After a policy bonfire comes a bidding war

Hipkins and Luxon's hunt for the legendary median voter

Last week, finance minister Grant Robertson and revenue minister David Parker went as close as they could to breaching cabinet unanimity, and risking the sack, to express disappointment (or was it dissent?) over the demise of proposals for capital gains and wealth taxes. A lot of water will have to pass under that bridge before any future Labour leader resurrects such proposals, so they must be very disappointed.

Prime minister Hipkins then announced new laws to deal with young offenders, especially ram raiders, using phrases such as ‘had a gutsful’, ‘crack down’ and ‘accountability’, thus staging a rearguard action against his right-wing opponents who like to dominate the law-and-order debate. He wants to stop them saying, ‘Labour’s soft on crime’.

The policy bonfire has turned into a policy auction as Labour tried to outbid National and win back the centre. The price, as I described last week, is a fractured left, looking increasingly like the ‘coalition of chaos’ that the satirists on the right make it out to be.

If more disappointment and confusion spread through the ranks on the left, then Labour could be defeated by low turnout.

The fight is far from over of course. But we can now anticipate more embarrassment for Labour when former cabinet minister Michael Wood appears before the Privileges Committee (date to be announced).

Mr Wood explained to parliament’s registrar of members’ pecuniary interests, Sir Maarten Wevers, that his failure to disclose ownership of shares in Auckland airport and in Contact Energy was because he thought he’d sold them all. It appears there were shares in two different trusts and he didn’t double-check after one lot was sold.

His excuses for errors and omissions don’t inspire confidence. It seems he hadn’t fully informed himself about the parliamentary rules, and hadn’t paid enough attention to completing the register, even though all members are required to turn their minds to it. There are no excuses. Furthermore, Mr Wood never sought the assistance of the registrar or his office, even though they’re available to assist MPs.

Mr Wood appeared to mislead the press when he told them on 8 June that he’d corrected the register, going back to 2017, when in fact he hadn’t yet done so.

The Privileges Committee could find that Mr Wood committed a contempt of the House if he knowingly failed to make a return, or knowingly provided false or misleading information on a return.

A lot will depend on how the committee interprets the words ‘knowingly failed’. Wood has admitted that he failed to complete the register accurately, but he might argue it was due to his not knowing stuff, or inadvertently, rather than knowing.

Such sophistry might befit Lear’s Fool, but won’t get him far in the court of public opinion, as he should’ve known the rules anyway. Whatever the outcome, there’ll be another closely followed committee hearing that will embarrass Labour and distract from their objective of trying to win the election.

I don’t think Mr Wood has a pathway back into cabinet, and we should wait and see how it affects his standing on the party list (due out 1 August).

Reading Sir Maarten’s report has made me take a tougher stance on Mr Wood’s errors, although there’s no suggestion of corruption or fraud.

Meanwhile National’s contribution to the pre-election policy auction was to propose allowing people under 30 to pay tenancy bonds from their KiwiSaver accounts. I’d guess that many people would take advantage of this, as bonds are often a big financial obstacle to finding a home. Naturally, if you were struggling, you may want to transfer the sum from retirement savings, to be held in trust by Tenancy Services, if you could.

There are two anomalies, though. While those under 30 may use this the most, I see no justification for age discrimination. And, unlike dipping into retirement savings for a deposit on a home purchase, which is also an investment, raiding them for a tenancy bond is defeating the purpose of long-term savings and investments. Conservatives are normally the first to remind young people not to dip into such savings for present-day consumption. But then, the National Party, being the party of the oligarchs, is full of older landlords who want student tenants.

---

The weekend saw the NZ First campaign launch, and that makes me think I should have a look at their chances of making it back into parliament.

If you’re not yet subscribed but want to keep up, remember that subscriptions are free for coverage of the 2023 election. There’ll be no paywall for the remainder of 2023.