Power and water – bread and butter
– and the politics of necessities.
Natural disasters test the resilience and compassion of communities; they reveal the calibre of political leaders and the effectiveness of governments.
The aftermath of the floods in Northland, Auckland and the east coast of the North Island have left communities cut off and lacking essential services. The human consequences are heartbreaking, and, like many of us, I’m still learning about the extent of the losses, the physical damage and the work ahead. This will consume the country’s attention and its public resources, and the Budget, due in mid-May, is being redrafted.
So far, PM Chris Hipkins has been doing a solid job of leading the country through the emergency. He’s combined emotional responsiveness with a practical understanding of the hard work ahead. The success of the recovery phase, however, will affect how many people feel about the Labour Party when they come out to vote.
The change of prime minister in January was called a “game-changer” for election year, but, unless Nature has more up her sleeve, Cyclone Gabrielle could turn out to be the decisive factor.
At times of national emergency, politicians “put politics aside” to show a united front for people whose lives have been turned upside down and whose properties have been ruined. But, deep down, they know that these moments make or break political careers.
The prime-ministerial careers of John Key and Jacinda Ardern were determined by disruptive events that no one would have asked for. In Ardern’s case this is especially true, and the terrorist attack in Christchurch in 2019 and pandemic in 2020 had positive effects on Labour’s polling and election result.
Chris Hipkins will now be tested not only on his government’s response to what he called “the global inflation pandemic”, but even more so by the response to the present climate disasters, the clean-up and the support for families and businesses. He came into parliament espousing social-democratic ethics and the spirit of a compassionate community. How well can he and his government put those words into action, now that it really matters?
The centre-right National Party, meanwhile, has been accused – from the right – of being too much like the Labour Party. But, if the governing Labour Party is destined to lose October’s election, it won’t be because it’s too much like the National Party. It’ll lose for not acting like a Labour Party, even while it had a House majority.
Instead of going down fighting – or winning – on sound labour values, by securing the wellbeing of low and middle-income families, the Labour government was throwing its chips at losing bets: co-governance, “hate speech” law and a redundancy insurance scheme that only perpetuates income inequality.
Co-governance of water services makes sense in terms of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, but (in itself) doesn’t help to raise more finance or hire engineers or improve water-quality for families who can afford it only from the tap.
The misnamed “hate speech law” would give some comfort to minority-groups, but wouldn’t put bread and butter onto their tables.
In the meantime, hundreds of homes have been rendered uninhabitable by storms, more workers will be needed for the rebuild, and the wider economy is hungry for immigrants and international students. Where will they be housed? Should we expect further rises in rents?
The consumer price index was up 7.2% in the year to December. In response, the minimum wage is to rise by $1.50 to $22.70. That too can lead to higher prices, but it will make a tangible difference for many people.
The new fair pay system will allow bargaining for minimum conditions across a given industry or occupation. This should help to lift wages and conditions, but it doesn’t come into effect until after the election, and tangible results for workers could be years away. In the Budget there could be policies (such as post-flood assistance or boosting family tax-credits) that deliver relief for struggling households.
But, apart from some progressive measures, Labour wasted time and political capital on work that got it nowhere.
When it saw a problem, the Labour government said, “Let’s restructure it”, as if that would solve something. The aims of good social-democratic government were then obscured by expensive bureaucratic shake-ups. The purpose was to centralise or amalgamate public organisations, and not to devolve decision-making closer to those affected.
Little was done – or little time was taken – to consult. The unemployment insurance scheme proposal, for example, was developed behind closed doors, in spite of its significance for the future of the welfare system. It was meant for you, but you weren’t to know about it until it was designed.
We saw the end of (partially elected) district health boards in favour of a centralised system, the messy amalgamation of polytechnics into one mega-institution, the (now canned) amalgamation of Radio NZ and TVNZ, and the seizure of locally governed water assets by four regional entities.
Major beneficiaries of all this have been lawyers, accountants and spin-doctors. Not the poor. Not those displaced from their homes by disasters.
The Labour government, in its first term, legislated for child-poverty reduction targets in Budgets, bringing this critical social issue into the Treasury’s engine-room and holding future administrations to account. To give credit, this has helped, along with transfers such as the winter energy payment.
In Labour’s second term, however, they squandered a (never to be repeated) single-party majority, and set themselves up to lose in pursuit of causes that don’t raise the living standards of the worst off. The great Labour leaders of the past – Savage, Fraser and Kirk – would be disappointed in today’s “team”.
Can Labour turn this around in time for 14 October? While no one would have wished for the havoc that’s been wrought by extreme weather, the absolute necessity to respond will test this government’s leadership and competence. Such events tend to boost support for incumbent parties of government, but, as we saw in 2022 – once people had had enough of pandemic restrictions – that effect wears off.
The first priority for now is the humanitarian response and recovery on the east coast.