I was reminded this week of a conversation I had with Sir Bill English after Winston Peters turfed him out of the Beehive in 2017.
Among his list of political regrets was not being bolder and louder on policy; throwing ideas out into the public domain, flyingthe kite and seeing what sticks.
There are risks and upsides in doing this. Throw too many ideas into the ether that go nowhere and you risk looking erratic. However, when done deliberately and sparingly, you can control the narrative and national conversation. And as the old saying goes, he who frames the question wins the debate.
He charged from the stables with the energy of a jockey saddling a thoroughbred at Ellerslie – chomping at the bit for growth.
He nailed the issue. We need to grow our way out of Dodge. Our economy performed the worst in the developed world last year, productivity continues tanking, our anaemic GDP forecast for the current year is nothing to write home about. Treasury has it bouncing to 3.3% in 2026 but falling thereafter. Long-term, underlying problems persist.
What Luxon failed to do was articulate how we’d hit the G-spot (growth that is). Aside from setting up a new foreign investment agency, there was no major policy pronouncements for the public, and importantly the media, to chew over and debate.
Opposition parties leapt into action, demanding to know whether healthcare and education would be privatised in the pursuit of growth.Chloe Swarbrick gave a bizarre speech in the House lambasting private ownership of pretty much everything and anything. Next thing you know, Grandma won’t be able to afford medicine or a hip replacement under a cruel US-style privatised healthcare regime.
By failing to adequately define the debate, Luxon left the door open for somebody else to do it, in-turn putting himself on the defensive - a place he doesn’t sit comfortably.
Perhaps Luxon should fly a few kites this year? Public appetite for bold ideas is palpable. Anything to stop the flood of economic refugees fleeing across the ditch for greener pastures.
Luxon’s taken a lead from Sir John Key’s playbook in ruling out asset sales in the first term – but there’s nothing stopping him defining the criteria for which entities and ownership models are up for debate.
The public appetite is there. The time for big, bold policy debates is now.
If it’s growth he wants (and Ireland he aspires to emulate) why not open debate on tax breaks for multinational corporations that bring business here? It’s worked wonders for the Celtic tiger with the same population as New Zealand so why not at least have the conversation? They have so much tax revenue flooding their books they literally don’t know what to do with it – so they’re starting a sovereign wealth fund. Wouldn’t that be nice?
"Christopher Luxon is obviously more constrained than Sir Bill English may have felt towards the end of the last National Government." Photo / Mark Mitchell
Our businesses have been crying out for accelerated depreciation on manufacturing technology. The Employers and Manufacturers Association says such a policy would boost productivity, wages and growth. Tick, tick, tick.
What about cutting the company tax rate more generally?
Some of these will hit the Government’s coffers but if the pie’s growing that’ll take care of itself.
Luxon is obviously more constrained than English may have felt towards the end of the last National Government, which was running higher in the polls and unburdened by a coalition deal with two parties diametrically opposed on some of these major economic questions.
But floating policy ideas for public mood and reaction is not the same as actually doing them. That may have to wait till after 2026, depending on where the election lands.
The public appetite is there. The time for big, bold policy debates is now and asset sales should only be the start of the conversation.
