The Prime Minister has apologised. So too have the Director of the Security Intelligence Service and the Commissioner of Police. Yet, despite this veritable chorus of apologies in the wake of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Shootings, one glaring and awkward fact remains unchallenged. Notwithstanding the failings of the Police, the Intelligence Services and the general machinery of government identified by the Report, by its own admission the Royal Commission could offer no assurance that even if all the shortcomings it identified had been rectified, the terrorist attack could have been prevented.

This is the nub of the issue. The government has accepted all 44 of the Royal Commission’s recommendations – a positive rarity of itself for Royal Commission recommendations – and is developing a work programme for their implementation. That is good, but the blunt truth still remains that, even after all that has been done, given the Royal Commission’s conclusion, we will really be no better off than we are today, and still just as much at risk from the type of “lone wolf” terrorist attack that happened in Christchurch last year.

Now that is not to say that there are not lessons to be learned from what happened then, and things that can and should be done much better in the future. Clearly, there are.

The way in which our firearms laws are administered certainly needs to be tidied up. Removing semi-automatic weapons from general circulation and the eventual establishment of a national firearms register are positive steps. But they will count for nothing if the process by which individual licence applications are considered and decided remains as lax and casual as it seems to have been in the Christchurch case. If the Police cannot guarantee a consistently rigorous approach is applied universally across the country then maybe it is time to shift the entire process – from licencing, the removal of dangerous weapons, and the maintenance of the firearms register to a dedicated independent agency whose sole responsibility it is.

Much has properly been made of the extent of Islamophobia in the general community and the need for greater respect and tolerance for different cultures, nationalities and religions. Our historically one-dimensional view of Islam – its peoples, its culture and religious values – desperately needs to change. Islam is not a monolithic culture and religion – it spans many countries and many cultures and traditions, just like Christianity and we need to start appreciating this diversity far more strongly. Colouring Islam and its adherents by the actions of its extremists is just as wrong as colouring all Christians by the actions of its fundamentalist fanatics.

After the Christchurch attacks, there was a wave of support for the Islamic communities throughout New Zealand which was remarkably positive and affirming of the Prime Minister’s “you are us” comment of the time. But some of that spirit has inevitably waned over time. However, as the Royal Commission reminds us, our society is now so rich in its diversity that the inclusion of the Islamic communities in New Zealand needs to become much more mainstreamed, so that issues of hate and bitterness are no longer tolerated if and when they emerge.

The Royal Commission’s conclusion that the Intelligence Services had spent too much time focusing on potential Islamic extremism and not enough time looking at the potential for right-wing extremism confirmed a long-held suspicion. The Security Intelligence Service Director’s acknowledgement this was the case and her consequent apology offer some hope change might be in the wind. Less convincing, however, was the excuse that budget constraints were the reason for this far too narrow focus.

In my experience, the Intelligence Services have always focused on the issues they think are important, often regardless of the views of the government of the day. A far more likely explanation for the myopic focus on Islamic terrorism, particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the much more recent rise of ISIS, lies with New Zealand’s membership of the Five Eyes Intelligence agreement.

Over time, New Zealand’s primary contribution to Five Eyes has been as an intelligence and signals gatherer through the Waihopai Satellite tracking station. For obvious reasons, we are not a huge provider of intelligence in our own right. Therefore, the workings and perceptions of our Intelligence Services about risks and threats are shaped very much by the views and attitudes of our Five Eyes partners, principally the United States. Given the United States’ focus on Islamic terrorism, perhaps at crescendo levels during the era of the departing Trump Administration, it is hardly surprising that some of that has rubbed off on the perceptions held by New Zealand’s Intelligence Agencies.

The Royal Commission’s recommendation of a new, overarching security structure, and a more co-ordinated approach than has been the case to date may help broaden our Intelligence focus. But it is hard to see that leading to much change unless it is accompanied by other changes in how New Zealand relates to its Five Eyes partners in the future. That relationship is likely to come strain in the immediate future over China. There is already speculation that New Zealand’s close economic reliance upon China will be at increasing odds with the Five Eyes’ mounting antagonism towards aspects of Chinese economic and foreign policy, forcing us at some point to make a hard choice.    

The Christchurch Mosque shootings understandably shocked and outraged many New Zealanders and rattled our traditional complacency. It is fair to say very few ever imagined such an attack occurring on our shores. While the Royal Commission has identified shortcomings that need to be addressed, and helped the public’s healing process through the way it went about its work, its rueful observation that probably nothing could have prevented the “lone wolf” attacks occurring – and by extension potentially again in the future – cannot be ignored.

 

 

 

READ MY OTHER WEEKLY COLUMNS ON NEWSROOM.CO.NZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is now stand and deliver time for Labour on climate change. Otherwise, it looks set to follow other flagship Labour commitments like solving the housing crisis and reducing child poverty into the policy abyss. 

When Labour was in Opposition it constantly touted its Kiwibuild policy of building 100,000 homes over 10 years as the answer to New Zealand’s housing woes. But in reality, Kiwibuild proved to be such a failed policy when Labour tried to implement in government that it was abruptly dropped, and the Minister replaced. Now, the very word has even disappeared from the Labour lexicon. 

At the same time, the housing crisis has worsened with more people on waiting lists and the costs of buying a first house soaring. Bereft of the boldness of Opposition, Labour now looks completely out of ideas when it comes to dealing with the current situation and is crying out for others like the Reserve Bank to solve the problem for it. 

Likewise, with child poverty, another of Labour’s major attacks in Opposition. Indeed, we were constantly told that the sole reason the Prime Minister had got into politics in the first place was to tackle child poverty. She even made herself the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, yet, under her watch child poverty levels have continued to rise. 

When the Prime Minister was in Opposition she proclaimed that climate change was her generation’s “nuclear free moment”, implying a determination and commitment to bold and resolute action not so far matched by her actions in government. The largely Green Party inspired Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Act passed in 2019  talks of providing “a framework by which New Zealand can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies” that allow “New Zealand to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change.” Good worthy words – but beyond that rhetoric little has actually happened so far. 

In fact, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions levels have been increasing at the second highest level of the 43 industrialised nations considered to have the greatest obligation to reduce emissions. Mounting international concern at New Zealand’s relative inaction means there is the real possibility of New Zealand being excluded from an important summit this month to mark the fifth anniversary of the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change and to prepare for the next major meeting in Glasgow next year. Far from being the climate change leader the government would like us to think they are, we risk being reduced to a climate change also-ran.

In an unusually blunt and withering assessment from a senior diplomat, the British High Commissioner recently pointed out there was a credibility gap between New Zealand’s rhetoric and its actions. She said, “There is also a gap – if you’ll forgive me for saying it, as a friend, and someone who has married one of your own – between ambition and reality. You have Scandinavian ambitions in terms of quality of life and public services, but a US attitude to tax. The brand 100% Pure New Zealand lulled many into a false sense of security, when the environmental reality is far more challenging.” New Zealand climate change expert Professor Bronwyn Hayward has told the Guardian newspaper that “even under Trump, the US is going to have made better per-capita reductions than we have.”

New Zealand’s response – with an obvious immediate eye to inclusion in the forthcoming Sprint to Glasgow meeting – has been to resort to the politics of the grand gesture that this government is so good at – the declaration by Parliament of a climate change emergency, and the promise to achieve net-zero emissions levels within the next thirty years. The Speech from the Throne last week said climate change policy would be a priority over the next three years with the government committed to developing policy to reduce emission levels. More fine words, but as is rapidly becoming the hallmark of this government, words still waiting to be backed up by firm action.

Others are starting to notice that this government is not the government of transformation it promised to be back in 2017. It has certainly turned emoting and angsting about the various issues facing the country into a veritable art form, which has paid it a positive political dividend so far. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly adept at finding others to blame for its failings. First it was the previous government, then it was its former coalition partner, and now, the housing crisis is apparently the fault of the New Zealand public!

However, there is no room for excuses any more. As the country’s first single party majority government in a quarter of a century it will be expected to match its rhetoric with action. Failure to do so will be no-one else’s fault but its own. Moreover, having talked so big to the world about our ambitions, we should hardly be surprised when others highlight our perceived shortcomings. The British High Commissioner’s comments, and the potential exclusion from the Sprint to Glasgow meeting are likely to be the first of many international wake-up calls.

So, having declared a climate change emergency by way of a Parliamentary motion, the ball is very much in the government’s court to back up that fine sentiment with practical and measurable policies for the next three years and beyond to turn around and reduce New Zealand’s steadily rising emissions levels. Ministers have been at pains to reassure that such actions are coming, and that the government will deliver on this policy. They do so against the United Nations Secretary-General’s lament this week that nowhere near enough is being done by governments across the world to tackle climate change.  

The clock has been ticking on this generation’s “nuclear free moment”. The time for rhetoric has passed. The Parliamentary declaration has set up the expectation that decisive action will now follow. As part of the accountability inherent within that Ministers should be required to report to Parliament each year what tangible progress the country is making to reducing its emissions levels and moving to a more sustainable future.

Otherwise, climate change policy risks quickly disappearing into Labour’s policy abyss the way Kiwibuild and reducing child poverty have.

 

Mastering the art of deflection is a critical part of any successful politician’s skill set. Put simply, it is the ability to know when to claim the credit for things that are working or look good, regardless of how or by whom they were initiated, matched by the capacity to shift responsibility elsewhere when things are not going quite so well. 

All governments and politicians do it, so it is neither novel nor unusual, but this government is better at it than most. And, unlike many of its predecessors who have tended to dismiss the significance of policies or programmes that are not working, it has developed the additional skills of empathy and identification. So, it “understands” the problem and is “concerned” that “something should be done about it”, even if it appears not to have any idea what that “something” might be. 

It is a very clever tactic – some may even describe it as cynical. It shifts the focus from the issue at hand, to the government’s concern about it. What the public sees is not the policy failure, but that the government agrees something needs to be done. It is on their side, and in the current environment that seems to be all that matters. 

The present state of the Covid19 response is a good example. The failings of the cumbersome managed isolation and quarantine facilities are nothing to do with the government that set them up, but everything to do with the fact that the people within them are not complying. Likewise, the New Zealanders stranded overseas and unable to get home to either farewell dying loved ones or be with family at Christmas are not in that situation because of unyielding rules, but simply because they did not organise themselves in time to be able to get an isolation berth before booking their return to New Zealand. In any case, because we are all in this together, it is the “team of five million”, not the government, setting the expectations, because the “team” wants to keep people safe. People challenging that in any way are seen as unreasonable. 

While other countries are contemplating the availability of vaccines and how quickly life will be able to get back to something approaching what it used to be, we are being told that even once a vaccine is widely available in new Zealand, it will still be at least 12 to 18 months after that before we can consider lifting border and other restrictions. Again, the excuse proffered is because that is what people would expect. The fact that other countries have said they will let people who have been vaccinated come into their countries without quarantine cuts no ice here, apparently because that is not what the “team” wants. 

It is all good and clever rhetoric which shifts the burden of responsibility to the citizenry, while at the same time allowing the government to appear concerned about the impact on daily lives that the impositions it alone has imposed is having. The implied empathy of that helps to keep the government on side with the people. And, so far, it has to be admitted, it has worked remarkably successfully.

The same deflection tactic is now at play in the housing debate, although this may prove more problematic to sustain for very long. Housing is quickly turning into the government’s Achilles heel. 

The blunt and underlying truth is that for various reasons insufficient new houses have been built under successive governments. This government burned its toes sharply when it thought its ill thought out Kiwibuild scheme was the answer. Since its failure, the government has retreated into its housing shell, apparently bereft of other ideas. Now, it is casting around looking for other levers, from the Reserve Bank to local government, to put pressure on. 

All the while, it laments the current situation; understands the difficulties it is imposing; and, agrees something drastic needs to be done, overlooking, as it does so, that the primary responsibility and opportunity for meaningful action rests with the government. It will be able to get way with this type of approach for a little while yet, but it may prove to be a harder tactic to sustain with housing than it has been with Covid19. 

Covid19 has so far been much more intangible even though it has been pervasive. In that instance, there is no rule-book to refer to, nor shared experience of what it could happen next to take guidance from. It is therefore much easier to adopt the type of approach taken so far. 

But housing is different – its impact is more visible and measurable, and the solutions more obvious. While the government can probably still extract a little more yet from its empathy and concern cards on housing, it cannot go on doing so indefinitely without the growing public expectation for more and cheaper houses hardening into uncompromising reality.  

Already, housing is shaping up as the issue that could blow away the government’s inflated Parliamentary majority like a house of cards if it is not properly addressed before the next election.

 

The current housing debate has a pathetic sense of déjà vu about it. Before the 2017 election Labour successfully hyped the then housing situation into a crisis and implied it had all the answers if elected to government. 

But now, one term of Labour-led government later, the situation is worse than ever. Housing prices have sky-rocketed, nowhere near enough houses are being built, and waiting lists for public housing have soared. And the responsibility for this deteriorating situation apparently lies with everyone else. 

Labour still keeps blaming the previous government; National blames Labour and the Reserve Bank; the Reserve Bank blames trading banks for too liberal lending policies; trading banks blame the Reserve Bank for changing the rules; local authorities and developers blame the Resource Management Act; and, according to the Real Estate Institute,  the fault lies with the demand caused by first-home buyers. Yet as this pass-the-parcel blame game continues, not one extra house is being built because of all the shouting. 

The government that alleged it had all the answers before it came to power now seems all at sea, with little idea what to do next. It has long since abandoned its previous flagship Kiwibuild policy as a disaster but has done nothing to replace it. Instead, the Prime Minister now promises to “take advice” which looks increasingly plaintive, and hardly inspires confidence. 

Yet there are some points of agreement amongst this disjointed cacophony of noise. Everyone seems to agree that there are not enough houses being built, and that the cost of housing is far too high. It is what to do about it that no-one seems able to agree upon. 

There are many players with a legitimate vested interest in the housing issue – central and local government; the banking and financial sectors; the construction industry; social service agencies; property investors and residential home buyers; renters and the homeless. All have a perspective to offer and a contribution to make in resolving the issue. But, at present, no-one is really listening to what anyone else is saying. Everyone seems far too interested in pushing their own barrow, which is why nothing coherent is happening. 

The escalating sense of drift is becoming intolerable. The government must move beyond just wanting to take more advice and show some leadership on the issue. 

A good starting point would be to stop looking at housing issues in a vacuum, and treating them like symptoms to be addressed, one by one, but rather as an inter-connected coalition of issues that need to be focused on collectively. This is not just the government’s problem, but one that involves all the groups involved in housing – and they all need to be part of both developing the solution and its eventual implementation. 

So, it surely makes sense to bring them all together in a National Housing Summit to develop a single, comprehensive, integrated national housing strategy, to which they would all be required to commit to and take ownership of. That strategy should include specific performance targets, with each sector from central government outward accepting responsibility for meeting them. Each sector could then be held to account for the delivery of its agreed targets. Such a process would be transparent enabling the public to see clearly where and why the blockages might be, and the solutions required to overcome those. 

As the Covid19 crisis unfolded the government was able to make considerable play of the fact that we were all in this together, and that effective solutions required the support and participation of everyone. It was extremely successful in that approach, and the country responded to the frequent exhortations to the “team of five million”. Well, now it is time to apply the same leadership to the housing crisis. 

But for the moment, everyone involved in housing seems to be doing their own thing, which not only means nothing is actually happening, but is also a considerable and pointless waste of resources and expertise. It has often been said that nature abhors a vacuum, yet the indecision and uncertainty currently affecting housing policy means that is precisely what we have now. It cannot go on. 

No-one credibly expects any government to have all the answers. They cannot – but they do have the unique capacity to bring together those with the relevant expertise to develop and implement the best solutions. Right now, that is what we should be holding the government to task for, if we are serious about addressing the housing crisis. 

If the government really wants to do more than just continue to “take advice” on the issue, convening urgently a National Housing Summit of all the relevant interests to develop a plan for the future would be a very good place to start.

Judith Collins' reshuffle of the remnant of National's MPs makes it clear there will no fairy-tale comeback for Simon Bridges. There had been speculation that he could be given the finance role to try to restore National's lost credibility in an area where it had long been dominant. Parallels were being drawn with another former leader, Sir Bill English, whom Sir John Key had made finance spokesperson when he became leader. English went on to be a very successful long term Finance Minister and was the last National Prime Minister. 

But there has been no such resurrection in Bridges' case. Along with Todd Muller, another of National's leaders during 2020, he has been dropped down National's depleted Caucus rankings. This is a clear sign of Judith Collins' annoyance at their leadership wrangles which had such a negative impact on National's fortunes in 2020. 

There have been reports that Bridges was actually offered the finance role, albeit in its now subordinated role to the new position of shadow Treasurer, but declined it because of that reduced scope. Either way, Bridges has not been offered a path to redemption by Collins, the way Key did to English. 

It is now widely acknowledged that National's and Bridges' credibility began falling once Covid19 struck. Back in March, public fear and anxiety about what the pandemic might do to New Zealand immediately pushed people into the government's reassuring arms, and the rest is history. 

The problem was that the more Bridges as leader tried to hold the government to account, the more he just angered a frightened public, that quite liked being embraced as the team of five million. This was despite the fact that many of his criticisms proved subsequently to be correct. To many New Zealanders he, and by association National, became so reviled that National's campaign was effectively destroyed by mid-year, while Labour just stood by quietly, metaphorically hugging the nation and sweeping up their votes in the process. 

The short term and unfortunate interlude with Todd Muller as leader simply reconfirmed National's disarray to the public and that it could no longer compete effectively with Labour. Consequently, the election campaign was far less the contest of ideas it normally is, and far more just the mechanism for confirming Labour's crushing dominance. 

National is now but a remnant of what it used to be. Not only are its numbers of MPs down substantially, but its funding and staffing numbers have also fallen heavily as well. Moreover, its rejuvenated ally on the right, ACT, is on the rise. For these reasons alone it will struggle to be an effective Opposition.

Collins’ reshuffle thus had two basic objectives. First, to establish a structure for organising National’s talents to greatest effect, and second, consistent with her comments ever since she has been leader, to show that disloyalty will not be tolerated. At first glance, her reshuffle appears to meet both objectives. 

Nevertheless, the government’s numerical dominance in the House means that Labour will not be quaking at any of National’s new appointments, intriguing as some of them are, but Collins is too experienced a politician not to know that was ever going to be the case. National’s first task is to begin to look organised, with everyone singing from broadly the same song sheet. 

Then, its challenge becomes one of relevance. Given the ongoing incidence of the pandemic and the public’s continuing love affair with the Prime Minister and her government, the blunt truth is that National is simply going to struggle to be even heard, let alone get its message across, at least for the foreseeable future. A sharp, focused, well-organised and co-ordinated team of shadow Ministers might make some positive impact, but without the proverbial little bit of luck in the form of a few major stumbles from the government, it is not going to be enough. Yet National has to start somewhere, and the Caucus reshuffle was probably the best place to begin. 

The appointment of Dr Shane Reti as deputy leader, and the promotion of a new finance team in the form of Andrew Bayly and Michael Woodhouse in a move akin to the Australian Treasurer/Finance Minister split that has worked successfully over many years will arouse some positive interest. So too will the promotion of Louise Upston, Chris Bishop, Barbara Kuriger and Nicola Willis. The lower rankings given to Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith – long serving electorate MPs who lost their seats at the election, but returned via the party list – sends a barely disguised message they are expected to move on during the coming term. 

But the bigger question of the party leadership remains. Judith Collins is likely to remain in the role for the time being, if only because there seems to be no obvious successor. However, this year’s experiences should be a telling reminder that it cannot go into the next election campaign with question marks over leadership. 

This reshuffle is therefore the smallest of first steps in National’s quest to regain the trust and support of New Zealanders.

 

 

 

 

Any complaints about the twists and turns of New Zealand’s MMP electoral system pale into insignificance alongside the Byzantine intricacies of an American Presidential election. 

For many of us, the 2000 Presidential election where the eventual outcome was decided by a narrow 5-4 vote in the United States Supreme Court, and where words like “hanging chads” entered the political lexicon, was the most bizarre on record. However, it has almost certainly been surpassed by the weird happenings of the 2020 election. 

While the United States has often been the country most love to criticise because of its dominant, and sometimes controversial, role in international and economic affairs, it has nonetheless been fundamentally and frequently grudgingly respected for its overall commitment to participatory democracy. Until 2018, for example, there was even a county in Vermont where the local dog catcher was elected by a public vote! 

However, a fair measure of the gloss of America’s democratic veneer has been rubbed off by the antics of the Trump Administration since 2017. From the abuse of many of the traditional relationships between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, through to the stacking of the Supreme Court with conservative Justices who will shape the direction and role of the Court for decades to come, the Trump Administration has consistently worked to undermine the traditional separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government and to subjugate those to the transitory political authority of the White House. 

As such, it has deliberately and blatantly attempted to undermine the whole American system of government. The Founding Fathers envisaged a constitutional structure not dissimilar to that in place in eighteenth century England, with the role of the President (the King) no longer unfettered but constrained by the authority of the Constitution. The Trump Administration’s approach has been to assert the role of the President in a manner equivalent to the eighteenth-century King of England, which the American War of Independence had been a reaction to. 

Even against this backdrop of a deliberate and concerted attempt to realign the American system of government so blatantly in favour of the President, President Trump’s extraordinary conduct in the early hours of the morning after the election surpassed most reasonable expectations. His premature victory claim and demand that all other vote-counting cease, were not altogether a surprise. But his threat to seek the intervention of his hand-picked Supreme Court if he did not get his way shocked many as going far too far, for even loyal colleagues like the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate. Former President Barack Obama had earlier described the possibility of such a response by the President as the actions of a “two-bit dictator”, a surely unprecedented description by any American President of the man who succeeded him in office. 

At this stage, it looks likely that former Vice President Biden will emerge as at least the interim winner of this year’s Presidential election. He will be a more orthodox and traditional President than President Trump with a strong focus on restoring the integrity of the Constitution and America’s place and perception in the world after the Trump Presidency. Many will breathe a huge sigh of relief at that. 

However, it is unlikely to be that simple. Even if all the threatened legal actions by the Trump camp are disposed of and the result that now looks likely stands, there is no guarantee about how President Trump will react in  the remaining two and bit months of his tenure. During that time, an outgoing President retains the full authority of his office, but normally co-operates, sometimes awkwardly and unwillingly, with the President-elect and his transition team. There is usually the staged event of the President and the President-elect and their wives meeting at the White House, and an unspoken commitment to make the change of administration process as smooth as possible. 

It seems highly unlikely after this year’s campaign that any of that will occur in the event of a Biden Administration. Nor is there even any certainty that at 12:00 pm on January 20, 2021, the appointed day and hour on which the next Administration is sworn in, President Trump will actually vacate the Oval Office. The prospect of one President being sworn in at the Capitol while the other remains barricaded in the White House seems extraordinary enough but the fact that many United States commentators have been speculating about what would happen in such a situation shows how unreal the world of Presidential politics has become under President Trump. 

What is clear, though, is that America remains a deeply divided country. The social, cultural and economic divisions so grossly exacerbated by the conduct of the Trump Administration will remain for the foreseeable future. These go far beyond the intricacies of the Presidential election system and are unlikely to be overturned during a four-year term of office. Nevertheless, progress towards resolving these and refocusing the American dream looks far more likely under a Biden Administration than under four more years of Trumpian upheaval and excess. 

The simple hope has to be that after all the election dramas that have dominated this year the President’s focus shifts after January 20 next year to dealing equitably with these more fundamental issues.    

 

The 53^rd New Zealand Parliament elected recently is without doubt the most representative in our history. It contains more women than ever before – well over half the expanded Labour Caucus are women; there are more Maori and Pasifika represented; and MPs from Asia, Africa and South America. There are more younger MPs than before – the average age of a New Zealand MP is now well below the international average age for politicians of 53 years. And there has already been international reference to the fact that our new Parliament is the most representative of rainbow communities of any in the world. 

As well, the range of political views represented in Parliament is also more representative ranging from the ACT Party on the right, through to the centre-right National Party, the centre-left Labour Party and the more left-wing Greens and Maori Party. All this is positive, and something to celebrate. It confirms the burgeoning image of New Zealand as a nation in the vanguard of modern, progressive countries. It is perhaps little wonder that to many outside our country, still ravaged by the uncertainties of Covid19, or bogged down in the racial and ethnic tensions now apparent in Europe and especially the United States, New Zealand appeals as the ideal oasis of sanity, decency and tolerance in an increasingly disjointed world. 

Yet, true as all this is, and no matter how justifiably proud we can all feel about it, it masks nonetheless the reality that over the last two elections the genuine traditional liberal voice, so long a feature of New Zealand politics, has all but disappeared. None of the parties currently in Parliament today can claim to be a real liberal party. 

ACT has frequently previously espoused pretensions in that direction but its   libertarian focus takes it beyond the pragmatic and compassionate tone of a genuine liberal party. The National Party has been steadily losing its urban liberal MPs for years, with the remainder now a very small rump within a party increasingly coming under the influence of the evangelical Christian right. Its previous strongly liberal MPs like Ralph Hannan in the 1960s, George Gair and Sir Jim McLay in the 1970s and 1980s, through to Nikki Kaye and Amy Adams of more recent times would all be increasingly out of step in the National Caucus of today. 

While Labour has become more diverse in its membership in recent years, it has done so on the basis of becoming more the party of professional interest groups – teachers, lawyers, academics and health professionals – than a party of principle. A focus on representing the interests of those groups is no bad thing, but it does not mark out the party as any more liberal than it was in the days when its Caucus was dominated by predominantly conservative male, cloth-cap trade unionists. 

For their part, to be fair, the Greens have never professed to be liberal. Their initially environment and conservation-based radicalism has now extended into social issues. As the Greens see it, the crises the world is currently facing demand radical action immediately. Consequently, they regard the more assured principle-based incrementalism liberals favour as just far too wishy-washy and slow to meet today’s challenges. 

The Maori Party is different again. While it appears to share much of the Greens’ world view, it properly does so from the perspective of promoting the interests of Maori as tangata whenua, which cannot always be easily defined in terms of  where they sit on the liberal/conservative continuum. 

In short, we are seeing the emergence of new political culture focused more on the representation and promotion of particular interests than the durable resolution of issues fairly across society as a whole. This much more starkly defined political environment currently leaves little room for the traditional liberal voice. Drawing together the strands of promoting social progress through a clearly defined role for the state in areas such as health, education and welfare, balanced by a commitment to sound economic policies, and an overriding respect for the rights of the individual regardless of social status, so much the historical space of the liberals, is no longer their sole preserve. Over the years, other parties have been selectively cherry-picking those parts of the liberal agenda that suit them. 

New Zealand is not alone in this regard. The centre ground of politics, so long the hallowed space of the liberals, is being either squeezed or overtaken in Europe and Britain as well. Liberals are becoming an almost endangered species – nice, well-meaning people, worth having around when times are good, but somewhat of a luxury when the world’s various crises demand action now. The “yes, but” healthy scepticism of the liberal is increasingly seen as an irrelevant nuisance. 

But for those of us of a traditionally liberal disposition all this has created a massive dilemma, as well as leaving us currently politically homeless. While we drew upon our customary pragmatism and sense of compromise to determine our vote for the recent election, it is not a sustainable long-term option. It is a matter of great frustration, tinged with irony, that this new, most representative of Parliaments contains no overtly liberal voice. 

However, liberals have always played the long game. We understand that progress that survives can only be built on sound foundations and principles, rather than the however well-intentioned, temporary allures of the passing fads of the day. Therefore, we have the patience to survive and await the time when the liberal flame will burn brightly again. 

In the meantime, we look to this new government, and to Parliament as a whole, to govern with compassion and dignity, and to respect the rights of all New Zealanders, whatever their culture or background, as they do so.