By Chris Trotter*
Let's get something out of the way from the get-go. There is nothing unprecedented about a former leader of the National Party reclaiming that position some years after losing it.
Those “pundits” who blithely dismiss the likelihood of New Zealand following in the footsteps of Australia’s political parties, really don’t merit the description. Was it not Bill English who led the National Party to the worst defeat in its history in 2002?
And was it not the same Bill English who succeeded John Key as National Party leader – and Prime Minister – in 2016? That established, I hope readers will find the prospect of Simon Bridges Redux (if that is the final outcome of this contest) just a little bit easier to accept.
Whether Bridges is the right person for the job is, obviously, a very different question. One worthy of just as much careful consideration as the putative candidacy of Christopher Luxon. Given the general agreement among National Party watchers that one of these two contenders will be the next Leader of the Opposition, it seems only sensible to weigh the pros and cons attached to both men.
Bridges first.
That Simon Bridges could become the first National politician of Māori descent to lead his party is, potentially, a very big deal.
Though very few people engaged in mainstream politics are prepared to admit it, the future of Māori, and the future of Aotearoa-New Zealand, are becoming ever more closely entwined. The country’s politics cannot escape being caught up in this uncomfortable fact. The young people of 2021 – as the bitter recriminations surrounding the Pfizer vaccine roll-out attest – are disproportionately Māori. Far too many of these youngsters are inadequately prepared to shoulder the burden of preserving their country’s economic and social well-being in the years ahead.
The aforementioned Bill English understood the frightening dimensions of Māori underperformance better than most of his parliamentary colleagues. It was one of the primary drivers of his “social investment” strategy – an imaginative policy initiative that was, sadly, allowed to falter under Bridges 1.0, Todd Muller and Judith Collins. If he proves successful in his bid to reclaim the National Party leadership, Bridges 2.0 could do a lot worse than to take English’s idea and run with it.
Dramatic policy changes in education, health, housing and corrections cannot be avoided in the years ahead if Aotearoa-New Zealand is to avoid crippling skill deficiencies in its national workforce. A country that becomes dependent on imported skills cannot hope to exercise a decisive influence over its future development. Were Bridges to put himself at the forefront of this debate, and give his party the ideological space to develop new and innovative solutions to the problem of Māori underperformance, then National could steal an election-winning march on Labour.
The Government, urged on by its large Māori caucus, clearly grasps the urgency of indigenous underperformance. Its solutions, however, are of a race-based radicalism that many Pakeha (and not a few Māori) reject as constitutionally objectionable. If Labour proceeds along the lines suggested in the He Puapua Report, considerable political division seems inevitable. A National Party led by a Māori politician no less seized of the importance of indigenous underperformance, but promoting policies intended to benefit all underperforming citizens equally, could position itself as a force for unity and progress.
There is strong evidence in Bridges’ autobiography that he has given considerable thought to what it means to be a New Zealander in the twenty-first century. National is not the party most people think of when it comes to these sort of questions – especially those touching upon the future of Māori. It is, nevertheless, the party which, under Jim Bolger and Doug Graham, got the Treaty Settlement ball rolling. Nor should it be forgotten that it was John Key who sent Pita Sharples off to New York to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In the chapter on race in Bridge’s National Identity, he contrasts his own way of being Māori with that of the Māori Party MP, Rawiri Waititi – with whom he went to school:
“Today Rawiri has a full face moko, which is beautiful and fierce and which I am in awe of. But you couldn’t pay me a billion dollars to get that done to myself. The pain would be one reason; the other is that it would change who I am – it’s not me. Rawiri’s tikanga is not a daily part of my life and never will be. Nevertheless, New Zealand needs to realise that I am just as Māori as Rawiri. Let’s not look down on him, and let’s not look down on me. He’s not too Māori and I’m not too Pākehā. Let’s celebrate [New Zealand’s] diverse garden.”
Is it really that difficult to see Bridges offering National its own “Nixon recognises Red China” moment?
Meanwhile, the other half of the National caucus will be asking themselves whether the former Air NZ CEO, Christopher Luxon, can give the party another John Key moment.
Those of a more ruthless mindset will demand to know how any intelligent right-wing politician could possibly entertain the idea of installing yet another “successful business person” at the helm of the National Party? Isn’t one Todd Muller enough?
When is the National Party finally going to understand that John Key didn’t become one of its most successful leaders on account of his career in business, but because he had an unerring instinct for where “Average Kiwis” positioned themselves politically. That, and a flair for institutional politics that could just as easily have made him head of the CTU as the Nats.
To put it bluntly: Christopher Luxon is no John Key.
Then there’s the question of Luxon’s religious beliefs. Obviously, he’s not the only member of National’s caucus who professes the Christian religion. Bridges, himself, is a pastor’s son who, like Luxon and a not inconsiderable number of his caucus colleagues, proclaims himself to be an evangelical Christian.
Therein, lies the problem. What sort of evangelical is Luxon?
Essentially, there are only two kinds of evangelical. The first (and the most faithful to the biblical injunctions) is the evangelical who proclaims the “good news” of Jesus Christ to the whole world, unceasingly. The second kind of evangelical sees the hand of God at work in society and, in the case of far too many evangelical politicians (especially in the United States) feels the Almighty’s hand guiding them into preordained leadership roles. New Zealanders, a secular bunch for the most part, soon grow weary of the first kind of evangelical, and are profoundly wary of the second.
Now, Luxon is at pains to reassure New Zealanders that he regards his religion as a private matter, not to rammed down people’s throats, or enshrined in their country’s laws. All well and good, but if that really is his position, then he cannot truly call himself an evangelical. Ramming righteousness down the sinner’s throat is the noisy evangelical’s Christian duty. A quiet evangelical, on the other hand, is almost certainly convinced that God has a special plan for him – and the country. Something which should give both his colleagues, and the voters, pause.
On the other hand, Christopher Luxon strikes just about everyone who meets him, or watches him on television, as an intelligent, diligent and resourceful individual. His newness, seen by some as a distinct handicap, is just as easily construed as a recommendation. No, he doesn’t have parliamentary dirt under his fingernails, but neither does he have fratricidal blood on his hands.
By all accounts, Luxon was a very capable CEO. It is entirely possible that, by 2023, that is all most New Zealanders will be looking for.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
116 Comments
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/29-11-2021/the-national-partys-new-co…
How did the National leadership contenders vote on bills relating to abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia?
Funny that the only two candidates they are supposedly considering are the two that most of NZ could not associate with.
The times have changed on gay marriage? Only if you were behind the times in 2013 - and most likely still are now.
Chris Bishop seems like the best option by a long way to me. At least he won't alienate all voters under 50.
Can someone explain to me how Bridges is a candidate for leader when he was demoted for inappropriate behaviour in the first place? Either he was falsely accused or the Party appear disinterested - neither are good looks. Don't rate Bridges, don't know much about Luxon but Collins wasn't working so what have they got to lose. I doubt Reti genuinely wants it, he's a doctor not a corporate sociopath like Luxon.
OK Trotter doesn’t regard Luxon favourably. Understatement of the year. It was more than interesting when John Key broke news a month or so ago, fairly mildly in truth, how the Labour government and its hierarchy hit the klaxon button resulting in a flurry of ripostes and parliamentary activity.Mike Moore once famously warned his incoming contemporaries, don’t piss ‘em off. This government has. That is why the big wheels in the big business world are starting to turn, gather momentum. For that you need a convenor of influence & prestige (Key) and a potential leader, versed & likeminded (Luxon.) That’s why Trotter is sallying forth here but in reality, pointlessly. Personally though, I am sad that Dr Reti doesn’t appear to have backed himself much. A MP who is considered & of some dignity and researches & presents his debates professionally, quite a rarity. Sad because that does not seem to be sufficiently recognised as an attribute for a leader.
Agree Foxy, Reti has a down to earth feel that would resonate well with a lot of people, certainly centre left voters.
I get the impression he he seems like a doer that is happier in the background going about his business getting shit done rather than grandstanding and being the show pony front and centre to the media scrum.
But maybe he'll grow into that further down the track?
It would be a good thing for the country if he did.
I see what you're saying but Reti is still ultra-conservative (presumably voted no on gay marriage, confirmed voted no on euthanasia and no on abortion). I don't want a politician in power who is that socially regressive.
They should have gone with someone like Nikki Kaye (if she was still around).
He seems very competent, however what many don't seem to get is that, for better and for worse, political popularity to a large extent revolves around charisma. And popularly and polls is nearly all that matters for major parties.
It's a big factor why Bill English - an excellent man and politician- could not cut it as leader.
Didn't English/National get like 49% of the vote or something? It was really the lousy ACT vote that stuffed National, and of course NZF. I doubt even John Key would have done much better in that election. Although I still wonder why everyone loves English considering his austerity policies are why our health system is shot.
His brother and Federated Farmers lobbyist Connor English is one toxic individual. Scientist Mike Joy has been working in the fresh water space for a couple of decades now, with all the scientific evidence and a big consensus among the freshwater scientists. Forced out of Massey by English, ringing up the Vice-Chancellor every week demanding to know when they were going to fire Mike Joy from the staff. I regard that sort of thing as corruption. A rotting away of the capability for open honest integrity-loaded decision-making and falling into line with the wishes and the strong demands of the business community.
Good idea,it seems this will be a power struggle of big egos wanting to lead for the sake of power,not a discussion of ideas and policies for the future of NZ,fresh ideas etc.
I think one of the reasons Ardern resonated with the public was that she hadn't spent her career focussed on getting to be leader,almost reluctantly taking it on as Little selflessly stepped aside,deciding he wasn't the one to lead them into an election.This was picked up by the voters as a distinct change from the usual feral power grab that leadership changes usually were.
I think Reti could have achieved the same response,has a lot of quiet mana,intelligent,reflective.
My big red flag with Luxon is the reports that he doesn't want to publicly announce himself in the running,supposedly wanting to have the leadership 'given' to him rather officially contesting and possibly losing,hence destroying his 'perfect' CV of achieving everything he goes for.
Perfect CV - achieving everything he went for! The most disastrous computer projects were always those implemented by managers who had never failed. At least one failure is an essential attribute for a great leader. Truman failed in everything he tried until he became one of the greatest American presidents.
I forget who said all Prime Ministers are doomed to fail. Even a prime minister who sorts out climate change, housing, immigration, education and wealth redistribution will eventually find failure. What matters is legacy; that is why people still enter politics and expose themselves to the venomous public eye.
I agree with most of your views especially regarding the merits of the likely National leadership candidates. However, I do not buy into your view of Ardern never focusing on leadership aspirations. Certainly she was hugely focused on a political career from the get-go and spending time as an intern with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair suggests some serious aspirations on her part.
"There is strong evidence in Bridges’ autobiography that he has given considerable thought to what it means to be a New Zealander in the twenty-first century."....... "In the chapter on race in Bridge’s National Identity, he contrasts his own way of being Māori with that of the Māori Party MP, Rawiri Waititi – with whom he went to school:"
It seems to me that Bridges is a New Zealander and a Maori whereas Rawiri Waititi is a Maori and then a New Zealander.
A commentator made the observation that Luxon was riding on the coat tails of the two former CEOs while the CEO of Air New Zealand. This maybe a bit harsh as he was a senior executive of some description for Unilever Canada.
Not with standing who becomes the leader of the National Party I still want to know what National are going to do about housing and immigration. I'd like the current lot out and based on what they've done could National or National/Act be any worse?
"I still want to know what National are going to do about housing and immigration." Don't we all!
But perhaps we already know the answer? John Key and his Government answered both of those questions before, and shorty after, his election.
"House prices are out of control, and I'm going to fix that" (he didn't) and, Immigration went on unabated.
We all know that the New Zealand economy is the much quoted "Property market with bits tacked on", and no new National leader is about to touch that.
Absolutely agree.
Change leaders all you want National - but you ain't getting me back until you change your stance on immigration, foreign ownership, enviro and housing - and I know they would reverse the rental interest deducibility first up to support the land lording rort class..
So, here sits a Nat man of many years - still not coming back.
You mean like Transmission Gulley that if the govt hadn't have gone into a PPP would have cost approx $800B but is now going to be paid for over 30 years and cost triple that.
It'll be higher than that because the contractor buggered it up and guess who got lumped with the bill.
PPP = privatise the profits and publicise the losses.
They're a terrible idea, especially while there are historically low interest rates.
Firstly, gully not gulley. But maybe you were thinking gullet which isn't far off what it is in reality so perhaps that was a Freudian slip.
Secondly 800 billion is almost a trillion, you do understand that? So 3x is 2.4T.... when in fact it's over 2 billion in cost not 2 trillion.
Thirdly, it's socialize the losses, not publicize them. I think they'd specifically not like to publicize the losses and have them widely reported.
Seymour is a smart guy and knows he has to have those types of policies to attract the right. I think when the rubber hits the road and he was actually in Government the far right stuff will fall away.
My bigger concern with them is they don't exactly have a strong group of MPs at the moment, if you double that i'm not sure where the talent is going to come from to fill those seats!
And me. I voted Labour every election since Kirks except for 2 - Bob Jones NZ party to get Muldoon out & John Key 2008 to get Helen Clark out (both past their used by date). Jacinda's hubris & deceit in implementing her secret co-governance agenda without an electoral mandate is the reason my vote will go to ACT however I don't regret my previous vote, she has demonstrated leadership & managed Covid exceptionally well last year while National was a basket case.
kiwikidsnz,
To vote labour you have to be at least slightly left of centre. To vote ACT, you have to more than a little right of centre and I can't understand how you can move that far.
Like you, I am rapidly losing any faith in this government and Sir Ian Taylor's article in today's Herald highlights their increasing arrogance and total lack of the promised transparency, but vote ACT-no. It exists to promote lower taxes and the 'free market' with less government intervention and while that sounds great, it is actually a recipe for less investment in health education, infrastructure etc.
National need to be balls deep in forward thinking policy that doesnt just consist of turning back the clock at every given juncture. Jim Bolgers interview with Jack Tame yesterday was a goody, they need a clear vision, currently they have nothing, irrespective of leader.
https://www.politik.co.nz/key-and-collins-push-luxon-ahead/
excerpt;
However, Luxon’s lead is believed to be dependent on Judith Collins and four of her caucus supporters; Andrew Bayley, David Bennet, Harete Hipango and Maureen Pugh. There will be questions about what sort of deal Luxon might have done with Collins to get those votes. There will be some in the party, and the Caucus, who will worry that this could preclude any option of excluding Collins from the Caucus the same way she excluded Muller. There were early signs that she does not intend to keep a low profile with her supporter, Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater running a blog from her on Saturday morning...
National MPs have told POLITIK that they hoped the issue could be resolved before the party conference next year, but Collins’ actions on Wednesday night have precipitated an earlier leadership contest which neither candidate nor the Caucus was ready for. Luxon’s failure, in fact, refusal to declare publicly whether he is a candidate is another issue.
And if the margin between Luxon and Bridges is made up of Collins and her supporters, that will be even less desirable.
Continue reading at https://www.politik.co.nz/key-and-collins-push-luxon-ahead/ | Politik
I don't think either of those will kill them their core base will side with them on both of those issues, particularly 3 waters - which only really seems to be controversial in rural areas or those anti Ardern as something else to jump on. I can't wait for it to happen in Wellington, the council have constantly proven incompetent at dealing with the issue so it can't be any worse being centralised!
So you spend half the article celebrating diversity by singling out bridges race.
Then half the article crushing diversity based on someone's religion.
I was hoping for some insightful read on how well they would actually perform in the PM role.
But instead you've just said 'race is better than religion'
I mean either which way it's discrimination.
To be fair,most pollies are constantly counting votes by discriminating or chasing race,religion or other demographics...remember this doozie:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/368989/senior-indian-diplomat-very-…
On Wednesday, Mr Ross released an explosive telephone conversation where the pair talk about potential National Party candidates.
After talking about the dinner with businessman Zhang Yikun and discussing a $100,000 donation, the pair talked about potential candidates.
"Two Chinese would be nice but then, you know, would it be one Chinese and one Filipino? Or, you know, what do we do?" Mr Bridges said.
Mr Ross replied: "Two Chinese would be more valuable than two Indians, I have to say."
"Yeah, which is what we've got at the moment, right?" Mr Bridges said.
The comments have since come under fire from Aucklanders of Chinese and Indian descent, who have called
I reckon Aucklanders of European descent may be at least as offended as those of either Chinese or Indian descent.
Definitions of cynical:
-
believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
-
concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them.
But instead you've just said 'race is better than religion'
I think you missed a substantial point of the article. Chris is arguing that if Luxon (or anyone else) is genuinely an evangelical Christian, they honestly can't wave away religion as a private matter. And therefore is problematic in power.
Whereas he's suggesting that Bridge's Maori descent, and the contrast to Waititi in how he views that, might be a huge advantage in being able to put forward alternatives to "race based radicalism". Which is true, because in the current climate, Pakeha objecting to these policies are labelled racist (ironically I think the result of this shutdown of discussion is that the few loud voices left probably *are* quite racist).
Personally, to me one is hugely more relevant. Right now we don't have anyone proposing Catholic health authorities, or putting forward dedicated Muslim representation in local councils. And nor do I believe we'd have any issue openly airing opposition to any movements like this.
It's interesting how much John Key is getting involved. After doing very little when in power, and not getting the new flag, I suspect he now fears that his legacy will be that he was the last National PM as ACT looks to be taking over the status of major right wing party.
While making a contentious statement here; "The Government, urged on by its large Māori caucus, clearly grasps the urgency of indigenous underperformance. Its solutions, however, are of a race-based radicalism that many Pakeha (and not a few Māori) reject as constitutionally objectionable." What CT doesn't say is that the "race based radicalism" will never lead to developing the skills needed in NZ.
Indeed i find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the Maori politics that are lambasting mainstream politics as leaving Maori behind. But having seen the messages, I did not consider Maori to be excluded. Rather they were treated as equals. Expected to take the messaging just as anyone else was and act accordingly. But rather the politics are racist, saying because it wasn't a brown face stating the message, or giving the jabs, they weren't interested. In addition these politics seems to be demanding that Maori are treated as special, talked down to as if they are children. To me this is highly offensive. Prefer to see them as equals with all the choices and responsibilities everyone else has, and of course as defined by the treaty.
I work in the housing/development space, an area for Māori where outcomes are currently somewhere between poor and appalling. I don't really care what the process is to get there, as long as the outcomes improve. If that means it looks as though Māori are receiving favourable treatment on housing then so be it. We're only now getting close to partnership, as it should have always been, it this sector.
However in saying that, I agree with you with the messages directed towards Māori in relation to Covid and vaccinations. Instead of relaying facts it's been about dumbing down the message, which isn't unique to Māori in this situation either. The 'two shots' ads and 'do it for your whakapapa' billboards spring to mind. I find this kind of guilt trip messaging highly offensive instead of just explaining facts.
The short history of NZ is a history of epidemics that killed disproportionately more Maori than Pakeha. That is the fact that should have been used. Whether Maori and Pacifica are more susceptible is unproven but with 200 years of experience they should have been specifically targeted. As the ministry of health does for diabetes:
- As part of CVD risk assessment, all adults should have an HbA1c performed in men from 45 years of age and women from 55 years of age with the frequency of follow up screening based on risk.
- NB Start from 30 years in men 40 years in women if Māori, Pacific or Indo-Asian
I am not disputing that fact that Maori are disproportionately impacted by poor socio-economic policy. But "disproportionately" also means they are not the only ones. If there was good policy in place to fix these issues, not race based ones, then Maori would disproportionately benefit from them. Race based policy for any reason, even to address real distortions is still bad policy.
Poor or even just marginal policy will always have a disproportionate impact on the lower socio-economic classes. I can't speak for most people, but I would assume they like me, expect more from our governments.
Why are Maori discussed as a single political block? In the last census 775836 people identified as Maori. The Maori party got 33632 votes at the last election, they represent the views of 4% of the Maori population. There are Maori members in all NZ political parties. There is no such thing as a Maori vote. Maori political views are as diverse as any other ethnic group.
I think both come across to me as a bit too conservative. I always thought Bridges would be OK but in his last stint he seemed to be anti progress. I'd like to see a party (leader) that is progressive on environment etc but without the socialist handouts and without letting low-lives away with everything because it is never their fault.
I don't attach myself to any political group or party in particular. The thought of either of these two leading the National party does little to attract my vote. We've seen bridges before and Luxon just comes across as a pompous git who, despite his religion that he harps on about, would turn gay for John Key in 2 seconds flat. He doesn't pretend to care very well IMO.
Most pakeha Aucklanders aren't cognisant of the extent of the tectonic change in Auckland's demographics over the past decade.
I've recently mentioned in these columns how myself and my sister live in leafy inner suburbs just outside the grammar zone; I have 5 Chinese owned townhouses surrounding me and my sister has 3 Chinese-owned home-units in her block of 6. These are all rented out to New Zealanders, all with polynesian or at least part-polynesian tenants. This just wasn't the case 10 years ago.
Not sure where you are going with your comment, but there was an interesting story on RNZ at the weekend focussing on an Indian immigrant to Northern Ireland. In the UK, Indians make up 1% of the population but add 7% to GDP. Increasing diversity within a country or city doesn't have to be viewed as a negative. Perhaps Polynesians also appreciate a nice leafy suburb rather than living next to the Southern Motorway.
You use the term 'UK Indians' as loosely as saying Pacifica to include Filipinos, Melanesians, Polynesians, Chileans and Kiwis - all being people who live in or border the Pacific ocean. In the UK the economic performance of Kashmiris, Bengalis, Gujaratis, Punjabis are very different. As are variations between UK Indians with Muslim, Sihk, Hindu and Christian beliefs.
Maybe you have a different concept of diversity - adding another Englishman such as myself does not add diversity to Auckland. Add a Papuan such as my wife and you do add diversity. Add say one million Papuans and given the propensity of immigrants to clump together probably diversity reduces. My relatives in Bradford would not describe their city as diverse; a better description might be two ghettos.
Diversity doesn't have to be negative but having lived in Spitalfields (about 90% Bengali) in East London I know excessive immigration can lead to reduced social cohesion even if I did enjoy my time living there.
I didn't mean to offend or generalise, the statistics were given by a Hindu Indian on an RNZ programme and related to people who self identified as Indians who now live in the UK. I come from a diverse family and I have always enjoyed different perspectives and cultures. I think people are just as diverse within cultures/races as between them. There is even diversity among Englishmen, there are white ones, black ones, gay ones, straight ones etc etc.
What area is that exactly? I grew up in Epsom and went to Grammar my parents still live in the family home.
Apart from a large number of Chinese (looking?) there hasn’t been much of a change at all and I certainly haven’t seen any pacific or Maori families moving in as you have seen.
Trotter knows that National's job to unseat Ardern at the next election would be so much harder if they return to Bridges as their leader. Rightly or wrongly, Bridges has voter perceptions that are pre-registered so for me this is another mischievious piece by Mr. Trotter to help install the wrong person in the job.
If Bridges is smart enough, he won't run tomorrow. Luxon will get the gig. The NZ mainstream media, and in turn a vast swathe of the leftist bloc in NZ will eat Luxon for breakfast. Non stop. There isn't going to be any polling boost for National under him. Bridges can then throw his hat in towards the end of next year, and get his clear run.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.