zealand or anywhere else. I simply can’t imagine how difficult it would be to be faced with having to dismiss a New Zealand Prime Minister.”

Could it therefore be that as part of slimming down the Monarchy, King Charles will proactively encourage long-term Commonwealth members like New Zealand to become republics? Given the timorous way successive governments have approached the issue over the years, accepting a Royal nudge for change would be the ultimate irony.

 

 

The latest Roy Morgan political opinion poll mirrors other polls in showing a narrowing gap between the main blocs, with National and ACT still slightly ahead of Labour and the Greens, but with neither able to form a majority government, without the support of Te Pati Māori. 

The poll also shows a widening majority of voters believe the country is on the wrong track. Most polls in recent months have shown voters evenly split on that question, but with an increasing number believing that the country is heading in the wrong direction. Seasoned political observers know that the “right track/wrong track” question is often more relevant in determining the political state of the nation than the so-called horse race between the major blocs. It is very difficult for governments to win re-election if most voters believe they are taking the country in the wrong direction. 

That is the situation presently in New Zealand, and the trend has been firming in recent months. It is a more than just a case of the “winter blues” that the country will snap out of once the warmer weather returns and is causing the Labour government a few worries. Its recent hurried about-face on applying GST to Kiwisaver fund fees was an example of its increasing sensitivity to voter perceptions. So too have been the pains it now goes to point out that sanctions are already in place for those who breach their benefit conditions, despite having ridiculed the very idea when National suggested it just a few weeks ago. 

Labour knows voter perceptions about its performance have become quite negative, so will obviously intensify its efforts over the new few months to appear more voter friendly and in tune with their aspirations, as would be expected of any government fighting for its political survival and a third term in office. 

But that should be less of a worry to National than its own mounting failure to capitalise on rising voter disillusionment. Although an increasing majority in the polls does not like the way the country is heading, they do not yet see, nor have sufficient confidence, that National, with ACT in tow, is a credible alternative. National is still at least 5-8% short of where it should be rating about now. With more and more people expressing unease about Labour’s direction, the National/ACT bloc ought to be enjoying a clear and increasing opinion poll lead, rather than being either just short of a majority or just over the bar, as at present. 

There has been no end of opportunities for National to take advantage of. Issues such as the economy’s decline, post Covid19 uncertainty affecting public confidence, any benefit from the recent health reforms a long way off, come readily to mind. Add to that the government’s increasingly unpredictable decision-making, alongside more visceral issues like Three Waters, and National’s opportunities are endless. But it seems almost incapable of taking advantage of them. 

Although the internal division and disunity that wracked the party until the end of last year seem to have been put to bed, or at least papered over for the meantime, they have yet to be seen as replaced with any positive alternative. The change of leadership and the reshuffling of Caucus responsibilities has given National a sharper image, but it has still to be shown what policy substance there is behind this. 

National will be understandably wary of rolling out any bold new policies it may have this far from the election. In any case, it would be unwise to do so before the half yearly economic and fiscal update is published in December. Nevertheless, it needs to be developing a concise, almost dispassionate, narrative on the areas in which the country is heading in the wrong direction, and the broad sorts of steps needed to correct that. Over the next few months, it should be judging every action of the government against that narrative, and then, early next year, producing the specific policies to change things. 

However, right now, National’s reaction is still too kneejerk, often opposing for the sake of opposing, rather than hinting how things could become better if they were restored to power next year. National leader Chris Luxon has appeared at his best when he talks about his view of where the country might head and the type of leader he would like to be, but he is not saying that often enough and many voters are simply not hearing him. Rather, all they see is the National Party and its leader carrying on as the carping critic of the government. 

Post Covid19, the country is entering a new mindset. During the pandemic we all became too familiar with the problems and the dangers. Over the last few months, we have tired of hearing about those and have increasingly looked forward to the better times the future might hold. It is the same with politics in general. While we may not like the direction the country is headed in under this government, we are tiring of being told constantly how bad things are. We know that, but we are now really looking to non-government parties to start painting the picture of how things might be better in the future. 

National needs to become the party of optimism and hope, not remain as the gloom merchant it is at present. With most people already having concluded for themselves things are not moving in the direction they want; they do not need National constantly reminding them of that. That current mode of criticism offers little that is new and paints National as part of the problem, the same way Labour is. 

Because it is the government, Labour’s course is largely set. While it can tweak things here and there, and drop what is not working or unpopular, it is bound by its history of five years in office. It cannot credibly now hive off on a bold new direction, a year out from the election. Its die is cast. 

National is not so constrained. It has all to play for, but, given the public’s ongoing doubts, it will not win office by default. It still needs to give sceptical voters a reason to vote for it. As the divergence between the “right track/wrong track” question and National’s party ratings shows it has yet to do so. Unlike previous years, just being “not” Labour will no longer be enough anymore.

 

The legendary Wellington retailer Alan Martin of the famous L.V. Martin & Son home appliance stores was renowned for his catchphrase, “It’s the putting right that counts – and if it’s not put right, ask for me, Alan Martin”. And he was well-known for honouring that commitment. For Martin, efficient and effective after-sales service was just as important as putting a quality product on the shelves in the first place. 

It is a pity this government has not followed Martin’s maxim – but then, given its worldview that nothing of relevance happened before it accidentally tumbled into office in 2017, long after Alan Martin was off the scene, it is hardly surprising. So much of what it has done has been a combination of overpromised and under-achieved, or simply poorly implemented. The one-off cost-of-living payment is but the latest example. 

Faced with stinging criticism from the Auditor-General that the implementation of the scheme had prioritised speed and expediency over certainty and accuracy, the Prime Minister seem unfazed. She brushed aside the Auditor-General’s rebuke that “good stewardship of public money required greater care”, saying that because of the depth of the cost-of-living crisis, the government’s focus had been on doing something immediate to help people. She implied that was more important – even though the $350 payment was at best token – than taking the time to implement something worthwhile properly. 

That has been a typical government response – being seen to be doing something quickly is more important than taking the time to do it properly. And when things go wrong, or do not work quite as intended, the fault is attributed to the way officials have implemented it, not the policy itself. After all, according to the government, the flawed Kiwibuild policy was a brilliant plan to solve the housing crisis, but it failed because officials did not implement it the way the government hoped. 

So too with the cost-of-living payment. The Prime Minister and her colleagues insist there was nothing wrong with the policy, it was just that it was not implemented the way they thought. This is despite Inland Revenue and Treasury warnings at the time the policy was first suggested that it would be unworkable within the timeframe proposed and without significant additional logistical resources. Those warnings, now proven correct, were ignored because the government wanted to be seen to be “doing something” in the May Budget. 

Even now, faced with criticism from the Auditor-General, blunter and far more pointed than any Auditor-General’s report of recent years, the government is still trying to sheet home the blame to Inland Revenue, and not accept any responsibility itself for what has gone wrong. Inland Revenue told the government at the outset that it would have difficulty targeting payments as precisely as intended. Yet now, when thousands of cases of people living overseas and even dead people receiving the payment have been shown up, the government is blaming Inland Revenue for the failings, even though the department pointed out the risk at the outset. 

President Harry Truman – someone this government has probably never heard of – was famous for many things, amongst them his saying, “The buck stops here”. Like Alan Martin over a generation later, Truman knew where responsibility ultimately lay. Both understood that those offering a service to the public, whether in politics or in retail trade, had not only to be prepared to stand by the quality of the service they were offering, but also to accept second-best was never good enough, and that mistakes needed to be acknowledged and rectified. 

That concept seems quite foreign to this government. In its world, bold ideas, no matter how unworkable or impractical, speak for themselves. When they go wrong, or do not work, it is everyone else’s fault. The problem never lies with those who dreamed up the ideas in the first place. Therefore, the “buck” or the “putting right” does not fall back on the government, but rather on those trying to make its ideas work. 

Leadership is about much more than promoting pious dreams about things that would be nice to do. It is also about being willing to do the hard work to make them a feasible reality, and to listen to and accept constructive criticism along the way. And it is about accepting the ultimate responsibility for things not working as intended, not shifting the blame as far away and as quickly as possible. 

The values that drove Truman’s and Martin’s approaches to serving the public now seem far away. Willingness to accept responsibility and “it’s the putting right that counts” have been replaced by policy intent being all that matters. But a government’s responsibility is greater than idealistic policy dreams – its overriding responsibility is to make sure its policies work.

 

 

 

 

Is Christopher Luxon's leadership of the National Party starting to run out of steam?  

When he took over as leader late last year National was languishing in the polls, far behind Labour. Following Luxon's accession, National quickly closed the gap with Labour, and since about May has been looking well placed to be able to form a government with ACT after the next election. Luxon's personal ratings were on the rise, and he was beginning to close the gap with Jacinda Ardern in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. 

But all that may be changing. While National and ACT still lead the Labour/Green bloc – just – in the rolling average of polls, that lead is slipping, leaving the next election currently too close to call. Luxon's own personal ratings have also stalled and are starting to decline.  

The turning point seems to have come around the time of his “Today I am in Te Puke” social media post while he was holidaying with his family in Hawaii. Since then, there have been the controversies surrounding his youth unemployment policy announcement to the otherwise successful National Party conference, the continuing speculation about his stand on access to abortion, and the allegations against new MP Sam Uffindell. 

Each of these has raised questions about aspects of Luxon’s judgement and has led to questions of whether all that much has really changed after all in the basic culture and style of the National Party under his leadership. His political experience has also been called into question, with a view in some quarters that his reliance on corporate-speak and solutions is off-putting to many of the voters National needs to reclaim from Labour to return to government.    

However, does it all matter that much at this stage of the electoral cycle? After all, Labour's ratings are falling like National's, with Ardern slumping more sharply than Luxon, even though she remains comfortably ahead in the preferred Prime Minister ratings. Is it not just a case of the mid-winter blues, brought on by the continuing run of bad weather, the uncertainty caused by the looming economic recession, and the lingering spectre of the pandemic affecting both the major parties equally? 

While there is an element of truth in this, National must nevertheless be concerned about the dip in Luxon’s fortunes. Although there is no suggestion – serious or otherwise – that his leadership is under threat, National strategists will be turning their minds to how he can better connect with the public. They will have noted enviously the Prime Minister’s well-received natural warmth and empathy, demonstrated yet again this week in her visit to storm-ravaged Nelson, even though she had very little to offer in the way of practical assistance. 

National should be concerned that despite the government’s failings, and the deteriorating overall situation, it is still running only neck-in-neck with Labour in opinion polls, when it should be well ahead. Moreover, the response to the Prime Minister’s “charm” visit to Nelson this week is a powerful and ominous reminder of her ongoing appeal to people and the consequent challenge that poses to Luxon to attract favourable public attention. 

Of course, the controversy surrounding now expelled MP Gaurav Sharma and Labour’s handling of it will have hurt Labour, and perhaps restored some of National’s fortunes for the meantime. However, National still awaits the completion of the independent QC’s inquiry into the Uffindell matter, and it remains to be seen how Luxon will handle its findings. So far, his approach has been crisp and decisive, but he will need to continue with that approach once the inquiry has been completed, whatever its outcome. 

Luxon cannot compete with Ardern on the empathy and compassion fronts – nor should he try. But there is more to leadership than empathy and compassion. So, his best option is to present himself as the calm, decisive and clear-thinking alternative, with practical solutions to offer, just the thing the country needs as it moves out of its current economic and pandemic related uncertainties. But he must learn to present himself in a way that demonstrates that convincingly to the voting public. 

National’s and Luxon’s current poll stumbles are not terminal – but they are clear reminders that while voters may be turning off the Labour Government in droves, they are still far from convinced about National’s ability to lead a capable government to replace Labour. While they may have liked what they saw of Luxon in the early months of this year, they are now less certain about him. They do not see him as the new Sir John Key as the National Party would like to promote him. 

Luxon needs to quickly put his recent stumbles behind him and present a clear picture to the public of just who he is, the type of leader he will be, and his ambition for New Zealand. He needs to follow that up with four or five significant new policies which sharply differentiate National from Labour, that he and the party can campaign on relentlessly until the next general election. 

Without those changes, Luxon’s currently spluttering bandwagon risks coming to an early and unfortunate halt.