Judith Collins has lost the National Party leadership, following a vote of no confidence by the caucus.
Deputy Leader Shane Reti has been appointed Interim Leader.
A new leader will be appointed following a caucus meeting on Tuesday, November 30.
Christopher Luxon and Mark Mitchell are being talked about as contenders for the leadership.
Simon Bridges, who had been positioning himself to oust Collins, said he would take a couple of days to consider whether he'd put his name forward.
Collins got completely offside with her colleagues on Wednesday night when she issued a shock statement announcing she was demoting Bridges over a historic misconduct allegation.
Bridges admitted he made a comment - an "old wives tale" around to conceive a girl - to fellow National MPs at a function.
National MP Jacqui Dean complained. The issue was handled by then-Deputy Prime Minister Bill English. Bridges apologised.
Bridges said he was surprised by Collins' "desperate" move to knock him back. He said he had matured from the time he made the comment.
The National Party's caucus spent all of Thursday morning in a meeting to discuss a way forward.
Collins put her side of the story on Twitter:
Of a variety of factors. I knew when I was confided in by a female colleague regarding her allegation of serious misconduct against a senior colleague, that I would likely lose the leadership by taking the matter so seriously. If I hadn’t, then I felt that I wouldn’t deserve
— Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) November 24, 2021
A big thank you to the wonderful staff in the National Leader’s Office, my Papakura Office, National Party members & my wonderful colleagues. I’m so pleased that I can spend more time with my family & friends & I will not miss the gruelling media schedule.
— Judith Collins (@JudithCollinsMP) November 24, 2021
Dean released the following statement:
"About five years ago, Simon Bridges made remarks that upset me at the time. They were not about me, but they were inappropriate and not something I wanted to hear.
"At the time there was an apology, but subsequently it has continued to play on my mind and with the recent reviews that have occurred in Parliament the feelings have been brought back up.
“What matters to me is that all of us have a clear understanding of what behaviour we should expect in a modern workplace environment.
“Simon and I have spoken a number of times over the past few hours and he has reiterated his apology.
“As I’m sure can be appreciated, the publicity around this has been upsetting and I ask that my privacy is respected on this.”
138 Comments
Ageist and racist? Personally I couldn't care if they are pink lesbians. Anyone is preferable to Collins who was unelectable.
Luxon-seen as too allied to big business 'rich white guy.' It is now about identify politics, not policy. How else could a horse lead a country.
For a well qualified & experienced lawyer Collins has shown a distinct lack of tact and a high degree of misjudgement. This is the case here too and it has backfired so much show she has forced her own demise. Hoist by your own petard, scarcely covers it. National will have to bring Luxon forward now & somehow school & shore him up to compensate his lack of parliamentary experience. He has of course high level boardroom experience of an international concern of quite some NewZealand profile. Watch for Key & Joyce to filter into the background. If National cannot unite solidly behind a viable leader within the next six months, they are virtually writing themselves off the next election and beyond. The other candidate is very ordinary and will offer neither new direction nor fresh image.
That is not inconceivable at all. But the hour of night could suggest some overindulgence in fortification? Sometime back PM Muldoon for instance, sought to similarly lance the boil in a late hour public manner and in an obvious state of induced self assurance. Looks to me more of an intemperate, hot and hostile, to hell with it, don’t mess with me don’t you know, bull headed, moment.
House prices were blowing out under Labour before Key got anywhere near being PM, it was a part of his platform in 2008. They rose faster under Labour than they did for the bulk of National's tenure. But no, instead we get this 'hurr john key house price durrr' brainless meme even though house prices have been proven to rise faster under Labour governments.
The REINZ medium house price data doesn't lie. Hosing started becoming pricey under Clarke, expensive under Key and unaffordable under Ardern. When you are the Minister of 'Child Poverty' and pledge (with teary eyes) to address this whilst letting prices skyrocket for 4yrs you are at best a failure, at worse a 2-faced liar.
Yep. If you take a look at the REINZ HPI over 30 years, prices tend to rise at about 11% pa on average with Labour governments and only 6% pa on average with National governments. Arguably, if you're a FHB you should vote National then once you own a house vote Labour. In many ways, Jacinda Ardern was the best thing to happen to rich people ever. I have no idea why many of the left continue to see her as a messiah. Her administration has started to decimate the poor and Orr's rampant inflation will finish the job.
Come on guys, you all know perfectly well that both National and Labour have been utterly pathetic when it comes to housing. No point trying to find out which of the two is worse, as they both totally suck when it comes to housing policies. Not that other parties have a much better record, mind you.
We need to be careful around causation!
I would say that National has often won power off the back of economic weakness towards the end of a Labour term. That economic weakness lags into the term of National. Weaker house price growth is usually associated with weaker economy.
Key's problem was his sincere campaigning on the housing crisis, followed by his cynical denial for 8+ years that any crisis existed, and the celebration of rising house prices as a good problem to have and a sign of our success (along with the rising homelessness, obvs). This is pointed out each time this argument comes up. It's the sheer dishonesty that was the biggest disappointment.
Ardern faces the prospect of becoming Key 2.0
I was in and around advice to Twyford around Special Housing Areas (SHAs) soon after Labour came to power. Although far from perfect, they were bolstering housing supply and seeming to have at least some effect in stabilizing house prices.
Twyford flatly refused to continue with them.
It was simply arrogant politics. He did not want to continue with something the opposition had introduced, even if there was evidence that it had at least some success.
The rest is history in terms of his utter failure on housing.
We all know about Kiwibuild, but what's happened on his other grand visions, like several thousand homes on the Unitec site????
As an aside: I have not voted for her, while I did vote for Key twice.
I suggest they both had genuine intent at some point, and indeed prior to COVID the current govt was at least implementing some measures and half-measures, e.g. addressing property's tax imbalance, better tenancy and healthy home laws to stop profitable outsourcing unhealthy product costs to taxpayers, and - albeit poorly - making efforts on supply. Not enough, but some.
Since COVID we've seen both RBNZ and the govt fail on housing, and an unfortunate belief that house prices should never be allowed to fall.
But I can at least credit genuine attempts over cynical dishonesty over 8 years.
The poverty we have now is the fruit of what we've sowed over the last decade plus. It should surprise no one that as houses have become more expensive more have been driven to renting, and more have dropped out the bottom. We see it when investors hit any new town in strength - sudden laments over the cost and availability of both houses to buy and rent.
The best young Kiwis can do is look elsewhere than National or Labour because there is no interest there in making houses cheaper.
You're obviously a true blue if you voted for Key twice. But you can't blame Labour; they inherited a run-away train from Key. And then the pandemic hit with all its accompanying economic and multitudinous other unknowns.
But the Australian right-wing think tank, the Lowy Institute, has analysed all countries' responses to Covid and arrived at the conclusion that NZ's response was the best. It's obvious their response has been top shelf considering all the deliberate right wing obstruction they have had to contend with.
If you're looking for another party perhaps you could look no further than the new Social Credit Party which introduced itself with a fullpage add in the Herald the other day. It's sure to attract a few National stunned erstwhile supporters who can now be seen walking aimlessly about the streets with their face glued to the footpath and there hands deep in their pockets, if you take the trouble to look out the window.
Yeah, pandemic is the reason why:
-100k goal was set and repeated 100k times just to be scraped
- we’ve seen the historical high immigration numbers right before covid
- we keep renting motels with tax money with no permanent solution in place (4x waiting list)
- no meaningful tax changes targeting property (stamp duty, dti, cgt) have been implemented.
- stimulus implemented supporting assets holders was allowed to go full on
PS: I’m not a national supporter but hey how many more years demonstration of inability solving problems you’ve been elected to solve we need to say that labour is a no go?
"But you can't blame Labour; they inherited a run-away train from Key."
I dunno, they scrapped Bill English's tax bracket readjustments and implemented a fuel tax pretty quick. Seems they can move pretty fast when they wanted to. And Key wasn't PM, English was. And it also didn't stop them using National NOT starting a Kiwibuild programme as a platform for attack saying how great they would be when they got elected. They spent years going on about it. And then when they actually got the chance, they were found wanting. They've since then gone on to make things much much worse.
All of this preceded COVID. The Covid response is not a shield from scrutiny. And in the fullness of time, a Royal Commission of Inquiry will show us just how honest the government was during that 'top shelf' response. Border testing, rapid testing, contact tracing that fell over at 20% of the supposed capacity... and those are just the stuff-ups that we know about to date. But sure dude, the right wing obstruction was the problem.
God save us all from the revisionists.
Social Credit have been around for ages. They're pointless, backward looking dinosaurs who actually died in the 80s but have refused to accept defeat. Social Credit:
the economic theory that consumer purchasing power should be increased either by subsidizing producers so that they can lower prices or by distributing the profits of industry to consumers.
No thanks.
Pretty much comes down to which team do you want to say you voted for to pick up the most cred at your Ponsonby back yard BBQs.
Actually improving life, infrastructure or the lot of everyday Kiwis is secondary to the cause, which for ministers is filling their own pockets, and for Labour voters is robbing the futures of their progeny so that they can have a few ski weekends in Queenstown a year.
More a reflection of NZ not tending to roll governments before they've had at least two terms... The flipside to that is Labour have only had three PMs elected since Kirk in 1972...
The fun fact I always like is Labour only being in power for six years between 1949 and 1984. Imagine being a Labour MP during that time:-)
I got slated for referring to our esteemed PM as a ‘horse’ yet you get no heat for ‘witch.’ Irony is any caricature of Ardern plays on her overbite and most would pick her as the equine in a line up. In contrast the ‘witch’ nomination would have to sit with Mahuta, or Williams. Any reference to porcine identity is inappropriate.
Sadly, nothing like a bit of controversy to deflect from the Government's handling pandemic . . . Jacinda will be smiling with glee.
Why relitigate a situation some five years ago and dealt with at the time other than to be very vindictive?
Seems that the polls meant Collins was really under threat and her intent was simply to be to take Bridges down with her - just living up to her persona of "crusher".
If an inappropriate comment five years ago, not directed at Dean, and dealt with at time is all she can bring up on Bridges then she really is very desperate.
Laughable as she has not a perfect past herself including the conflict of interest in the Oravida saga and leaked emails so that Key removed her right to the use of the title of "Right Honourable".
One of my first thoughts too.
Still, the point is Bridges does have too much baggage with respect to the JLR saga - Collins has too much with respect to the Dirty Politics saga - this move by Judith takes both of them out of the race. Perhaps that indeed was her intention.
He kind of became human, but suddenly now he is preparing to have another crack at the leadership I notice that grating 'vocal fry' is back. I'm not convinced of his si9ncerity.
Oh we don't need our own version Hillsong Scottie - Luxon
I think Reti is the most believable candidate they have
Yes I read her comment. Was she not happy about how it was dealt with then? If not why didn't she make a stand? Why drag it up now if not for the express purpose to kick Bridges feet from under him? I suggest that for most MPs, if we were to go back five or more years and find things that would get them deposed today, especially Collins. This smacks of rank hypocrisy, but then this is politics.
It sounds like you are saying that if a person doesn't like it when their colleague makes a sexually inappropriate comment, then that person should just abandon their career. But I take it that's not what you mean because that would be nuts.
Also, I don't know why you are just assuming it was 'fairly harmless.' Assuming it was 'fairly harmless' is just assuming that Dean is being oversensitive, but given that we don't know what the comment was there's no good reason to assume that.
We do know what the comment was - Jacqui Dean is obviously a bit of a Maude Flanders type character if she's still traumatised 5 years on simply due to the oblique mentions of sexual techniques.
I think Bridges should have front footed it and refused to apologise. It's at the very tame of the locker room banter spectrum that goes on around the water cooler every day, at every workplace. Own it.
Do you? Where did you find it? All I could find was references to it being something to do with how to conceive a girl rather than a boy, but from that it's not possible to tell how offensive or vulgar it was. Also, Dean doesn't say she was traumatised. She says she was upset, and the comments were inappropriate. People should be able to point out when something is inappropriate without being made out to be Maude Flanders types. We know that she told Collins about it 5 years after it happened, but we don't know the context of this. It could have been 'hey Judith, I am making a serious allegation which I want you to do something about,' or, in passing, something like 'I find Simon a bit creepy - one time at a function he said this to me' and then Collins ran with it as a way to oust Bridges.
What's interesting about this discussion is, in the absence of the facts, who people are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to and why. You've clearly reached the conclusion that what Bridges said wasn't that bad, and the Dean was being oversensitive. So you're inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to him rather than her, when the facts that would allow a fair evaluation aren't actually known.
I think context is important.
It sounds like personal chit-chat (albeit in a formal setting) that Dean found inappropriate.
An apology at the time was made. Which sounds entirely reasonable as a solution.
Bringing it up 5 years later...Was it deliberate Hari-Kari by Collins. Even she cannot be that politically inept as to not foresee the likely outcome?
I completely agree that what Collins did seems like a cynical over-reaction. It's hard to imagine any comment that would justify a demotion like that - it seems pretty clear that she was using it as an excuse to get rid of him.
I just don't think that the fact the Collins handled this badly is a reason to tar Dean with the same brush. We don't know what the context of the 'bringing it up' was. Worst case for Dean: she brought it up to Collins and asked her to relitigate it. Best case: she mentioned it in the context of a conversation about past behaviour, and Collins decided to relitigate it for her own purposes. We just don't know which one of these it was. But the fact that someone apologises to you for an inappropriate comment does not mean that you are from then on never allowed to mention it again.
Bishop (leader) Reti (deputy). Or the other way around, but I think Bishop the better tactician and debater. Time the party let the liberal wing loose - it's where NZ is generally - especially NZ youth. And most importantly, religion in politics doesn't work here.
IDK about Bishop. He's very Wellington-esque (which seems natural given he's in the Hutt) but Auckland's issues are drastically different to Wellington ones. He didn't seem to have a good grip on Light Rail, but then again neither did Labour even though it's their bloody policy. National need to learn that open-ended questions around congestion, housing and migration aren't something they can swat away with a new face, they actually need to come up with better answers than they did last time. If he really wants to be a reformer, he's going to need to accept that in some ways, the Nat's status quo is out of date and uninspiring.
A little too soon for me personally, but it was going to happen one way or another. JC wasn't doing it for anyone, except JA, so the (National caucus) majority decision was ''the sooner the better.'' Fair enough. Now the job that needs to be done can begin. The Nats can rebuild in the house & hopefully those at HQ can assist the process rather than make it worse. Hamilton should have gone at the last AGM. Perhaps it's still cold enough to rearrange the deckchairs, oh, sorry, I mean boardroom chairs. One thing's for sure, as has been suggested above already, there will be many from all walks of life interested in the next few days. It'll be a great watch.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man. I have for a long time now thought Shane Reti the best choice for Leader of the National Party. Read his profile on the Parliamentary Web. He is highly electable, intelligent and would be very hard to criticise from the left.
I believe their best leader has been hiding in plain sight all this time - now is the time to actually see him there.
NZ is ready for a calm sensible leader, that is what we need now - someone on the right who can actually win the next election.
Luxon insisted on being addressed as 'Christopher' when running Air NZ,since entering politics,he know calls himself "Chris",man of the people.He is a member of the Upper Room church which started in Tennessee in the 1930's.Take it from me,comments attributed to him during his time there left people in no doubt they were being led by a fundamentalist christian.Even his vaunted business acumen is over blown.He took over Air NZ during a sweet spot after Rob Fyfe & Ralph Norris did the hard yards turning the company around and developing the business and culture.Luxon took over just as the new fuel efficient 787's arrived,fuel prices at historical lows and at a time when Air NZ had NO competition on the NZ-USA route enabling them to monopolise the route and price airfares accordingly.He came from a FMCG (grocer) background so it was all about dollars and cent margins and as any high value Air NZ customer will tell you,he slowly unwound the product and service to save a buck,maixmise short term profits and in doing so,maximising his bonus payments.Then when headwinds appeared and it was obvious the 'easy' times were over,he bailed to ensure he wasn't at the helm during a downturn...so in short,a clever man,but most of it in self centered ego driven way...God save us as he would say...
Coming to a conservative government near you...
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/amanda-stoker-morrison-gov…
Luxons a great communicator, but can an evangelical Christian who doesn't agree with gay marriage and legal abortion really capture the centre of NZ politics?
Mitchell, meh.
As a lefty, I kind of hope they pick Willis or Bishop, only hope they have of claiming the centre, I want a decent battle to drag Labour and the Greens a bit closer centre
Dean is not that smart (per comm) but she's staunch. I hammered her once at a seminar/lecture she gave; she was on the wrong side of correct, totally offside with the lecture-theatre-full and I wasn't pulling punches, but she stuck it out.
As a politician, she has no original thinking, and is of the past. As are most. That is the point mot made here yet: Who is appropriate to lead through the future we are about to traverse? Because it is very different from the past we long to replicate.
National have a narative that is even more outdated than Labour's (and it is woefully off the pace); either they leapfrog Labour and out-relevant them, or they wither and die.
And there's this: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mp-tries-to-ban-water/XM4GJ7XG3WC4ANBIFP2…
Chris Luxon is poles ahead of anyone else in parliament in terms of CV and skillset - has anyone else been a CEO of a NZX50 company? Compare that to the backgrounds of the current cabinet ministers.
Stuff news won't like him of course because they are all trendy lefties.
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.