Editorial: Labour must stick to its core policies

If Grant Robertson can keep to clear English he would seem to be the party's best bet. Photo / Jason Oxenham

Capital gains tax and highersuperannuation age needed.

The Labour Party has had a much quieter leadership election campaign this time than it had last year. The reason no doubt is that this year's party contest closely followed a general election that has sated public interest in politics for a while. But when the result is announced tomorrow there is more at stake than a new face for Labour. One of the contenders has put two of the party's more important policies on the line.

Andrew Little blames Labour's declining support at two elections on its intentions to raise the superannuation age and tax capital gains. He says he knows for a fact these "have caused people not only to not vote for us but to turn us off completely". It is always tempting to blame a policy or two for a political failure but Labour's voting members probably know why the party polled poorly. The reasons were named David Cunliffe and John Key.

One could carry the country with a policy as unpopular as asset sales, the other could not. Labour needs a leader capable of winning the confidence of voters with policies that are not necessarily popular but respond to a national need. A capital gains tax on property investment and policies to address the costs of an ageing population are certainly in that category.

Mr Little's challenge to the party's signature policies at the election has brought responses from rivals David Parker and Grant Robertson. Mr Parker, an earnest advocate of both policies as finance spokesman, is standing by a capital gains tax ("currently our system is rigged in favour of speculation, not investment") but he would put the superannuation age to a referendum "rather than carry that cross ourselves into the next election".

Mr Robertson seems to be sticking to both policies. "We are not going to get there by timid managerialism, or changing a policy because of a focus group," he said. "We will get there by being clear and direct and authentic." Whatever managerialism means, the sentiment sounds right. If Mr Robertson can keep to clear English he would seem to be the party's best bet.

His disadvantage may be that the membership and union affiliates passed him over for Mr Cunliffe last year, but the consequences have given the members and affiliates reason to pay higher regard to the caucus' preference this time. Mr Robertson is probably still the pick of MPs with Jacinda Ardern as his deputy.

The task of the next leader is not to drop policies as important as capital gains tax and the retirement age but to ensure they are presented properly and the leader is well versed in their detail. Mr Cunliffe floundered in campaign debate when challenged on whether the tax would apply to family homes held in trusts or houses inherited from deceased estates. The answer was no in both cases but the questions undermined public confidence in the policy.

A Herald-DigiPoll survey in June had found 41 per cent were in favour of Labour's capital gains tax, and 35.2 per cent against it. After the campaign stumbles, opposition rose to 40.2 per cent and support fell to 40 per cent. The margin suggests capital gains tax is not the electoral poison Mr Little believes it to have been. Confidently presented, it can be accepted.

Likewise, most people probably accept the superannuation age has to rise. As the head of the NZX, Tim Bennett, said during the campaign: "At some point that [age] 65 needs to change. It either needs to increase, or there needs to be flexibility or means testing." The Prime Minister has left the initiative to a successor.

The leader Labour announces tomorrow should not shrink from the future's challenges.