Labour leader Chris Hipkins has had a noticeable spring in his step in recent days, living up to his nickname “Chippy.”
After
nearly two years’ dormancy, Labour made two significant policy announcements
this week. On Monday Hipkins and finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds announced
Labour’s plan to establish a Future Fund to both protect state assets from future
sale and establish a sounder basis for funding long-term infrastructure development.
Although derisively short on detail, and therefore attracting predictable
political ridicule from opponents, the policy was reasonably well-received
elsewhere, suggesting a flicker of life is returning to the Labour beast.
A
couple of days later, Hipkins went into what might almost be regarded as policy
overdrive, given Labour’s somnolence since the last election. A second policy
was announced – this time a commitment to increase the amount of money gaming
development companies can claim back from the government, to boost the growth
of the local gaming development sector and retain local talent here. This
announcement has so far been well received by the sector, suggesting Labour
might be on a bit of a policy roll.
There
was almost a third policy – relating to the funding of general practice –
although in a moment more typical of the way Labour has worked for the last two
years, Hipkins did not seem to know about it, even though his health spokesperson
had announced the party’s intent in an article for a medical magazine. But that
did not detract much from what had been a good week for the Labour leader.
However,
a more critical assessment would reach a less enthusiastic conclusion about
Hipkins’ week. Rather than be the week where Labour finally took the first
steps out of the policy vacuum, it was more the week of careful displacement
activity. Labour’s two-and a-bit policy announcements were more about taking
the focus off some its biggest impediments to leading the next government than
they were statements of future intent.
No
matter how buoyed up Hipkins might be by Labour’s position in the polls at
present, and the mildly positive response to this week’s announcements, he
knows he is still a long way from being able to form a viable government after
the next election. He knows too that
ultimately, no matter how hard he works, or how many new policies he releases,
his electoral fate will likely be decided by forces beyond his control – namely,
his potential support partners.
It
is generally acknowledged that the Green Party is Labour’s most likely partner
in government. But Labour and the Greens have not always had the smoothest of
relationships. In 2002 and 2005 Labour abandoned the Green Party to form
confidence and supply partnerships with other parties. In 2017, the Green Party
was shut out of Labour’s coalition with New Zealand First, and in 2020 Labour had
an outright majority it felt no need for a coalition so saw no need for a
formal coalition.
However,
things will likely be different should Labour be able to lead a government after
next year’s election. It will have no alternative but to look to the Green
Party as its primary support partner, presumably in a coalition. That will be
difficult, given the history and some of the Greens more extreme and “wacky”
policies, but it is by no means an impossible situation. It would certainly be
no more fraught a relationship to manage than National having to accommodate
the vanities and prejudices of both ACT and New Zealand First in the current
coalition.
But
a deal of whatever form with the Green Party is unlikely to be enough to return
Hipkins to Premier House. On current polling, a Labour/Greens bloc alone would
be unable to form a government. It is presently about 6% short of the support
the current coalition is attracting. And there is no sign from the polling data
of the last two years that that position is changing, as any growth in the
Green Party’s support in that time has largely been at Labour’s expense.
All
of which goes to the core of Labour’s basic problem – what to do about Te Pati Māori?
The Tamaki Makaurau by-election result showed a massive swing away from Labour
to Te Pati Māori, suggesting that not only is Labour’s dream of recapturing the
six Māori seats it lost to Te Pati Māori at the last election forlorn, but also
that its one remaining Māori seat could similarly fall next year. But in all
probability, Labour will be unable to form a government without some form of
arrangement with Te Pati Māori.
Yet
Te Pati Māori’s wider actions and internal ructions are making uncommitted
voters far more dubious that it can credibly and reliably play a part in a
future government. Even Hipkins has admitted Te Pati Māori is a long way from
being ready to be taken seriously as a potential government partner. While he
was making policy announcements this week, Te Pati Māori was setting fire to
government legislation in Parliament grounds.
Eventually,
Hipkins is going to have to make a call about Te Pati Māori. If he rules them
in as a potential government partner, he risks alienating uncommitted moderate
voters that might otherwise have supported Labour, which could cost him the
election. But if he rules them out, he risks driving more Māori voters from
Labour to Te Pati Māori and similarly being deprived of the support he needs to
form a government. And the longer he delays a decision, the more awkward and
difficult his position becomes. It is an absolute no-win situation.
The
fact that Labour’s policy announcements this week were not universally panned and
even mildly welcomed in some quarters was an unexpected, although still
temporary bonus. They were almost a welcome relief for Labour, leaving it able to
focus its attention for a brief while on something other than what to do about Te
Pati Māori.