This is a transcript of Audrey Young’s subscriber-only Premium Politics newsletter. To sign up, click on your profile at nzherald.co.nz and select ‘Newsletters’. For a step-by-step guide, click here.
The party’s literature always says “up to” $250 a fortnight and that is right. But Labour staff have been keeping tabs on National leader Christopher Luxon and he often drops the qualifier and wrongly says that the average family will get $250 more a fortnight. Labour provided some examples, including these rather misleading statements from Luxon:
“And I’ve just met families even just on the way in here who would actually benefit hugely from our tax relief, $250 a fortnight for families on average incomes with kids, young kids and childcare for $50 a fortnight for a single person on the average wage with no kid...” - RNZ, October 3.
“And that result is that an additional $250 a fortnight in the hands of a household on the average wage with young children and childcare is incredibly meaningful...” - NZ Herald, September 22.
“They deserve a break and I’m going to give them tax relief. For an average household income family with young kids, that would mean $250 a fortnight and that would make a huge difference to them” - 1News, September 19.
“That’s why our low- and middle-income tax plan is actually really important because it does give an average income household family with young kids $250 extra a fortnight” - Newshub, September 20.
Concerns were compounded when it was revealed last week that National would cut $2b from future increases forecast for social welfare benefits over four years. They would still get annual increases, but not as much as under Labour’s relativities - Thomas Coughlan has written an excellent analysis of what is behind it (see below). And now it appears that the sales pitch for the tax cuts has been grossly misleading.
Reason to take notice
It is a little surprising that it has taken so long for it to emerge that only 3000 households would get the full amount considering the National package was released at the end of August. CTU economist Craig Renney, who worked out the 3000 figure, used to work for Finance Minister Grant Robertson. That is a reason to take notice of his figures, not to attack him, as is National’s reflex response.
Out of isolation
The tax story has given Labour leader Chris Hipkins and Robertson a chance to test-drive another slogan: “If National wins, you lose.” But Labour has not been able to capitalise on National’s stumbles.
Hipkins got out of isolation this morning and is clearly raring to go. But, as outlined in my comment piece yesterday, he has his own tax troubles with Labour candidates being ill-disciplined with their answers on tax. Labour has done well highlighting National’s weaknesses but, other than that, it has been an uninspiring campaign. He’s got seven days to produce a rabbit and a hat.
Lights, cameras, theatrics
NZ First leader Winston Peters, left, and Act's David Seymour at the multi-party debate last night. Photo / Andrew Dalton, TVNZ
Last night’s minor parties’ debate hosted by TVNZ’s Jack Tame was another chance to see NZ First’s Winston Peters and Act’s David Seymour on the same platform. Some saw it as evidence that they could not work together, but a lot of what both do is theatrics.
Seymour said he did not trust Peters because his position frequently changes. As he has done before, Peters tiresomely characterises himself as the “grown-up” of the pair to the schoolboy Seymour. He said it was not his job to trust Seymour, but to put their differences aside in order to form a Government. On the basis of the latest 1News Verian poll and the latest Talbot Mills poll, National would need both Act and NZ First. Last night, despite their theatrics, it was clear they could.
Proper process lacking
Earlier in the week, Christopher Luxon darkly hinted that the axe might be ready to fall on two senior independent figures, Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr and Police Commissioner Andrew Coster. He made the comments on Newstalk ZB in a two-hour appearance on Mike Hoking’s show (it’s Hipkins’ turn on Monday) and they point to a disturbing attitude to independent statutory positions. My colleague and Wellington business editor Jenée Tibshraeny followed up with an interview with Willis, who said she was professional enough to work with Orr, despite their many clashes.
Who were the first and second MPs for Te Tai Hauāuru? (Answer below.)
Brickbat
Christopher Luxon for his jibe about Chris Hipkins on TVNZ’s Breakfast: “It’s a shame the Prime Minister got Covid. In fact, it is probably the only thing he has been positive about in the whole campaign.” Just too mean.
Bouquet
Goes to Guyon Espiner for last night’s description on TVNZ of where voters are at: “We are at a Chris-roads.” Wish I’d thought of it.
Quiz answer: Tukoroirangi Morgan won it first in 1996 when New Zealand First won the five Maori seats and the seat was situated further north than it is now. Then Nanaia Mahuta won it for Labour in 1999.
Audrey Young is the New Zealand Herald’s senior political correspondent. She was named Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards in 2023, 2020 and 2018.
For more political news and views, listen to On the Campaign, the Herald’s politics podcast.
