Christopher Luxon’s use of public funds for his home may be legal, but is it justifiable? - Arena Williams

OPINION

This is the first column from Labour MP Arena Williams, replacing Brooke van Velden, who is now a government minister. Williams joins our regular MP contributors Chlöe Swarbrick (Greens) and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori) on a three-weekly rotation.

Since November, the National-Act-NZ First Government has controlled 67 of the 123 seats in Parliament. As of March, it has put 18 bills through some form of urgency and taken only one item of government business through the ordinary democratic process. Many of those bills have taken things backwards for minorities, particularly Māori.

Heading towards a majority-rules form of government at such velocity comes with the risk of speed wobbles. Such an approach erodes our belief that our system of government is fair and reasonable, even if you don’t agree with the politicians in charge on any given day. Photo / Alex Burton

But heading towards a majority-rules form of government at such velocity comes with the risk of speed wobbles. Such an approach erodes our belief that our system of government is fair and reasonable, even if you don’t agree with the politicians in charge on any given day.

Last week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon might have taken it too far for his own MPs. Even the most seasoned National MPs are not known for being ideologues, but 23 of them are newly elected, many from progressive urban Auckland seats.

They had to watch their Cabinet introduce the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Bill that will kill people - 12 per day, according to the Ministry of Health’s own advice. Not one of them campaigned on liberalising the sale of cigarettes, and yet they are now defending it as an appropriate way to raise half a billion dollars in revenue every year in order to fund tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest New Zealanders.

That’s in the same week that Christopher Luxon said he was claiming an optional $52,000 top-up to his $471,000 salary to cover his accommodation expenses, despite living in an apartment in Wellington that he owns mortgage-free. For National Party colleagues facing questions at the school gates about cuts to public services that people rely on, news that the Prime Minister thought this was a reasonable use of public funds must have been infuriating.

There is a relevant concept in political science called institutional forbearance. It means that democracies work not just through elections and the peaceful transfer of power, but through those in power exercising restraint in how they use it. The rules often allow elected leaders to do many things, but our system relies on them taking account of the spirit of the law rather than pushing the full extent of its letter.

It is hard not to see parallels between Luxon’s claim to the accommodation allowance and the way in which his government has gone about upending settled policies in a number of areas. In both cases, Luxon and his government may have been “within the rules” in what they were doing. But both examples highlight a difference between what is within your power and what is reasonable in the circumstances.

More troubling, reversing progress for Māori that was consulted on and developed over many years risks amplifying an unhealthy form of nationalism. This is the same sort of nationalism that would seek to open up a debate on the Treaty Principles, while excluding Māori from the discussion. That is profoundly destabilising, not just for the Government but for everyone in Aotearoa.

One can’t help but wonder what lessons, if any, the National Party has taken from the United Kingdom’s experience during the Brexit debate. It may be politically expedient to start a debate on well-established policy areas in order to appease a vocal section of your base. But it is often hard to predict what the longer-term impacts on the political system and on social cohesion will be.

"For new National MPs seeking to explain to their communities what strategy the Government has for creating an economy that works for everyone, you imagine some are questioning exactly what sort of party they have signed up for" writes Labour MP for Manurewa Arena Williams

For those frustrated National MPs, this is playing out on a backdrop of wider economic reforms that National governments of the past wouldn’t have touched. Former Prime Minister Sir Keith Holyoake was a champion of home ownership, but National has already committed to benefits for landlords that will lock most first-home buyers out of the market.

A decade ago, the share of mortgage lending going to first-home buyers was around 10 per cent. Since April 2023, with the benefit of measures introduced by Labour to give first-home buyers a fair go in the market, that share has been close to 25 per cent of total lending.

If you are a property investor looking to make a quick profit on a property over a short period of time, these changes represent a golden opportunity for an already privileged section of society. But past National Party leaders have recognised that New Zealand will never raise its standards of living by buying and selling houses off each other.

For new National MPs seeking to explain to their communities what strategy the Government has for creating an economy that works for everyone, you imagine some are questioning exactly what sort of party they have signed up for. The news that minimum-wage workers will see a wage increase well below the rate of inflation provides further confirmation that no such plan exists, or is intended to exist.

Arena Williams, MP, is a member of the Labour Party