It was ironic that the very week former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer lambasted Parliament and recent governments for too much rushed legislation and excessive use of Urgency, the government announced the repeal of his flagship Resource Management Act and then took Urgency to pass the first stage of its reforms through Parliament.

The Resource Management Act was a radical piece of legislation designed in the late 1980s to balance economic development and environmental sustainability. It combined a previously disorganised regime of up to 54 different pieces of planning legislation in one coherent Act. However, the plethora of local government rules and by-laws developed subsequently to make the legislation work, steadily ground it down, blunted its purpose, and reduced its effect.

In recent years, there have been many calls for the Resource Management Act to be replaced, but that has proved to be difficult to achieve. The Key government sought to “streamline” the Act to make it work more effectively but could not secure the political support necessary to do so. The Ardern government did manage to repeal the Resource Management Act and replace it with two new pieces of legislation. However, they were quickly repealed by the current government when it came to office, and the Resource Management Act was reinstated temporarily, pending the government’s consideration of the changes it wanted to make.

This week’s announcements, which appear to have been generally well received, spell out the government’s intentions, but they do not necessarily restore the sense of certainty that has been lacking in recent years. Moreover, it is likely to be at least 2029 before the range of the reforms the government is proposing, and the associated changes to the regional government structure take full effect. With at least one general election due before then, there is no guarantee that the changes being proposed now will survive unaltered until then.

All of which raises another serious concern to go alongside Sir Geoffrey’s criticisms of rushed legislation and too much Urgency. Too often, major legislative reforms passed by one government have been repealed by the next government, often before there has been sufficient time to assess whether they are working properly. The saga of the Resource Management Act over the last 35 years would be the stand-out example.

We therefore need to develop a better way of dealing with major, complex law reforms to ensure they are both durable and sustainable. A greater level of agreement across the political aisle when significant structural reform legislation is being developed would be a step towards achieving that, but the change in our still combative political culture that would require that will not happen quickly.

Earlier this year, both National and Labour mused loftily about the desirability of a more bipartisan approach to long-term infrastructure development but so far there have been few signs of any practical steps either party has taken to achieve that.

Right now, proposed changes to the structure and purpose of regional government and the changes to resource management law cry out for such an approach if they are to be successfully implemented. Labour has so far kept its powder reasonably dry on its attitude to these changes, but there does not seem to have been much, if any, cross-party discussion before their announcement.

Yet intended long-term, major legislative reforms developed without cross-party input, only to be abruptly overturned by an incoming government, have the potential to weaken our Parliamentary democracy, just as much as the rushed legislation and excessive use of Urgency that Sir Geoffrey has called out.

As it proceeds down its current reform path, which it claims will save New Zealanders more than $13 billion in compliance costs over the next thirty years, the government has a real opportunity to change the paradigm by engaging constructively with the Opposition on the new legislation it is developing. Their joint aim should be structural change that will both meet the country’s needs and substantially endure beyond future changes of government.

Such a move would break the entrenched mould of only the government of the day being capable of having the answers to complex problems. And that could lead to a more collaborative Parliament, and better overall decision making and legislation as a result.

That is perhaps too optimistic and wishful an outcome to immediately aim for. But it is a positive thought for the future, and a good note for Dunne’s Weekly to conclude on for this year.

Best wishes to all readers for Christmas and the New Year ahead!

In the wake of the Jevon McSkimming scandal, the resignation of former Police Commissioner Andrew Coster as chief executive of the Social Investment Agency was not unexpected. Both the criticisms of Coster's judgement on the McSkimming case when Police Commissioner that were highlighted in the Independent Police Complaints Authority report and the sensitivity of his new role at the Social Investment Agency made his continued employment in a senior public service role untenable.

Although Coster's handling of the McSkimming case was severely criticised in the IPCA report, the Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche and others have drawn attention to Coster's high personal integrity. His failings seem due more to bad judgement rather than improper conduct. As the New Zealand Herald put it in an editorial, "it would appear the former Police boss was bad at his job, rather than a bad man."

There has been much comment that the detrimental impact of McSkimming’s conduct on public confidence in the Police will take a long time to overcome. The Public Service Commissioner has also hinted at implications across the public sector which will need to be addressed. In short, this is the biggest blow to the reputation of the Police since the circumstances surrounding the departure of Commissioner Compton following financial mismanagement allegations in 1955.

Inevitably, this raises questions about Coster's appointment as Police Commissioner and whether he was the best person for the job. In New Zealand, senior appointments - such as the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Police - are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Coster was appointed Commissioner of Police in 2020 on the personal recommendation of then Prime Minister Ardern who made it very clear that he was her personal choice because of his "positivity, inclusion and integrity." Scuttlebutt at the time implied he was not the preferred candidate of the Public Service Commission but was appointed because he was known to Ardern and she liked his softer "policing by consent" approach to law and order issues. McSkimming was appointed Deputy Commissioner three years later, on the advice of Prime Minister Hipkins, following a strong recommendation from Commissioner Coster. These two appointments go some way to explaining Labour's comparative silence on the issues disclosed in the IPCA report.

In the wake of the fallout from the Coster and McSkimming appointments, it should be considered whether the process for such important and sensitive appointments remains fit for purpose or whether some greater independence and transparency is required. On the face of it, it is difficult to see how this might occur since the current processes for appointing senior public servants are set out very clearly in the Public Services Act and the Policing Act, as far as the Police are concerned.

Where the system failed in both the Coster and McSkimming cases was simply that at the end of the process, the wrong person was appointed. Both were more cases of human error, rather than systems failure. It is possible, however, that a more robust role for the Public Service Commission might have countered Ardern’s preference for Coster and Coster’s advocacy of McSkimming. But, at the end of the day, it is very difficult to overrule the authority of a Prime Minister set on a particular course of action, or a Police Commissioner urging a certain appointment.

Nevertheless, there could be changes around the interaction between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General when making such statutorily based appointments. Although the appointments are nominally made by the Governor-General, the reality is that the Governor-General merely signs off the name put forward by the Prime Minister. Perhaps in the future, the Prime Minister could be required to present all the names on the short-list, including a preferred option, to the Governor-General, for consideration over a period of some days before the appointment is finalised. That would allow time for more background checks to be made and further questions to be asked, especially in cases where the Prime Minister’s recommendation differs from that of the Public Service Commissioner.

This “cooling off” period would be a protection for both the Prime Minister and the Governor-General, to prevent potential embarrassment down the track. Were it in place, it would have almost certainly prevented the McSkimming appointment. And a more formal process like this would not cut across the constitutional requirement that the Governor-General should act on the advice of Ministers.

There is no doubt that the Coster and McSkimming cases have shaken confidence in the core of our public service system. Public Services Commissioner Roche effectively acknowledged that in his observation that he was aware that chief executives across the sector were watching his actions on Coster very closely. He fully understands that his response to Coster establishes a precedent that will from now on apply across the public sector in such circumstances. In that regard, he has put an important marker in the ground.

The reality is that in large public and private sector organisations there will always be individuals who will act improperly or inappropriately. That is the nature of the human condition. The legacy of the McSkimming case is not that it will have stopped future occurrences of its type – it will not have. But hopefully it will have made Ministers, chief executives and senior managers more aware of the possibility of such situations, and the early warning signs that accompany them.

The failures of leadership at so many levels and the consequent catastrophic impact on victims, individuals and organisations that this case demonstrated were utterly unacceptable. Therefore, the focus for the future needs to be on identifying potential similar situations early, whether they be in the Police or any other public sector agency. Once identified, it is in everyone’s interests that they be resolved as fairly, quickly and thoroughly as possible.

For more than a century New Zealanders have prided themselves on their “can do” mentality. Our “number eight wire” approach to problem solving is legendary. It derives from the ability settlers developed in the early days of colonisation to utilise number eight-gauge fencing wire to fix all manner of things for which parts were either unavailable or too expensive. It was an ingenuity and resourcefulness necessitated by the country’s geographic isolation.

Over time, it became an important part of our national make-up, signifying an approach to resolving issues that was both practical and innovative. New Zealanders became very confident of and content with their ability to deftly and efficiently resolve difficult problems this way.

So, it comes as a jolt to the national psyche when that “can do” approach is challenged. Such a challenge came recently from the chief executive of the Ports of Auckland when he told an Auckland audience that New Zealand was becoming known internationally as “No” Zealand “because you just say no to everything.” While he was talking about tourism and cruise ship visits particularly, his jarring warning can be applied to other areas as well.

Over the last twenty years or so there has been a decided shift away from the previous generally permissive approach to new business and social activities to a more specific emphasis on “permitted activities”. These activities have generally required resource consents under the Resource Management Act, often introducing new compliance costs and additional regulatory restraints on activities. In addition, ever increasing health and safety standards have imposed their own restraints.

Against that backdrop, it is easy to see how the “No” Zealand image can take hold in stark contrast to the innovative “can do”, nothing-is-a-problem approach we have been used to. And it is easy to see how the desire to light regulatory bonfires becomes so attractive.

Although some of the regulations put in place over the last couple of decades have been excessive and, in some cases, downright silly, most have been necessary to protect the environment, ensure good workplace practice and uphold safety. The answer to the “No” Zealand complaint is not therefore to get rid of all regulations – nor was the Ports of Auckland chief executive suggesting that – but to ensure that when regulations are put in place their focus is enabling activities to proceed, rather than preventing them.

In this regard, the regional government reforms announced by the government this week and foreshadowed in this column some weeks ago, assume an additional importance. Many of the regulations businesses complain about as constraints on their activity emanate from regional government and often appear more about preventing or restricting an activity than facilitating its development in an environmentally sustainable way.

As well as being a de facto amalgamation of territorial, district authorities and cities, the government’s reforms are also an opportunity to get rid of the regulatory inconsistencies and lack of common standards that apply at present. The aim should be to streamline current procedures and set clear and consistent standards governing future commercial and other activities in a region. If an entity complies with those standards, it should then be permitted to operate, without the need for costly licences and permits, which have often become no more than a revenue gathering device for the local council.

As the Ports of Auckland chief executive noted elsewhere in his remarks, there are now clear incipient signs of economic recovery – for example, container volumes handled at Auckland last month were the highest in nine years. Similar cautiously optimistic comments have also been made by several economic commentators in the last few weeks. This week’s OCR rate cut by the Reserve Bank is a further sign of recovery.

But the caveat they are all entering is that the recovery is still in its early stages and will take further effort to be sustained. A defter regulatory approach to new existing businesses therefore becomes more imperative, to lock in what gains there are at present.

Earlier this year the Prime Minister told a government-convened infrastructure summit that New Zealand was open for business again and was keen to engage with the international investment community. The “No” Zealand message is somewhat at variance with that call, but needs to be heeded, nonetheless.

If the government’s regional government reforms are accompanied by a more rational regulatory approach that focuses on encouraging commercial and other opportunities, rather than restricting them, the “No” Zealand message can be countered. And the Prime Minister’s call that New Zealand is open for international investment again will look more credible and achievable.

But beyond that, a more positive and pragmatic regulatory environment may reinvigorate our traditional “can do” optimism and energy. It has been to our national cost that that spirit was allowed to become dormant in recent years when conformity and compliance held sway.

The proposal advanced by the Institute for Democratic and Economic Analysis (IDEA) for a Kids Kiwisaver scheme raises interesting questions.

Under IDEA's plan, which is effectively a compulsory savings scheme by stealth, every child would be automatically enrolled in Kiwisaver at birth. There would be a government kick-start to each new Kiwisaver account and thereafter a government matching of small annual contributions by low- and middle-income families to a child's account.

IDEA estimates that the overall cost to the government would not be high, and that by the age of eighteen, each child so enrolled would have about $10-20,000 in their Kids Kiwisaver account, which could then be converted into a full adult Kiwisaver account. Along the way, IDEA hopes that those young people will have developed a strong savings habit to see them through the balance of their working lives.

When Kiwisaver was established in 2007 its purposes were two-fold. The first was to provide a long-term savings vehicle for New Zealanders to boost their retirement savings and lessen their reliance on National Superannuation after the age of 65. The second was to boost New Zealand's poor national savings record by effectively locking up access to Kiwisaver funds until the age of 65, so that invested Kiwisaver funds could be utilised for infrastructure development.

A limited exception was subsequently introduced to allow access to a portion of one's Kiwisaver funds for purchasing a first home. Over the years there have been calls to allow access to Kiwisaver funds - such as repaying student loans or meeting health costs - but governments have so far sensibly resisted these. Kiwisaver’s strength – both from a personal and a national perspective – is that funds are locked in until the saver turns 65, providing a measure of certainty for the future.

For the IDEA plan to succeed, it will be important to ensure that this aspect is preserved across the board and that young savers will not be able to withdraw their funds at age 18. Some may argue that 18-year-olds ought to be able to access funds saved through Kids Kiwisaver to pay for their tertiary education. However, that misses the point of what a long-term savings scheme should be all about. Any compromise on this point simply diminishes the value of a long-term retirement savings scheme and is contrary to Kiwisaver’s founding principles.

In any case, savings by parents, through whatever form, to meet their children’s future educational costs, while laudable, are a personal choice, reflective of their circumstances, and should not something the government becomes involved in supporting through matching contributions.

When Kiwisaver was introduced, it was a voluntary contributory scheme. It quickly proved more popular than originally anticipated, raising the question of whether it should be converted to a compulsory national scheme. However, successive governments have demurred on this point, perhaps mindful of the result of the 1997 referendum on a proposed Compulsory Retirement Savings Scheme when 91.8% of voters rejected the idea, although this result is generally thought to have been influenced by a negative reaction to New Zealand First which had promoted the referendum.

Nevertheless, the reluctance to apply overt compulsion notwithstanding, Kiwisaver has since its introduction in 2007 automatically enrolled new employees, who have up to 56 days to opt out of Kiwisaver if they wish. So, the scheme has become a de facto compulsory savings scheme.

However, IDEA’s plan for a Kids Kiwisaver scheme enrolling every child at birth raises again the question of whether the government should grasp the nettle and remove the current opt-out provisions altogether. As it stands, it is estimated that 96% of the workforce are currently in Kiwisaver, so removing the opt-out provisions is hardly likely to be controversial and would be simple to do legislatively.

So far, there have been no signs of any moves to make Kiwisaver compulsory. While some political parties’ policies favour compulsory Kiwisaver, the issue is not a priority for the current government. Nor was it for its predecessor. Both governing blocs seem content to let the sleeping dog of compulsion lie, figuring that 96% voluntary membership of Kiwisaver makes the final step to compulsion unnecessary.

Similarly, there has so far been little political reaction to the IDEA plan, suggesting that the parties are not persuaded that a separate Kids Kiwisaver scheme is necessary. After all, there is nothing to stop parents opening Kiwisaver accounts for their children now, although there is no government incentive to do so. But the current arrangement is skewed towards better off families that can afford to make regular savings contributions for their children, a point IDEA’s plan seeks to rebalance through its proposed government matching contributions to low- and middle-income households. However, whether those families will be in a financial position to make meaningful contributions is doubtful.

There is also the question of whether better-off families would use the Kids Kiwisaver plan to shelter income and thereby reduce their tax liability, raising tax avoidance issues, sure to attract the attention of Inland Revenue.

Nevertheless, the IDEA Kids Kiwisaver plan is a useful contribution to the ongoing wider debate about promoting a better savings culture in New Zealand and long-term retirement planning generally.  

Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby once advised his Minister that “nothing must be done for the first time” because “doing the ‘right thing’ once could create a dangerous precedent, obligating one to do it again.” Therefore, he argued it was best to do nothing at all, thereby avoiding setting any precedent.

In advice to Parliament’s Education and Workforce Select Committee in August regarding a petition calling for volunteer firefighters to receive the same coverage as employed firefighters, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Accident Compensation Corporation jointly argued that “Expanding work-related cover to volunteer firefighters would be complex to implement. Work related cover is only available for injuries that are caused by work. ACC would continue to need sufficient evidence that a work-related mental injury, disease or infection was caused by the work tasks carried out. This would be less clear cut than it is for paid employees.”

In other words, do nothing. The principle that experienced volunteer firefighters exposed to the same level of risk should receive the same level of ACC coverage as their employed counterparts if injured or exposed to the same carcinogenic risks while doing the same job is apparently too difficult to comprehend. Or that paid firefighters who are fully covered as employees would not be covered if they were working in a voluntary capacity. Therefore, best to do nothing. Advice straight out of Sir Humphrey’s textbook.

It is little wonder so many politicians consider the Yes Minister series was far more a documentary than a comedy. The tragedy is that the attitudes and bureaucratic behaviours it pilloried so savagely in the 1980s are still alive and well in the public service over 40 years and several public sector reform rounds later.

The joint MBIE/ACC advice picks up on Sir Humphrey’s ‘right thing’ warning. They advised the select committee that if the law was changed to broaden ACC coverage for volunteer firefighters, it would have to be extended to include other emergency service volunteer workers such as Surf Lifesaving New Zealand, Coastguard, Land Search and Rescue, St Johns and Wellington Free Ambulance. Well, yes that is obvious and has never been denied by the petition’s sponsors and the United Fire Brigades Association. But it is hardly a valid reason to continue to do nothing.

MBIE and ACC did however concede that the cost of extending coverage to volunteer firefighters would be only $244,533 annually, but then, lest that might persuade MPs to support the petition, quickly fell back on the tried and true ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument. Again, Sir Humphrey would have been very pleased that his advice was being followed.

The sad thing is that while Sir Humphrey’s observations were made in the world of fiction, there are real people suffering today because of the lack of ACC coverage that MBIE and ACC so staunchly defend. If these agencies were genuinely concerned about the categories of volunteers not properly covered by ACC at present, they would have proposed specific possible solutions to the select committee, not hidden behind the many “why not” reasons their official advice contained.

None of the reasons they proffered were insoluble. All could have been easily resolved with a little creative and constructive thinking. But meeting need by providing proper public service is clearly beyond the scope and moral capability of these two agencies and their leaders. Again, conduct the same as Sir Humphrey would have advised. By focusing on process over outcome, MBIE and ACC are seeking to prevent change and the implementation of just, beneficial and fair social policy, an outcome many would describe as bureaucratic failure.

MBIE and ACC concluded their advice to the select committee with the somewhat dismissive observation that “depending on the circumstances, volunteers can endeavour to seek damages through the courts, and prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 may also be able to provide reparations.” They should be careful about what they wish for.

Any actions by volunteers for compensation through the courts would likely lead to substantial damages being awarded against the Crown, far more than the $244,533 annual cost of extending ACC coverage reported to the select committee.

But then, as Sir Humphrey once told his Minister, “The public doesn't know anything about wasting government money. We're the experts." By their bureaucratic lethargy on the volunteer firefighter coverage issue, MBIE and ACC seem keen to prove this point all over again.

 

There were more MPs at this year’s Taiwan National Day celebrations in Wellington than I can recall in over 30 years of attending this annual event. And they all spoke, recounting favourably aspects of their Taiwan-government sponsored visits to the country, and their admiration for its democratic system of government. They represented all parties in Parliament except the Green Party, and Te Pati Māori (who were too busy fighting amongst themselves). It looked to be a clear sign of support across the House for Taiwan and its achievements.

No wonder the Chinese Government was annoyed. After all, the strong turnout of MPs at Taiwan’s National Day could be seen as a direct thumbing of the collective political nose at China’s constant attacks on any suggestion Taiwan be viewed as an independent state. However, the turnout probably had more to do with the fact that it was during Parliament’s dinner break, and this was a good function for MPs to attend at a nearby venue, before they returned to the House for the evening session.

Nevertheless, that did not stop the enraged over-reaction of the Chinese Ambassador to what happened. In an extraordinary letter to the MPs concerned he denounced their attendance at the function, rebuked them for their temerity in doing so, and warned them they were placing New Zealand’s critically important relationship with China at risk.

Unfortunately for him, all the Ambassador’s intemperate response has done is confirm how little he and his colleagues are prepared to understand how freedom of speech and association works in a democratic society like New Zealand. While China has every right to assert its view that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and that the resolution of the Taiwan issue is a matter for China alone to resolve, it has no right to expect its view to automatically prevail over the views of those in this country who hold a contrary opinion.

If MPs attending Taiwan’s National Day celebrations were interfering in China’s domestic affairs, as the Ambassador alleged, then his letter to them was by the same measure an unwarranted interference in New Zealand’s affairs, not to mention an attack on individual rights to freedom of thought and expression.

During my time as an MP, I visited Taiwan several times, meeting senior Ministers and officials, and attending a Presidential inauguration. As a Minister, I met at least one Taiwanese Minister in New Zealand, and on another occasion hosted a dinner where the Chinese Minister and his Taiwanese counterpart sat either side of me. None of those meetings provoked the type of response the Chinese Ambassador showed to recent events. Nor did they threaten or challenge New Zealand’s adherence to the one-China policy followed by all New Zealand governments since 1972. Rather, they focused on bolstering the mutual economic and cultural relationship between New Zealand and a valued trading partner, within the constraints of the one-China policy.

Over the years, both China and Taiwan have shown a commendable subtlety in managing their relationship which has worked well for both, as the increasing free flow of people and commerce between them shows. Countries like New Zealand are becoming well-versed in understanding the dynamic of that relationship and working alongside it. The biggest risk to destabilising the carefully crafted balance now in place is not the attendance of MPs at an annual function hosted by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, but a blunderbuss intervention of the type it provoked from the Chinese Ambassador.

However, the saving grace is that in an open society like ours the overbearingly critical words of the Ambassador will quickly dissipate, unlike in China where a heavily managed state media would have made them far more ominous and threatening.

The future of China and Taiwan is for each to resolve. The last thing either need is the active intervention of external parties. But that does not mean, as the Ambassador fails to understand, that other countries or individuals within those countries cannot express or even hold a view on the situation. A peaceful and fair resolution of the tension is in all our best interests, hence the value of ongoing dialogue and association.

For New Zealand, as a small trading nation, maintaining open communication with both China and Taiwan is an important part of our ongoing trade and foreign policies. We need to have good relationships with both. Therefore, although the Chinese Ambassador’s outburst was ill-considered and unfortunate, it cannot be allowed to get in the way of our ongoing relations with both China and Taiwan.

 

In 1994 the then Labour Opposition resolved to introduce a new top tax rate of 39 cents in the dollar. The reason for the policy was purely political, not fiscal. Labour was shedding votes to Jim Anderton's left-wing Alliance at the time and wanted to do something symbolic to staunch the flow. Increasing the tax rate on top income earners would be that symbolic gesture.

I was Labour's revenue spokesperson then, and a member of its front bench. However, I had been left out of any discussion of the policy because of my known opposition to symbolic policy gestures. So, as a matter of principle, I resigned from the Party a few days after the policy was announced.

Labour's new damp-squib capital gains tax policy hurriedly announced this week has many similarities to those times. It is more about pandering to Labour's militant envy-saturated left wing to stop them deserting to the Green Party than serious and sound policy. As such it is a policy of symbolism rather than significant change.

The decision to exclude the family home or farm from the tax has kneecapped the policy from the start. It will not produce enough revenue and will simply incentivise home and farm owners to invest more in their own properties, knowing that no matter how much their equity will increase their capital gain will never be taxed. Meanwhile, those struggling to enter the property market will continue to struggle. Indeed, not one homeless or inadequately housed person will be helped into a home of their own because of this policy.

And the pledge to use what modest revenue may be derived from the tax to fund three free doctors' visits a year is no more than a clever charade. Without more doctors, introducing three free visits a year will do nothing to reduce the waiting time for a doctor's appointment. Indeed, if anything, it is likely to increase that waiting time and will not cause any more doctors to be trained. But linking a capital gains tax on the alleged wealthy to making free doctor's visits possible is nevertheless clever politics, even if it will not increase overall levels of healthcare.

Moreover, if Labour's new capital gains tax was intended to mollify disgruntled supporters contemplating shifting to the Green Party, it may have precisely the opposite effect. The Greens' leadership has already attacked Labour's new policy as "watered down" and not going nearly far enough.

Labour may feel for now that the Green’s opposition gives credibility to the policy. But in the longer-term Labour may have no option in any post-election government formation talks with the Green Party to either increase the proposed 28% capital gains tax rate or broaden its base beyond property assets as announced to get a coalition deal over the line.

Nor is there anything new in Labour's policy announcement. It is essentially the same capital gains tax plan that Sir Michael Cullen's Tax Working Group recommended in 2019. At the time, Cullen said then was the last chance to introduce a capital gains tax because of ingrained public prejudice. When she rejected the Working Group's recommendation, then Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern ruefully said that although, "I have believed in a CGT, it's clear many New Zealanders do not." It was a similar sentiment from her successor Chris Hipkins a year later when he ruled out introducing both a capital gains tax and a wealth tax so long as he was Prime Minister.

All of which underscores the flakiness of Labour's new policy.  Hipkins' complete flip-flop on this issue in just two years has irreparably damaged his credibility and reliability. Nothing he says on future tax policy can now be taken seriously. That is not a good look for someone vying to be New Zealand's leader again, especially at a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low.

There is also a combination of arrogance and naivety in Labour’s announcement. Hipkins and his colleagues appear to believe that they can succeed where their predecessors have so consistently failed. No Labour leader – in government or Opposition – has yet successfully sold the idea of a capital gains tax, however limited in scope, to New Zealand voters. Hipkins himself was the last Labour leader to fail that test, even if he now seems to have forgotten that. The suggestion that this Labour Caucus can, through the bribery of free doctors’ visits, do what their predecessors have all proven unable to do is simply laughable.

Therefore, a strong leader would have heeded the warnings of the past and recognised the folly of persisting to flog the capital gains tax dead horse. Such a leader would have upheld sound policy over symbolism and stared down Labour’s tax-and-spend fanatics to forget it once and for all in the interests of electoral credibility.

By abandoning policy soundness for symbolic gesture all Hipkins has done this week is prove he is not that leader.