Election 2023: Audrey Young - Labour MPs need basic lessons in campaign discipline

National campaign manager Chris Bishop will pounce on ill-discipline. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Despite attempts by Labour to downplay ill-discipline by MPs about a wealth tax, there is only one clear answer that Labour candidates should be giving on the hustings to questions about it. It’s campaigning 101 and it goes like this:

“If Labour is elected to again lead the next Government, it will be on the promise not to introduce a wealth tax or a capital gains tax in the next term. It was a decision endorsed by the caucus and Labour’s New Zealand Council and we will keep our promise.”

And when they are asked whether they personally support a wealth tax or a capital gains tax, they should be saying:

“My opinion does not matter other than my support for the party’s position. What matters is what Labour is promising and our promise to Kiwis is no wealth tax or CGT for the next three years and we will keep our promise.”

They should not be saying “Yes, I personally support a wealth tax but I support our leader 100 per cent.”

Anyone who says “yes, but…” either does not understand how to campaign or is happy to sabotage their party’s campaign.

And anyone who thinks that their endorsement of a wealth tax is just a direct answer to a direct question should be quietly reminded that such answers are likely to increase the likelihood the party is headed for Opposition, where they will have all the time in the world in formulate a wealth tax policy.

And they should be reminded that the election is about what parties will do in Government, not in Opposition. Discussions about what might happen in Opposition should be left until they are there.

If Labour MPs want a lesson in campaign discipline, they need look no further than National. Its candidates have been schooled in the importance of discipline and there has been no known breach.

A slight deviation from the party line possibly occurred on Tuesday night at a Taxpayers Union – Daily Blog debate when National Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor launched an attack on Act over its “heartless” policies to slash the public service by 15,000. The party line is to talk only about National policies, not those of potential coalition partners. But it was hardly a federal offence.

You have to wonder how lax the Labour Party leadership has been in its communication with candidates.

When candidates are at campaign meetings, they are surrounded by enemies who will be reporting and probably recording anything they say other than the party line to feed back to enemy-HQ.

Chris Bishop, National’s campaign manager, is on the lookout for any breaches of the party line by Labour candidates. Previously, all National had to go on was conjecture over the fact that the Green Party and Te Pati Maori support a wealth tax.

With new material being fed back to him about loose comments by MPs such as Ibrahim Omer in Wellington Central, Ingrid Leary in Taieri, Tracey McLellan in Banks Peninsular, and Glen Bennett in New Plymouth, Bishop has seized upon the issue.

Loose talk goes a long way in a campaign and keeps an issue alive and in this case, translates to suggestions of disunity.

Bishop and National leader Christopher Luxon are running alternative scenarios. Bishop’s is that the Labour caucus will roll Hipkins in Government in order to implement a wealth tax. Luxon’s is that Hipkins will be forced to implement a wealth tax.

Former Revenue Minister David Parker and Finance Minister Grant Robertson supported the wealth tax Budget proposal before it was canned by Hipkins back in April, and then ruled out again by him in July for any consideration next term.

The response by Robertson to the question about what his colleagues should be saying about the wealth tax was barely adequate when he was asked about it at Victoria University.

“The answer is that it is not our policy,” he said. “We made a manifesto commitment for this term and there is no wealth tax or CGT in it. We have a very clear policy and a very clear manifesto.”

The trouble with Robertson’s response, as any political observer will recognise, is that it is not a commitment not to implement a wealth tax. It is an ambiguous answer.

If that is what his colleagues are being advised to say, it is no wonder they are taking liberties with their responses and undermining Hipkins in the process.

In itself, that will be more ammunition for Bishop.