Over April, opinion poll results for NZ First varied between 4.2 and 6.3 percent – with only one result below the 5 percent threshold. Naturally, the party leader Winston Peters dismissed the TVNZ–Verian poll that gave him 4.2, declaring it to be “wrong”. He cited instead Labour’s Talbot–Mills poll that gave him 6 percent. To back himself he said, “I’ve got a political science degree”. So take that.
Before I look at NZ First’s chances, can we agree that political polls are neither “right” nor “wrong”? They’re estimates of shifting public opinions, subject to variation around a hypothetical mean. Suppose you have two surveys done around the same time, both with 1,000 respondents. If one survey gets 42 respondents who say they’d vote for NZ First, we needn’t be upset or surprised if the other has 60 who said that. Pollsters do their best to get demographically representative samples, but there’ll always be variance.
Ignore anyone who asks you to “believe” or “trust” polls; we should read them critically with due caution. They’re useful but they don’t merit being used as headline news. Money changes hands, so they have to make a splash with them, and the research companies get advertising as a result. It’s corporate mutual back-scratching.
Above all, the political opinion poll isn’t an electoral forecast, especially so early in the cycle. But we can look at the historical record for facts.
It’s normal for small parties who support a government, or go into a coalition, to suffer for it at the subsequent election. An exception to that pattern are the Greens who, after supporting Labour on confidence and supply following the 2017 election, saw their party vote rise in 2020 from 6.3 to 7.9%.
Getting back to NZ First, here are the facts:
Following their turbulent coalition with National (1996–98), their party vote plunged from 13.4 to 4.3%. That went below the threshold, but Winston narrowly won the seat of Tauranga – by 63 votes. Talk about luck!
Following their confidence-and-supply arrangement with Labour in 2005–08, NZ First’s party vote fell from 5.7 to 4.1% and they spent a term in the wilderness.
Following their coalition with Labour in 2017–20, NZ First’s party vote fell from 7.2 to 2.6% and they spent another term in the wilderness. They got 6.1% in 2023.
It’s a credit to Peters that he’s managed to claw his way back more than once. Most politicians would’ve given up long ago. The two past deals with Labour disillusioned the conservative side of NZ First’s support-base. In 2011, Winston came back saying that he wanted to be in opposition, and succeeded. In 2023, he came back by courting post-lockdown “freedom” voters and others. When Luxon hinted that maybe he might not rule out a deal with Peters, after pretending he didn’t even know him, those considering voting for NZ First were encouraged to do so.
Can Peters keep his support-base through to 2026, or even target a different segment? If he can muster another party vote over 5%, he’d be defying history. Don’t underestimate him. But yes, he should be worried.
Do MPs deserve a pay-rise?
I sometimes hear people say “they give themselves pay-rises”. That’s not correct. The pay for MPs is set by the independent Remuneration Authority. This avoids self-interested interference in the salary-setting process. On two recent occasions, parliaments have passed laws restricting MPs’ pay, but that was still a form of political interference, and was arguably wrong.
Radio NZ reports that: An ordinary MP’s salary will rise from $163,961 to $168,600, a 2.8 percent rise backdated to last October. That will be followed by another 2.9 percent bump from July, a further 2.4 percent next year, and then 2 percent in 2026. It means by the end of this Parliamentary term, an ordinary MP’s salary will be $181,200. The prime minister’s salary will increase to $520,000. And there’s a range of salaries in between for different roles.
It’s reasonable to say that MPs should instead be getting a pay cut, or at least no rise, given the difficulties that people are facing. But, to do so would be a political decision to mollify public opinion, compromising the independence of the process. And there’d never be a good time to raise their salaries.
MPs’ basic salary is well above the median income. Whether you consider their pay to be fair or unfair is a matter of judgement. But, in making their judgement, the Remuneration Authority by law has to take account of a few factors:
fair relativity with comparable positions,
the need to be fair both to the individuals whose pay is being set and to the taxpayer,
the requirements of the job,
the need to recruit and retain competent individuals,
the conditions of service enjoyed by the persons whose remuneration is being determined,
any prevailing adverse economic conditions based on evidence from an authoritative source.
Those poor politicians had to squirm in front of reporters when asked to comment on the matter, and they were quick to emphasise the independence of the decision.
I’ve never aspired to be an MP, but, to consider whether their pay is “fair”, I ask what it would take to get me to do the job (if voters were silly enough vote for me!) and to stay there. Passing law is a huge responsibility and the job of an MP is stressful and, at times, pretty shitty, to be blunt, given the levels of abuse these days and the potential for close media scrutiny.
I wouldn’t do it for anything less than a sum that’s well above the average income. As for the PM, who’s effectively the country’s leader and is in the media every day, having to be across simply everything that’s happening, his/her salary is less than many public-sector CEs are getting, let alone some in the private sector. I’d say that $520,000 is much more than any person really needs to live on, but it’s not excessive by comparison with other leadership roles.
Given reader reactions, many think that the present PM isn’t worthy of the job, let alone the salary. Some would like to see him gone, even before the next election. But again, that’s a political judgement, and it doesn’t undo 2023’s election result and the government-formation process.
It’s hard to judge what their incomes should be, in part because MPs are not employees – they’re elected representatives. There’s no formal job description or person specification. The profile of MPs collectively has become largely middle-class, university-educated professionals. Once they enter parliament, they earn an income that’s well above average. If there are people out there who’d do the job for less, that’s fine, but the salary is set independently and they can’t alter it or negotiate. If they thought it was too much, they could donate the excess to someone who needs it.
Note to readers
My sincere thanks go to people who’ve pledged subscriptions in advance and to all those who’ve made supportive and constructive comments. I’m enjoying the lively conversation. The comment that means most to me is “balanced”. I don’t mind if you disagree or see a few holes, but if you consider my assessment to be balanced, that’s what matters to me. Given recent debate around mainstream media, it’s clear that many people are not happy with unbalanced reporting. The way that TVNZ introduced an opinion poll on Monday at 6pm, for instance, was unbalanced. I hope I helped to set it straight for readers.
I’m considering switching on paid subscriptions soon, but I’m not setting a date right now. And I don’t want to paywall my articles. I prefer to offer an open and independent service to the public. Paid subscribers would effectively be donating and thus supporting what I do as a public service, rather than buying a product.
Since today’s news is about transparency around incomes, I can disclose that the Substack system says my pledged annualised income presently would be $1,050. No pressure or anything. You may even ask why I’m doing this. Simple answer: I can and I like to.
In these times of low trust in mainstream media, I hope that enough of you will see what I do as worth five bucks a month. Substack doesn’t have an option for one-off donations, but (thanks for the tip, Kendrick) there’s an online system for that, and I’ll look into it.
As with political parties, it makes more sense if support comes from a large number of people making small donations, rather than a few rich people making large donations.
I agree this is a balanced and excellent column unlike a lot of the partisan nonsense out there. I want to be informed so I can make up my own mind. Congratulations Grant.
I was actually shocked at the "audacity" of the TV One news item on the poll. It was the first item, they announced it up front as "breaking news" and then spent about 10 minutes on it. The reporter was speaking in high pitched/excited state tones that suggest this was REALLY significant. OK so National have dropped a couple of points, so did NZ First, Labour went up a couple but from her tone is seem we we virtually had a constitutional crisis on our hand in that the govt had lost the confidence of the people in the first 5 months of office.
Based on this and previous coverage from MSM I couldn't help have the cynical thought that they have actively been contributed to the loss of confidence given the lack of "honeymoon period" (which is at least partly a function of how the fourth estate reports on a new govt). That and the fact that inflation is persistent, times are tough, outlook is grim, people are losing their jobs it's all hardly surprising really.